Thesis (Ph. D.)--Freie Universität Berlin, 1999. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record.

Thesis (Doktorwürde)--Grossh. Bad. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität zu Freiburg i.B., 1912. / Cover title. Includes bibliographical references (p. [5]).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Freie Universität Berlin, 1999.

本文以顧頡剛為中心，結合家世、交游、入黨等方面探討其前半生的學術與事業，追蹤其個人思想之演變，並從中反映晚清至民國的學術與時代變遷。與一般傳記式的研究不同，本文著重利用新近出版的材料，通過史料的審定和互證，糾正以往論說的偏見與不足，展現顧頡剛疑古思想的具體形成與動態變化之過程。本文主體可大致分為兩部分，第一部分包括第一、二章，論述疑古思想形成以前顧頡剛的人生閱歷。從中可見早年顧頡剛的思想具有多樣性和過渡性的特點；而1912年加入中國社會黨的經歷對他事業心的發展則產生了深遠影響；再者，入讀北京大學期間，與胡適、傅斯年等人的交往也是其思想轉變的重要契機。第二部分包括第三、四章，主要講述古史辨運動的形成與經過。通過追溯顧頡剛認知清代學者崔述的具體過程可知，顧頡剛的疑古思想並非橫空出世，而是植根於傳統學術的新酒舊瓶。同時，本文通過回顧古史辨運動中對禹的問題的爭論，探討了該運動與近代史學發展之關聯。 / This thesis is an intellectual biography of Gu Jiegang (1893-1980), one of the most important historians in 20th-century China. By probing into Gu’s academic pursuit and career in the first half of his life in terms of family background, social network, Party membership, etc., the author tries to figure out how Gu’s personal thoughts evolved, thereby shedding light on the changes of academics and times from the late Qing Dynasty to Republic China. Unlike general biographical study, this thesis uses recently published materials, approves and mutually testifies historical records, with a view to correcting prejudices and deficiencies of past arguments and demonstrating the formation and dynamic change of Gu’s idea of ancient-doubting. This thesis consists of two parts. The first part includes Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, which mainly illustrates Gu’s life experience before the idea of ancient-doubting came into being. From this part, it can be seen that Gu’s early ideas were diversified and transitional. Later in 1912, he joined the Chinese Socialist Party, which exerted far-reaching influence on his dedication to career. Besides, Gu’s acquaintance with Hu Shi, Fu Sinian et al. at Peking University also fueled the change of his thoughts. The second part of this thesis (Chapter 3 and Chapter 4) is mainly about the emergence and process of the Movement to Study Ancient Chinese History Critically (Ku-shih-pien). By looking into Gu’s detailed cognition of Cui Shu, a scholar in the Qing Dynasty, we can conclude that Gu’s idea of ancient-doubting was actually rooted in traditional Chinese historiography itself. In the meantime, this thesis reviews the debates on Yu during the Ku-shih-pien Movement and discusses its relation with modern historiographical development. / Detailed summary in vernacular field only. / 李嘉荣. / Parallel title from added title page. / Thesis (Ph.D.) Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2015. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 157-175). / Abstracts also in English. / Li Jiarong.

Thesis (doctoral)-Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, 2001.

What are the origins of tactical innovation in large, bureaucratic, military systems? This study will provide a detailed analysis of how the German Army in World War One took advantage of innovative tactical methods developed by their junior and non-commissioned officers in the field. While many historians often look at the results of WWI from the perspective of the General officers and politicians (i.e., top-down), they often overlook the important roles played by creative junior officers in revolutionizing the manner in which the German Army fought. These innovations, when supported by senior leadership, led to massive operational and strategic gains for the German Army late in World War One. I will explore how the German Army successfully applied these tactical innovations at the Twelfth Battle of the Isonzo, a.k.a. The Battle of Caporetto in 1917. The result was a crushing Italian defeat. This success encouraged the German leadership to attempt similar offensives in 1918 on the Western Front in France. Initially successful, the offensives later stalled. However, the lessons of these attacks formed the basis for what would become universally known as the Blitzkrieg, or â lighting-warâ tactics. These lessons continue to effect how modern militaries employ combined arms in maneuver warfare today. This case study will highlight the importance of â bottom-upâ tactical innovation within todayâ s U.S. military.

