Ada Dialla, Η Ρωσική αυτοκρατορία και ο Ελληνικός κόσμος: Τοπικές, ευρωπαϊκές και παγκόσμιες ιστορίες στην εποχή των επαναστάσεων

Latin American and World Histories: Old and New Approaches to the Pluribus and the Unum

The most efficient branch predictors proposed in academic literature exploit both global branch history and local branch history. However, local history branch predictor components introduce major design challenges, particularly for the management of speculative histories. Therefore, most effective hardware designs use only global history components and very limited forms of local histories such as a loop predictor. The wormhole (WH) branch predictor was recently introduced to exploit branch outcome correlation in multidimensional loops. For some branches encapsulated in a multidimensional loop, their outcomes are correlated with those of the same branch in neighbor iterations, but in the previous outer loop iteration. Unfortunately, the practical implementation of the WH predictor is even more challenging than the implementation of local history predictors. In this paper, we introduce practical predictor components to exploit this branch outcome correlation in multidimensional loops: the IMLI-based predictor components. The iteration index of the inner most loop in an application can be efficiently monitored at instruction fetch time using the Inner Most Loop Iteration (IMLI) counter. The outcomes of some branches are strongly correlated with the value of this IMLI counter. A single PC+IMLI counter indexed table, the IMLI-SIC table, added to a neural component of any recent predictor (TAGE-based or perceptron-inspired) captures this correlation. Moreover, using the IMLI counter, one can efficiently manage the very long local histories of branches that are targeted by the WH predictor. A second IMLI-based component, IMLI-OH, allows for tracking the same set of hard-to-predict branches as WH. Managing the speculative states of the IMLI-based predictor components is quite simple. Our experiments show that augmenting a state-of-the-art global history predictor with IMLI components outperforms previous state-of-the-art academic predictors leveraging local and global history at much lower hardware complexity (i.e., smaller storage budget, smaller number of tables and simpler management of speculative states).

A Revolutionary Narrative of European History: Bonneville's <i>History of Modern Europe</i> (1789–1792)

The need for accurate conditional-branch prediction is well known: mispredictions waste large numbers of cycles, inhibit out-of-order execution, and waste power on mis-speculated computation. Prior work on branch-predictor organization has focused mainly on how to reduce conflicts in the branch-predictor structures, while relatively little work has explored other causes of mispredictions. Some prior work has identified other categories of mispredictions, but this paper organizes these categories into a broad taxonomy of misprediction types. Using the taxonomy, this paper goes on to show that other categories- especially wrong history mispredictions-are often more important than conflicts. This is true even if just a very simple conflict-reduction technique is used. Based on these observations, this paper proposes alloying local and global history together in a two-level branch predictor structure. This simple technique, a generalization of the bi-mode predictor, attacks wrong-history mispredictions by making both global and local history simultaneously available. Unlike bi-mode prediction, however, alloying gives robust performance for branch-predictor hardware budgets ranging from very large to very small. Finally, this paper shows that individual branch references can also suffer wrong-history mispredictions as they alternate between using global and local history, a phenomenon that favors dynamic rather than static selection in hybrid predictors.

The need for accurate conditional-branch prediction is well known: mispredictions waste large numbers of cycles, inhibit out-of-order execution, and waste power on mis-speculated computation. Prior work on branch-predictor organization has focused mainly on how to reduce conflicts in the branch-predictor structures, while relatively little work has explored other causes of mispredictions. Some prior work has identified other categories of mispredictions, but this paper organizes these categories into a broad taxonomy of misprediction types. Using the taxonomy, this paper goes on to show that other categories- especially wrong history mispredictions-are often more important than conflicts. This is true even if just a very simple conflict-reduction technique is used. Based on these observations, this paper proposes alloying local and global history together in a two-level branch predictor structure. This simple technique, a generalization of the bi-mode predictor, attacks wrong-history mispredictions by making both global and local history simultaneously available. Unlike bi-mode prediction, however, alloying gives robust performance for branch-predictor hardware budgets ranging from very large to very small. Finally, this paper shows that individual branch references can also suffer wrong-history mispredictions as they alternate between using global and local history, a phenomenon that favors dynamic rather than static selection in hybrid predictors.

