|
kalthir posted:Got through Wilson's Heart of Europe, and I loved it. I was sceptical of its organization (it's not chronological, instead it's separated into sections covering specific aspects of the HRE), but it turned out fine. There's even a 50-page chronological overview of the major events in one of the appendixes. There were some parts that I felt were gratuitously long and the language overwrought, but in all I found it to be a far easier read than Europe's Tragedy, since the people and locations are less numerous. I really appreciated Wilson's organization in Heart of Europe because if he went purely chronologically (the individual chapters are themselves chronological so in a sense he actually did) then there would be only about half of a page for each year of the Holy Roman Empire's existence. There's no way that could be a good way to discuss something that complex. Usually when I'm reading a lengthy history book the initial part holds my attention, but I find that most books have a middle 'swamp' that I have to just power on through and I don't really retain much of what i read, I had this feeling with Heart of Europe, but not as strongly as with other books and I think the book's way of organizing information was part of that. I completely agree about the language and the some sections being way too long though. Sometimes I would read about twenty pages and have to stop and say to myself 'what the gently caress did I just read?' because I couldn't retain the information.
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Hanoi's War: The International War for Peace in Vietnam is a little dense and a very good read. Just finished it myself and I burned through it rather quickly. It covers the Vietnam war from the perspective of the Vietnamese leadership, primarily Le Duc Tho and Le Duan, and focuses heavily on the statesmanship and diplomatic issues rather than the actual fighting of the war. The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy by Peter Wilson is another dense but great book. I'm not sure if Early Modern warfare is your thing, but this book got me a lot more interested in the time period. The first three hundred pages are just about the setup prior to the war and the rest is actually on the conflict, but it is well worth the read.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:Speaking of Alexander, has anyone read Ghost on the Throne about the Funeral Games? I have about a year ago, it's okay for what it is. Which is a short book that focuses on a small segment of the overall conflict. If you don't know anything about the post-Alexander period it's a good place to start because it's not going to overwhelm you. But if you do then it's probably going to bore you because it's light reading. If you want a substantive book on the subject go with Peter Green's Alexander to Actium. I didn't know he did an Alexander book until I checked this thread just now and I'm going to look into getting that. Ithle01 fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Mar 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Alexander to Actium is incredibly long, but it is also the best book on the subject matter that I have in my collection of Classical history books. After reading Peter Green's work books like Ghost On The Throne felt frustratingly incomplete so I second this recommendation. But it is a lot to take in.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2021 01:10
|
|
|
Citizens is not fun, but it is informative and has an attention to detail. The author definitely does not favor the revolutionaries though and goes out his way to talk about the mistreatment of Marie Antoinette and tries to cast her in a positive light- which is like, no gently caress her. It is a good analysis of French society at the time of the Revolution. A New World Begins has a larger scope, going beyond 1792 and even mentioning Napoleon, and also looks at the French colonies and how the Revolution affected them - specifically Haiti. It's not as good as Citizens, but it's easier to read I found and it covers more ground, but it does so too quickly. Overall, I think Citizens is the better book, but as noted it is definitely not 'fun'.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
smr posted:Agreed on both, big fan of them, but I think it bears specific noting that Schama can _write_ very, very well. Citizens is a humongous book about mostly grim events and it’s politics are dodgy to me but I enjoyed the shirt out of reading it because dude is a hell of a non-fiction stylist. That's a good way of putting it, Schama is definitely a better writer and Citizens is the superior book. I even wrote a note to that effect inside the cover of my copy. Some of the events he describes in a very readable way and he goes out of his way to explain why this stuff matters. A New World Begins is too busy trying to get it all said so the author rushes past some events that Schama would dedicate a whole section of a chapter to.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2023 01:41
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Just placed my pre-order for Kaldellis' The New Roman Empire, very excited for the arrival of October now. drat, looking forward to this, have it on preorder now.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
Nerdburger_Jansen posted:-The Assyrians in the latter years kept relocating the capital, and building newer and larger cities to act as the imperial center, with Nineveh being the last. A sign of decadence? I think it's more a sign that the seat of power is shifting. The Romans had a lot of capital cities in the empire as the empire started fragmenting worse and worse after the 3rd century. Interesting book from the way you describe it. I don't think anyone who knows anything about the Assyrians is going to go in expecting something nice or pleasant to read about they had a reputation after all.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2024 13:00
|
|
|
Nerdburger_Jansen posted:Well, what's interesting to me is that it's a tendency of contemporary historians to "downplay" whatever it is they devote their lives to studying. Every contemporary historian I read has a kind of apologetic tone, almost like their identity is tied up with what they devote their lives to, so just saying "Assyria was bad" is impossible – you have to say something like "well, yes, Assyria basically committed the Trail of Tears on a regular basis, but they had a great system of roads!" and act like there's some moral equivalence there. I haven't really had this experience with reading contemporary history and, honestly, I think that most contemporary history is significantly better than that written in the past, but that's just what I've been reading. If you read about any group of humans you will inevitably get to some messed up stuff. The Assyrians might be a bit worse than some, but they're not that exceptional. Then again I haven't read this book so for all I know the author really did try to whitewash this. Overall, how was it though? Because I'm looking for some stuff to read this Summer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2024 21:53
|
|
|
I just started the New Roman Empire and while it is good it is also very heavily focused on the Eastern Roman Empire (i.e. the Byzantine) and it is also super focused on Christianity and the origin of the Catholic church. Granted I'm not far in, only about 150 pages, but it's basically "hey here's how the Catholic church was shaped by the Romans". The author also hyped up Julian the Apostate a bit, which I feel is going weird places because Julian should probably be, at most, about one or two pages.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2024 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
FMguru posted:The sequel ("After 1177 BC: The Survival of Civilizations") was just published just last week. Cool, going to add these to my Summer reading list. The graphic novel one might good for getting kids to read history stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2024 00:19
|
|