Dans la lettre 56 Spinoza ne reconnait pas l’autorité des anciens, incitant son interlocuteur à raisonner par soi-même, ne suivant que sa raison. Toutefois, face à cette prise de position radicale, Spinoza cite, fait référence et propose des exemples, dont la plupart sont extraits des historiens latins; il semble prendre au sérieux les mots de Tacite, Quinte-Curce, Salluste, etc. et les récits dont ils sont auteurs, jusqu’au point d’affirmer, dans le TP, que «personne qui connait les Histoires» – soit l’oeuvre de Tacite – «peut ignorer» la justesse de son argumentation. Dans le cadre de cette thèse, je m’interroge sur cette – apparente – contradiction. Á travers un parcours qui s’articule en quatre sections, j’intende démontrer quel est l’usage que Spinoza fait de ses sources et à quelle fonction elles répondent dans l’architecture de sa philosophie politique. Chaque section est consacrée à un aspect de ce rapport: la première, à la formation latine de Spinoza, au contexte culturel où il s’inscrit, et au système de citation à l’âge classique. Dans la deuxième, je montre qu’il y avait une courante politique philo-monarchique, le Tacitisme, dont les écrits étaient composés principalement de citations des historiens latins; Spinoza se confronte avec le Tacitisme, donnant aux mots des anciens – comme j’explique dans la troisième partie – un sens complètement differente. Le rôle des citations ne se réduit pas, néanmoins, à la fonction polémique. En revanche, les citations, les références et les exemples remplissent quatre fonctions: rhétorique, argumentative, polémique et anthropologique, cette dernière indiquant que les mots et les récits des historiens font partie intégrante de sa philosophie politique. Enfin, la quatrième section détermine les rôles que les récits et les histoires jouent dans une philosophie politique qui prétende être, en même temps, scientifique et pragmatique. / In letter 56, Spinoza does not recognize ancient philosophers’ authority and urges Hugo Boxel to follow only his reason in order to acquire knowledge. Notwithstanding this radical stance, Spinoza quotes, makes references and gives examples which are mostly excerpted from Roman historians; he takes Tacitus’, Sallut’s , Quintus Curtius Rufus’ words and histories seriously to the point that he says, in the TP, that “no one that knows Histories” – the Histories by Tacitus – “can ignore” the rightness of his argumentation. In this work, my aim is to address this apparent contradiction. Articulated in four sections, my dissertation shows how Spinoza uses his sources and which role they play in formulating his political philosophy.Each section focuses on a different aspect of this relationship: the first one is devoted to Spinoza’s education, to his cultural background and to Early modern’s forms of quoting. In the second one, I highlight the existence of a monarchist political current, Tacitism, which makes a consistent use of ancient historian’s quotes; Spinoza confronts this tradition, giving to the ancient writers’ words and maximes a completely different sense. Nevertheless, Spinoza quotes not only for a polemical purpose. In contrast, the references and the exemples seem to fulfil four functions: rhetoric, argumentative, polemic and anthropologic. The last one indicates that thr Roman historians’ words and stories are an integral part of Spinoza’s political philosophy. Finally, in section four, I identify the roles that narrations and stories play in a political philosophy whose aim is to be, at the same time, scientific as well as pragmatic.

Thesis--Berlin. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 234-265).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [74]-125).

One of the more important processes of Middle Eastern history is that of the transformation of the Ottoman Empire into the Turkish national state. The present dissertation demonstrates how Yusuf Akçura, a significant figure in this process, recognized in 1904 the forces making for the emergence of a Turkish nation and was the first to call for the political reconstruction of the Ottoman Empire on the basis of Turkish nationalism.