Collecting the History of the Church in Australia

Reviewed by: Polis Histories, Collective Memories and the Greek World by Rosalind Thomas John Dillery Rosalind Thomas. Polis Histories, Collective Memories and the Greek World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019. Pp. xii, 490. $135.00. ISBN 978-1-107-19358-1. With this volume, Rosalind Thomas introduces us to a massive set of ancient Greek writers who are almost entirely unknown to modern students and scholars: local Greek historians, "poorly understood or recognized" now, but forming a brand of writing that was "once popular and widely read" (386)—a type of historiography we should want to know more about. Thanks to Thomas's efforts, we are given a rare and precious glimpse into what was, for want of a better term, popular history in the late Classical and Hellenistic periods. The book is a triumph and will be required reading for those interested in ancient historical writing, and Hellenistic history and culture. Thomas begins with a crucial distinction: her focus will not be local history, but polis history (16–17). She very rightly wonders what "local" means, since most of these histories are of city-states and their regions, or they are island-or ethnos-histories; "local" history and historians (typically ἐπι-/ἐγχώριος: e.g., D.H. Th. 5, Paus. 1.1.4; cf. Hdt. 7.197.1, Thuc. 1.20.1) were really only called that by others, since "local history" is not really local for the people concerned; it is an understanding of the history of their world, one that happens to be defined by their locality. Another reorientation that she makes is temporal. Thomas observes that while these historians can be found in the early days of Greek historiography, they really flourished in the fourth and third centuries BC. Superficially, this finding puts Thomas in line with Jacoby, but only superficially: unlike Jacoby, who argued that local history was a late development and one in reaction to Herodotus, Thomas sees local history as written in ways that were animated by the same concerns Herodotus had; she often sees the more generous ("baggier," 19), Herodotean scope of the work of the epichorioi than the supposed predominance of a Thucydidean view of the past, one that "included customs, geography, early traditions and more recent political history" (21). The bulk of Thomas' volume consists of surveys of the different aspects or topics of polis- and island histories. Thomas does well to note how different city-states and regions developed distinct proclivities in how they understood their pasts: some histories were overtly political, others were focused on the cultural and religious; one set might tell the same story of the expulsion of a tyrant over and over again ("accumulative historiography") through a succession [End Page 232] of writers, while another might acknowledge past stasis but ultimately emphasize the solidarity of a notional and almost timeless demos. Above all, Thomas wishes to stress that "the writing of local history . . . and particularly polis history . . . is almost always an activity that . . . is a reflection of something else in addition to a simple interest in place" (390). Forcefully rejecting the "antiquarian/ism" (e.g., 20, 143–149, 324, 340, 388 and n.3) promoted by Momigliano as the essential orientation of these histories, Thomas holds that polis-history always has a hidden (or not so hidden) agendum: "we have a right to this land," or "we originated this cult," or simply "we are still important" in an age when the people concerned were not, or some combination of these orientations and others. Of course, one could take issue regarding some of the matters raised in the book. I am not sure if Thomas has succeeded completely in explaining a figure like Hellanicus and the problems of periodization that he poses (a contemporary of Herodotus and Thucydides, he sets the table for the later writers of Attic local history); and I wish she had more to say about Rome. But these are quibbles. Thomas ends her book with an enormously important discussion of the "big picture" relating to local history. As regions and localities, real places but also places of the "imagination," they asserted both their uniqueness and importance through what they thought their past was. At the...

&lt;italic&gt;A History of the Roman World from 753 to 146 B. C.&lt;/italic&gt; By Howard H. Scullard, Sometime Scholar of St. John's College, Cambridge; Classical Tutor, Hackney and New College, University of London. [Macmillan's History of the Greek and Roman World, General Editor, M. Cary, IV.] (New York: Macmillan Company. 1939. Pp. xv, 504. $4.40.), &lt;italic&gt;A History of the Roman World

A History of the Greek World from 323 to 146 B.C. By M. Cary. (<i>Methuen's History of the Greek and Roman World</i>, Vol. III.) Pp. xvi + 448; with 3 maps. London: Methuen, 1932. 15<i>s.</i>

&lt;italic&gt;A History of the Greek World from 479 to 323 B. C&lt;/italic&gt;. By &lt;sc&gt;M. L. W. Laistner&lt;/sc&gt;, Professor of Ancient History in Cornell University. [Methuen's History of the Greek and Roman World, General Editor, M. Cary.] (London: Methuen and Company. 1936. Pp. xv, 492. 15&lt;italic&gt;s&lt;/italic&gt;)

This paper introduces alloyed prediction, a new hardware-based two-level branch predictor organization that combines global and local history in the same structure, combining the advantages of current two-level predictors with those of hybrid predictors. The alloyed organization is motivated by measurements showing that wrong-history mispredictions are even more important than conflict-induced mispredictions. Wrong-history mispredictions arise because current two-level, history-based predictors provide only global or only local history. The contribution of wrong history to the overall misprediction rate is substantial because most programs have some branches that require global history and others that require local history. This paper explores several ways to implement alloyed prediction, including the previously proposed bi-mode organization. Simulations show that mshare is the best alloyed organization among those we examine, and that mshare gives reliably good prediction compared to bimodal ("two-bit"), two-level, and hybrid predictors. The robust performance of alloying across a range of predictor sizes stems from its ability to attack wrong-history mispredictions at even very small sizes without subdividing the branch prediction hardware into smaller and less effective components.

