Responses Continued

Raymond:

Great plan of investigation! Go with it.

In regards to your questions, you are not limited to the two sources; however, the majority of your paper should be based on them. See the summary of the internal assessment found on page two of the packet for page requirements.


Delande:

Great sources, especially the latter… Your plan of investigation sounds good, but I fear that it my still be too broad.

You can include Egypt and military contributions in the paper, but be careful not to get off track. One way to include extra information into a paper without getting off topic is through the footnotes.

Can you elaborate on your response to Katie? Why do you think Napoleon and Hitler are similar in some ways?


Adrya:

I think that the last part of your plan of investigation should be your focus for this paper (e.g. what impact did the Napoleonic Code have on France and Europe after Napoleon was gone?). However, it sounds as if the sources you chose may not be suitable for this, since they focus on Napoleon’s life during the French Revolution, and not his spent as ruler of France. Reevaluate your sources and let me know what you think.

In response to your questions: A. Provide enough background information about Napoleon, AND YOUR TOPIC, so that the reader has a general understanding of it. Remember, this is not a research paper on his life. You are choosing something about Napoleon that is of interest to you, perhaps something that no other historian has ever thought to study, and presenting your argument in this paper. B. Not sure about this one… The footnotes ARE based on the bibliography, and you will use the footnotes format for this paper. I believe that they are using the Chicago Manuel Style of Writing, also known as Turabian. Check it out online.


Alyssa:

I really enjoyed your analysis of the two books you picked. It is amazing how two people, historians, can view history differently.

Your plan of investigation sounds really interesting. Perhaps you could find another source(s) that shows Britain’s perspective.
In response to your question, you should probably stick with the plan of investigation that you have, although I understand that it may be tweaked a bit based on what you find during your research.

Can you expand upon your response to Katie?


Ally:

This is a good start to your plan of investigation. Just make sure that your paper does not turn into an essay that simply summarizes the different social changes Napoleon made when he came to power. Be sure to make a strong comparison to what he did, and what revolutionary France was fighting for. After all, you said it yourself; it can be argued that Napoleon was a self imposed king/dictator.


Deogenes:

I like your sources, as they show that there are always two sides to every story. It sounds as if your first source glorifies Napoleon, and the second source takes a much more unbiased approach to his life.

Your plan of investigation is interesting. Be careful when you say that it was once believed that Napoleon was all-knowing, because if you asked someone from England or another part of Europe, for instance, if this were true you might find a very different answer. In other words, don’t get caught over generalizing.

With that said, I do like that in your plan of investigation you are trying to find whether or not this theory is true. Stick with that and you should be fine (perhaps you can make it even more concise than that after completing further research).

Do you have a response to another posting?


Tommara:

It sounds like you have two plans of investigation going on: the first being your discussion on Napoleon’s true intentions for ruling France, and the second being did his rule help or hurt France/Europe. I would stick with the former. History has often credited Napoleon for the social reforms that he made when he rose to power, but why did he make them? Was he truly concerned about the people of his country, or did he create these changes to establish his rule?

Can you expand upon your response to Katie?