Historical Book Recomendation Thread

[Azale]

Bought Foner's Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution. Do you guys think it is any good?

 

[Cutlass]

In the Oxford History of the United States book series, What Hath God Wrought and Battle Cry of Freedom are excellent books. But I haven't heard people talking about or praising the others. Anyone have opinions on the other books in the series?

 

[Azale]

In the Oxford History of the United States book series, What Hath God Wrought and Battle Cry of Freedom are excellent books. But I haven't heard people talking about or praising the others. Anyone have opinions on the other books in the series?

The Glorious Cause was very fun reading. I don't know how much of what's written is out of date, since it is the oldest in the series, but it somehow made the American Revolution exciting.

From Colony to Superpower is...exhaustive. Over 1,000 pages with close looks at every presidency's foreign policy. It's worth a read.

Don't know anything about the other three.

 

[.Shane.]

Cutlass, I'm (finally) finishing "What God Hath Wrought" and can't recommend it enough. As to the others on the list, I'm hoping to pick up "Empire of Liberty" next.

 

[Cutlass]

Cutlass, I'm (finally) finishing "What God Hath Wrought" and can't recommend it enough.

I read that several months ago. And enjoyed it quite a bit.

As to the others on the list, I'm hoping to pick up "Empire of Liberty" next.

The Glorious Cause was very fun reading. I don't know how much of what's written is out of date, since it is the oldest in the series, but it somehow made the American Revolution exciting.

From Colony to Superpower is...exhaustive. Over 1,000 pages with close looks at every presidency's foreign policy. It's worth a read.

Don't know anything about the other three.

So next time I'm in the mood for a really big book.

 

[Ajidica]

Any good books on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (or books that devote alot of space to that subject)?

 

[Glassfan]

Based on Cutlass' and .Shane.s' recommendation, I just ordered What Hath God Wrought on Amazon. I personally find that Pulitzer Prize winners are usually worth a read.

 

[Antilogic]

Hey, I read and recommended that one too!

 

[tokala]

In the Oxford History of the United States book series, What Hath God Wrought and Battle Cry of Freedom are excellent books. But I haven't heard people talking about or praising the others. Anyone have opinions on the other books in the series?

Not from that series, but fitting the topic:
Crucible of War
is also very enjoyable; that book cured me from my prejudice that history books are boring
Fred Anderson will apparently co-author the next book in the Oxford series, accordingly I expect it to be also very readable.

 

[Glassfan]

Based on Cutlass' and .Shane.s' recommendation, I just ordered What Hath God Wrought on Amazon. I personally find that Pulitzer Prize winners are usually worth a read.

Based on Cutlass' and >Shane.s' and Antilogic's and anybody else I don't remember but fear to overlook's recommendations, I just ordered...

 

[Antilogic]

Based on Cutlass' and >Shane.s' and Antilogic's and anybody else I don't remember but fear to overlook's recommendations, I just ordered...

I'm just messing with you, I don't mind.

I haven't read any others in the Oxford History series, but based on prior experience I'd expect good things.

 

[LightSpectra]

Has someone here read Vanished Kingdoms by Norman Davies, and how was it?

Similarly has someone read Einhard's biography of Charlemange, and how was it? Has someone read it in Latin, was it difficult? Was it close enough to first century BC Latin to be understood, or do you have to learn vulgar or medieval Latin to read it?

I actually haven't really peaked in this thread very much and just started reading through it today out of boredom. But I would like to say that Einhard's not difficult at all to read if what you've learned is classical or ecclesiastical Latin. My last history paper as an undergraduate was an examination of how Charlemagne was 'shaped into' the role of Roman Emperor by his biographers, which mostly came from the monk of St. Gall and Einhard.

 

[privatehudson]

I've just finished The Good Nazi an excellent work on Albert Speer that pretty conclusively demolishes his claims to have been a apolitical technocrat with no real knowledge of the true horrors of the regime he served. Well worth reading.

 

[Glassfan]

I've just finished The Good Nazi an excellent work on Albert Speer that pretty conclusively demolishes his claims to have been a apolitical technocrat with no real knowledge of the true horrors of the regime he served. Well worth reading.

One of the things that makes the BBC's The World at War such a fine documentary is that, made in the early 1970's, many of the principals were still alive and interviewed. The moment you hear Albert Speer, Karl Donitz and other top NAZI's speek, you intuitively sense their dishonesty and guilt.

 

[Cutlass]

I've just finished The Good Nazi an excellent work on Albert Speer that pretty conclusively demolishes his claims to have been a apolitical technocrat with no real knowledge of the true horrors of the regime he served. Well worth reading.

Tooze's book "Wages of Destruction" makes that point as well.

 

[Atticus]

I actually haven't really peaked in this thread very much and just started reading through it today out of boredom. But I would like to say that Einhard's not difficult at all to read if what you've learned is classical or ecclesiastical Latin. My last history paper as an undergraduate was an examination of how Charlemagne was 'shaped into' the role of Roman Emperor by his biographers, which mostly came from the monk of St. Gall and Einhard.

Thanks!

I understood that Einhard is commonly thought to be "honest" writer. Of course that doesn't conflict him painting that kind of picture of Charlemange, I heard too that he armired C. greatly. And wasn't it what other people then wanted to think too? The pope and Charlemange himself for example?

 

[Antilogic]

Any good books on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (or books that devote alot of space to that subject)?

I had to take awhile to look it up, but I remember an author on the Daily Show awhile ago talking about a book on the subject. Finally found it on Amazon. If I'm not mistaken, the book has the middle third dedicated to the Soviet-Afghan War. A quick glance at the reviews seems to indicate its good.

 

[privatehudson]

One of the things that makes the BBC's The World at War such a fine documentary is that, made in the early 1970's, many of the principals were still alive and interviewed. The moment you hear Albert Speer, Karl Donitz and other top NAZI's speek, you intuitively sense their dishonesty and guilt.

There's a co-incidence, I remember reading something recently about how people often think that The World at War was a BBC programme, in fact it was a Thames TV production that was first shown on ITV. I agree that its a great documentary though, even if some of its ideas are a little out date at times, its worth watching just to see the principals.

That said its worth bearing in mind that men like Speer still managed to avoid the noose for making use of slave labour, when men like Sauckel who provided it didn't, so whatever is obvious to our modern eyes wasn't quite so obvious to the prosecutors at Nuremberg. Mind you Speer's story in 1971 wasn't entirely the same as the story of the 1940s either.

 

[Ajidica]

I had to take awhile to look it up, but I remember an author on the Daily Show awhile ago talking about a book on the subject. Finally found it on Amazon. If I'm not mistaken, the book has the middle third dedicated to the Soviet-Afghan War. A quick glance at the reviews seems to indicate its good.

Thanks. I've been re-reading some of Robert Fisk's writings and I have been struck by how many of the militant groups in the Middle East had connections to the mujahideen in Afghanistan.

 

[LightSpectra]

Thanks!

I understood that Einhard is commonly thought to be "honest" writer. Of course that doesn't conflict him painting that kind of picture of Charlemange, I heard too that he armired C. greatly. And wasn't it what other people then wanted to think too? The pope and Charlemange himself for example?

Modern Carolingian scholarship is quite agreeable that Einhard wasn't an "honest" writer. I must qualify that by saying that Einhard doesn't fabricate events or exaggerate outrageously; if you know what biases to look out for, and can thus contextualize them, his Vita is probably a fairly accurate work. But he clearly had a myriad of objectives in his biography of Charlemagne that turned him into a neo-Roman Emperor, complete with Suetonian natural disasters accompanying his death.