THE DISCIPLINE OF HISTORY has broadened enormously in the postwar decades, but historians have not. We teach the history of Africa and Asia, but specialists in American history know no more about the history of Africa than their predecessors did in 1940. We have specialists in black history, women's history, and historical demography, but people outside these specialties pay little attention to their work. Where the field of history grew broader and richer, the training of historians grew narrower. The proportion of new Ph.D.'s that can easily teach the standard course is smaller in the 1980s than it was in the 1950s. The new Asianists and Africanists know next to nothing about European or American history. Americanists know less European history than they did thirty years ago. At the level of course offerings, the old surveys in European and American history lost popularity. Departments offered a greater number of specialized courses, while history enrollments declined over all. In recent years, the idea of a broad survey has begun to recover-with some uncertainty about what it ought to be about. A rejuvenated Western Civ is one possibility. A new world history with real concern for the history of non-Western world is another. Ironically, one reason the world history movement has not gained momentum is that few historians have the background necessary to take it on. Many world history courses are team taught, a reasonable solution to begin with. But the very fact that they are is a sad admission. Even those who have recognized the need have also realized how few of their colleagues have the breadth of knowledge required-even for an introductory undergraduate course. Nor is our failure to help graduate students gain a world-historical perspective just of concern to the history departments that train them. What we teach passes to a broader public, and members of that public make political decisions that are crucial for us all. From the heights of power in the White House, we find portrayed a simplistic, tripartite division of the world into ourselves, our enemies, and the rest-who do not count, even though they form the vast majority of the world's population. Historians did not do this all by themselves, of course; the rest of the educational system carries as much responsibility. Nor is everyone in the federal

The Challenges of Global Church History for Those outside the United States of America

To understand research trends of world history in Taiwan, this article explores papers published in forty-one historical research journals and M.A. theses and doctoral dissertations written between 1945-2000. Four aspects-linear analysis, periodic divisions, special history, and comparisons amongst continents-are emphasized in the papers. Among the five periods, none of M.A. theses and doctoral dissertations in world history was accomplished in the first period. However, in the rest of periods, they outnumber the research papers. In terms of percentage, M.A. theses and doctoral dissertations in world history add up to 11.1%, 6.5% higher than research papers. Two factors might explain such difference. First, part of the authors did not continue in this field later on. Second, both language training of scholars and source materials required are inadequate. Basically, the study of world history has long focused on European, American, and Asian history. However, European history has still attracted most attention. What leads to such phenomenon is that study of world history in Taiwan has long been focused on Western history and study of Western history has usually put its emphasis on Europe. Furthermore, world history in both European countries and the United States are all Eurocentric. In the studies of world history in periodical divisions, research papers, M.A. theses and doctoral dissertations all focus on early modern period and after. Research papers take 71.8%, and M.A. theses and doctoral dissertations 96.4%. This reveals that language is an enormous barrier, since doing research onpre-modern history requires languages such as Old English, Latin, Greek, and Egyptian, obviously more difficult for researchers. As for topical history, research papers focus on intellectual-cultural history, important historical issues, political-military history, and social history, taking 76.2%. M.A. theses and doctoral dissertations concentrated on intellectual-cultural history, political-military history, international relations, important historical issues, and the history of religion, adding up to 82.5%. It reveals the huge disparity among fields.

This article reveals problems of development of the department of the world history of the Oles Honchar Dnipro National University during last 100 years. The department began to form in 1918 when Katerinoslav university was opened. The world history researchers V. Evstafiev and M. Brechkevich became it’s first university lecturers, they formed potential basics of the research directions. During the fight with reactionary representatives in science and high school they were criticized and fired. The new generation of the department’s lecturers mostly consisted of youth, who had got education during revolutionary and after-revolutionary times. Teaching work became their main assignment, they were active participants in the struggle against “sabotage” on the historical front, reviewed the world history textbooks. Also they were monitoring implementation of the marxism methodology in the world history teaching. During the repressions which started in 1930th some of lecturers were fired and the departments’s head was arrested and then shot away. The historical department was liquidated in the second part of 1930th. At the ending of 1930th historical education at the university was resumed, respectively the department began it’s work again. The young lecturers, post-graduate students from Kyiv, Odesa, Kharkiv were hired. During nazi occupation the work was interrupted. The work resumption was in 1944, the department was headed by N. Ladizjenska who occupied this position before the occupation. Post-war years of the department’s work are characterized as high level of scientific activity, defense of masters’ thesis by the young lecturers, writing a number of scientific articles dealing the world history issues, which have never been published and now are kept in manuscripts. There was a World History museum at the department in 1940−1950th, founded by the head J. Rubin. At the beginning of 1950th the historical department was closed. The new stage of it’s work was related to 1967 when the department and the historical faculty was resumed. In 1970−1980th under the direction of department head the main scientific direction historical germanistics was based. Due to it’s work the department begun to publish the yearly scientific magazine «The German history issues». The department’s lecturers also worked through the problems of late Roman, American, English history. In 1990−2000th due to prof. S. Plohiy and S. Bobyleva the department became an acknowledged research center of the German diasporas in the Russian empire and Ukraine. The institute of Ukrainian-German historical relations was found at the department. The high scientific potential of the department’s lecturers was repeatedly confirmed by presentations on the conferences, published articles and monographs. Nowadays the department members are working through a number of important issues from German diasporas history, Bulgarian, Russian studies.