Papers #1 and #2 both need a thesis that relates two of the three course areas, and at least one of the two papers must be research based (see the syllabus for what that means). Most students wait until #2 for this, and these suggestions assume that's what you'll do. However, it is perfectly OK to use sources other than the texts, even if you don't use enough for your paper to count as research based.  Doing so might well enable you to write a better paper!

Overall advice.  A paper that is narrow in scope and detailed in content is always better than one that is broad and shallow!  (See the example papers.)  So, focusing on just one of several characters in a story, or one of a bunch of soldiers' letters, or one small part or aspect of a battle . . . will definitely result in a better paper than one that is vague, very general, and deals only with broad issues or topics.

Relate CW Era history (CWEH) to CW Era literature (CWEL).  Anything in Perman counts as history, anything from Bierce or the Twain story counts as literature.

• Compare a literature account of someone or some occurrence with historical accounts of the same sorts of things: soldiers' attitudes or behaviors; perspectives of privates; of officers; what battles were like (for participants, for non-participants, etc.).

• Explore the issue of which better communicates what the war was like, and why: literature or history (based on stuff from Perman or Bierce/Twain).

• In both Bierce and Perman there are accounts of transformation, development, progress or regress over time amongst soldiers.  You can in various ways compare/contrast the fictional and the historical accounts of such matters.  'Twill usually be best to focus on particular individuals, not "soldiers in general!"

Relate the Republic to CWEH or to CWEL (either way, the basic relate-to approaches will be about the same).  Things from the Republic that might fairly readily be related (compared/contrasted) to CWEH or CWEL: definitions of justice (Cephalus, Polemarchus, Thrasymachus, Glaucon, Adeimantus); the structure of Kallipolis as an "ideally" just society;  Socrates' 3-part soul model for a just or an unjust individual; the four cardinal virtues, or lack thereof (in a society or in an individual); Socrates' views on: war; women; civil war (in society, in the soul); slavery (in society, in the soul).

• Socratically analyze a person's (historical or fictitious) character:
    Wise? Was he tested thoroughly?  Did he care for the whole?
    Courageous? What did he fear or not fear? How do you know?
    Moderate, self-disciplined?
    Just? (requires all 3 of the above).
    If unjust, then how unjust, since injustice comes in degrees.
    Or, instead of dealing with all 4 virtues, focus in detail on one!

• Or do a similar analysis of a country or organization: the U.S. as a whole; the Union; the Confederacy; or a single military unit.  Who would be the rulers, the auxiliaries, the producers?  To what extent did they do their proper job?

• Justice in a city or society and in an individual are different (even though, for Socrates, also similar); so, 1) could there be unjust individuals in Kallipolis the just society?  And 2) could there be just individuals in an unjust society? Probably for Socrates the answer in both cases is "yes."  In CWEL or CWEH you might find examples of one of these situations, and compare the CW (fictional or historical) circumstances to 1) or 2).

• In CWEH and CWEL readings, people who are just, who "do the right thing," are often presented as those who follow the guidance of conscience.  There's nothing in the Republic about conscience.  At least not explicitly, not on the surface.  So you could compare justice as following your conscience with justice as a harmonius soul guided by reason, using CWEH/CWEL people as examples.