What Book Are You Reading? Volume 9

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No problem.

I finished Paradiso tonight. Very glad to be done, the self-righteous nonsense was becoming unbearable. I was outraged by the arrogance that the Elect displayed in Heaven towards those souls doomed to Hell, even those who are there simply because they were not baptized or had no knowledge of Christ, for one reason or another (especially the BC guys!). They essentially said it was the damned's fault, which is ludicrous, and further, thought they deserved such a fate! Ironic that souls in Heaven would display the very vices that the mountain of Purgatory was supposed to have purified them of, or that souls are rotting in Hell for! I should think they would have nothing but love and pity for the damned, being eternally away from God as they are for eternity. That's what Christ taught, that's what the Bible teaches. All the more outlandish that God, the Supreme origin of love in its every manifestation, whose very act of creation of the universe and its inhabitants was an act of love, who is so able to give his love equally to the uncountable angels and souls in Heaven, but somehow able to hate and punish the damned with such vengeance? That is why I cannot believe that a Just and Infinitely Loving God would ever allow such a place of eternal banishment to exist, because if it does, then it means that Men are more capable of love and forgiveness than God is, because were I God, there would be no such place.

But enough of that. My next book is Social Construction of International Politics by Ted Hopf. Should be a good read.

 

[Glassfan]

John Keegan's The Second World War.

Apparently, this Hitler guy was bad.

 

[Dachs]

Anymore recommendations?

Seconded!!! With Dachs voracious appetite for history, he has probably sorted out the wheat from the chaff by now.

Same subject, or something else?

There's some amusing about the propensity of people who share that name to overreach themselves...

Eh, the first one kind of got hit by a massive plague that destroyed a quarter to a third of his tax base, invited an unforeseen, massive attack by a hitherto-friendly major power, and permitted a rather damaging theological mission to set out, which if he had been healthy he probably would have stopped. I label the catastrophe of 540-1 "not his fault".

 

[Masada]

Same subject, or something else?

I have this hankering to learn about Alexander and the Diadochi. I'm upskilling my Dachsanese!

Eh, the first one kind of got hit by a massive plague that destroyed a quarter to a third of his tax base, invited an unforeseen, massive attack by a hitherto-friendly major power, and permitted a rather damaging theological mission to set out, which if he had been healthy he probably would have stopped. I label the catastrophe of 540-1 "not his fault".

I gathered that, which might explain the smiley

 

[The Imp]

Same subject, or something else?

Eh, the first one kind of got hit by a massive plague that destroyed a quarter to a third of his tax base, invited an unforeseen, massive attack by a hitherto-friendly major power, and permitted a rather damaging theological mission to set out, which if he had been healthy he probably would have stopped. I label the catastrophe of 540-1 "not his fault".

I don't know about Masada, but I'm interested in The Roman Empire and Greek History. What would you recommend to an absolute beginner?

 

[Dachs]

I have this hankering to learn about Alexander and the Diadochi. I'm upskilling my Dachsanese!

WELL THEN

Peter Green's Alexander to Actium is (also!) an extremely long book. It's got a somewhat skewed viewpoint, and his interpretation of the economics of the Hellenistic world might not pass muster with you. That said, it's a book in an amazingly similar vein to Treadgold's, is reasonably recent and does a chronological and subject-oriented overview of most subjects with similar timeliness to Treadgold's (i.e. "fairly well in line with modern scholarship if there is a consensus up to the time of writing which was unfortunately twenty years ago, and of course there were major reinterpretations which have happened since but oh well w/e").

There's a Cambridge Companion for the Hellenistic world as well, and I think it'd be an excellent idea to try to compare what the two books say about the same topics. I was only able to read portions of this book, mostly because I was pressed for time and my attention was divided. Its organization leaves a little to be desired.

Now, for the immediate successors, there are quite a few good books out there. Bosworth's Legacy of Alexander, while not exactly offering a precise chronological discussion of stuff (although he does end up hitting more or less every point along the way), is really great for Babylon-to-Triparadeisos, Eumenes in Iran, and the Levantine campaigns. Anson, Eumenes of Cardia arguably does a better job on Eumenes but takes a much narrower view of events. Hammond and Walbank's third volume of the History of Macedonia is more or less invaluable for European events during the Hellenistic period, and ages relatively well.

As for Alexander himself, there are about fifty bazillion books out there, very few of which I've actually read. You're pretty much guaranteed to hit something good if you throw enough darts. Cheezy's actually read Green's Alexander biography, and I'm not sure what he thought about it.

