Historical Book Recomendation Thread

[Dachs]

It's very disappointing that there hasn't been serious work on that. The German constitution was one of the most complex and difficult to craft in the modern era, and the fact that it worked so good was rather amazing. We've got a jillion odd books about the American constitution, almost none about the German.

There's been tons of serious work, but unless I miss my guess, SS-18 doesn't read German.

Also, there are problems with a lot of the serious work that is in English because it's horribly tainted by Sonderweg historiography and I wouldn't want to use it as introductory for anyone. Pflanze's own opinions on Bismarck aren't totally congruent with the Sonderweg, even if I don't agree with some of them, so they make for a better introduction.

 

[ParkCungHee]

There's been tons of serious work, but unless I miss my guess, SS-18 doesn't read German.

Ah, at least there's that.

Also, there are problems with a lot of the serious work that is in English because it's horribly tainted by Sonderweg historiography

ARRRRRGH. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH. AAAARRRGH.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

What about it? The war itself or the constitutional stuff that was essentially desultory?

For the first of those, Dennis Showalter's The Wars of German Unification is the best. For the second, Showalter touches on it at least briefly, but you'd probably get a decent view of the constitutional question from the first volume of Otto Pflanze's biography of Bismarck.

I think L. Frank Tipton's A History of Modern Germany does this to some extent.

My local library doesn't have them, but my university library does. Thanks for the information.

 

[aelf]

It's very disappointing that there hasn't been serious work on that. The German constitution was one of the most complex and difficult to craft in the modern era, and the fact that it worked so good was rather amazing. We've got a jillion odd books about the American constitution, almost none about the German.

It's dealt with quite a bit in political theory, especially from a legalistic perspective dealing with the state of emergency/exception by people like Schmitt and Agamben. That might be more relevant to the Weimar constitution, but, IIRC, there's quite a bit of carry over from the German Empire.

 

[Dachs]

It's dealt with quite a bit in political theory, especially from a legalistic perspective dealing with the state of emergency/exception by people like Schmitt and Agamben. That might be more relevant to the Weimar constitution, but, IIRC, there's quite a bit of carry over from the German Empire.

The Kaiser, as Präsident of the NDB and later of the Reich, didn't have the ability to enact emergency legislation by executive fiat. During the First World War, the device for enforcing effective martial law was a Prussian statute, the 1851 Law of Siege, not imperial war powers ostensibly granted to the monarch. Had Wilhelm possessed the sort of legislative power that the post-1919 Präsidents did, he would've been able to force through the Hindenburg-Programm without recourse to the Reichstag or dispense with the Burgfrieden entirely.

 

[That nerdy kid]

Does anyone know any good books on Carthaginian history? I would like an indepth history of the entire empire, if that is possible.

 

[Dachs]

Didn't a fairly decent one get released not too long ago? Richard Miles' Carthage Must Be Destroyed?

 

[That nerdy kid]

The reviews seem to indicate that it is not what I thought from the title (I know it is a quote). I thought that it would portray Carthage in a negative light, but seems to portray in a slightly positive or neutral manner.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

The reviews seem to indicate that it is not what I thought from the title (I know it is a quote). I thought that it would portray Carthage in a negative light, but seems to portray in a slightly positive or neutral manner.

Yea, ole Carthage is definitively presented in a mostly positive form. As far as history on Carthage goes its probably the most modern one and really good, plus Miles leaves out a lot of the Rome b.s. that inevitably finds its way into such histories.

 

[AnthonyBoscia]

.....

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yea, ole Carthage is definitively presented in a mostly positive form. As far as history on Carthage goes its probably the most modern one and really good, plus Miles leaves out a lot of the Rome b.s. that inevitably finds its way into such histories.

I came into this thread to basically give a review of the book and was surprised to see it's already been mentioned. I'll put it in spoilers to save space.

Spoiler Carthage Must be Destroyed :

I found it a very well-done book. It's a good systematic coverage of Carthage as a whole, not just Carthage as a foil to Rome. Richard Miles does a good job of describing the development of Carthage from Phoenician colony all the way to its final days. One particular interesting thing was his mention of the sort of cultural-religious synthesis that was going on in the Western Mediterranean in the form of the cult of Heracles-Melqart and basically how it was used for propaganda purposes first for Greek imperialism until you finally get to Hannibal as the savior of the Greek world. I read one review that said the author's discussion of the religious side was too much, but to me it was essentially the theme of the book.

With regards to Carthage vs. Rome, I think he does a good job with the big picture, the implications of their conflicts, etc. I also think he does a good job of addressing "Punica Fides" and Rome's use of Carthage as an ongoing bogeyman that they could embody with everything non-Roman. However, if you're a lover of Hannibal's tactics, it's covered but not with the loving depth that a military historian would have shown.

He does a good job dealing with the sources, best I can tell. I like how he does his best to "bring to life" the historians who traveled with Hannibal. We only really know of them through responses by the Roman historians, but he does a good job of reconstructing what they had to say. It's the closest we'll get to history written by the losers here. One review did suggest that he makes a few errors with the early Pre-Roman Greek sources. Not knowing more about this period, I can't really tell if that's true or not. He brings in archaeology to some use, especially with the Punic-Greek cultural synthesis, Carthaginian influence over Phoenician settlements, and the issue of child sacrifice. Although it does seem that, while he gives a good synthesis of what's known regarding child sacrifice, I don't think he wants to take a strong stance on this since it detracts from everything else he wants to talk about. That being said, perhaps I became too interested in everything else and it took a backseat in my mind.

Overall, I found it to be an enjoyable, highly readable book. I'd certainly say that, as a modern history, it's as good a synthesis as you'll find. He's certainly a sympathetic to the Carthaginian side, but I think that's a good strategy as it counters the common perceptions of Carthage as just the foil to Rome that had to fall for Rome to rise. If you want a book that's about Carthage as Carthage, I'd definitely recommend it.

I do have a request for a recommendation from Dachs (or anyone else who would know). It occurs to me every time this subject comes up that my knowledge of the Fall of Rome is still locked into outdated ways of thinking. While I'm not quite "Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" bad (although I do have a copy), I am used to the Barbarian Invasion story with very little on top of it. However, given the discussions I've seen, I know that view is either wrong or at least fairly inaccurate.

I was hoping I could receive a recommendation for a readable (something I'll be reading in what little spare time I have this summer, so I'd like it to at least grab my attention) book covering either the Late Roman Empire or even just the fall of the Empire (in the West) that does a good job of reflecting a more modern consensus. Anyone have any suggestions?

 

[Dachs]

Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568 (2005) is far and away the best modern book.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Thanks so much.

 

[vogtmurr]

So what do you people think of Michael Grant and Constantine - the man and his times?

 

[_random_]

Park told me a while back that How the Irish Saved Civilization is too full of hyperbole to be worth the read. Does anybody have any alternative suggestions for an intro to medieval Ireland?

 

[Antilogic]

Park told me a while back that How the Irish Saved Civilization is too full of hyperbole to be worth the read. Does anybody have any alternative suggestions for an intro to medieval Ireland?

That title seems awfully hyperbolic and lol-worthy as well; I'm almost curious enough to read it.

 

[_random_]

Hyperbolic titles seem to be standard for pop history of any quality.

 

[Atticus]

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?

 

[holy king]

wait, you read latin fluently?

 

[Atticus]

Not fluently, but I read it with the aid of grammar and dictionary.

Laborous reading doesn't of course sound very smart, but I thought if this would be a good book to keep/regain skills.