I don't know about Masada, but I'm interested in The Roman Empire and Greek History. What would you recommend to an absolute beginner?

True story: I am a comparative beginner at the Roman Empire as well, and don't know about many good overall histories! Most of the good stuff I've read have been period pieces on the Later Empire, because catastrophism vs. continuity is one of the most fun historical arguments to stick your nose into. It literally never gets old.

 

[The Imp]

WELL THEN

Peter Green's Alexander to Actium is (also!) an extremely long book. It's got a somewhat skewed viewpoint, and his interpretation of the economics of the Hellenistic world might not pass muster with you. That said, it's a book in an amazingly similar vein to Treadgold's, is reasonably recent and does a chronological and subject-oriented overview of most subjects with similar timeliness to Treadgold's (i.e. "fairly well in line with modern scholarship if there is a consensus up to the time of writing which was unfortunately twenty years ago, and of course there were major reinterpretations which have happened since but oh well w/e").

There's a Cambridge Companion for the Hellenistic world as well, and I think it'd be an excellent idea to try to compare what the two books say about the same topics. I was only able to read portions of this book, mostly because I was pressed for time and my attention was divided. Its organization leaves a little to be desired.

Now, for the immediate successors, there are quite a few good books out there. Bosworth's Legacy of Alexander, while not exactly offering a precise chronological discussion of stuff (although he does end up hitting more or less every point along the way), is really great for Babylon-to-Triparadeisos, Eumenes in Iran, and the Levantine campaigns. Anson, Eumenes of Cardia arguably does a better job on Eumenes but takes a much narrower view of events. Hammond and Walbank's third volume of the History of Macedonia is more or less invaluable for European events during the Hellenistic period, and ages relatively well.

As for Alexander himself, there are about fifty bazillion books out there, very few of which I've actually read. You're pretty much guaranteed to hit something good if you throw enough darts. Cheezy's actually read Green's Alexander biography, and I'm not sure what he thought about it.

True story: I am a comparative beginner at the Roman Empire as well, and don't know about many good overall histories! Most of the good stuff I've read have been period pieces on the Later Empire, because catastrophism vs. continuity is one of the most fun historical arguments to stick your nose into. It literally never gets old.

I agree on the catastrophe point. I wanted to start from the beginning of Roman history and move forward, but not much is written on the Roman Republic besides the Punic Wars and the end of the Republic. I'm close to giving up and simply relying on Wikipedia for much of the pre-Roman Empire period, while piecing together a personal curriculum out of whatever I can find at the library.

 

[Dachs]

I disagree about the coverage of Roman history entirely, unless you bring "fall of the Republic" back to the Gracchi and Marius. The last century of the Republic probably attracts more historians than any other period except the Punic Wars.

 

[The Imp]

I disagree about the coverage of Roman history entirely, unless you bring "fall of the Republic" back to the Gracchi and Marius. The last century of the Republic probably attracts more historians than any other period except the Punic Wars.

Ah, but I do believe the fall began with the Gracchi and Marius.

 

[Dachs]

Ah, but I do believe the fall began with the Gracchi and Marius.

Well, I won't get into an asinine "debate" about inexact historical terms with you.

 

[The Imp]

Well, I won't get into an asinine "debate" about inexact historical terms with you.

But I'm bored I mean, what was inexact, "Fall"? Should I have used stumble around a bit, then fall?

 

[Dachs]

Well, you didn't say "fall", you said "end". "End", to me at least, means 27 BC.

 

[The Imp]

Well, you didn't say "fall", you said "end". "End", to me at least, means 27 BC.

Oh, well, chalk that up to being past my bed time. I meant fall, but I was listening to REM.

 

[sophie]

Dunno how long it's been since I've posted here so...

Finished Joseph Roth's The Radetzky March, it was very very good. I liked it a lot, even if it was a little depressing (but hey, the collapse of empires tends to be depressing, doesn't it?)

I've pretty much given up on The Ramayana I've got about 160 pages to go, and even though I like it, I just fell way behind, and don't have the time to catch up.

Over the weekend I read Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi. It was very good, and a quick read (it was a graphic novel, after all). Very fun, and very enlightening. I learned a lot about Persian culture, Iranian history during and after the 1979 revolution, and what Iran looks like now (well, at least to 1993).

As for The Arabian Nights, I'm still plugging along, although it's getting harder now, as the 4-8 page vignette stories are now turning into 70 page epics, which are much harder bedtime reading material

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

WELL THEN

Peter Green's Alexander to Actium is (also!) an extremely long book. It's got a somewhat skewed viewpoint, and his interpretation of the economics of the Hellenistic world might not pass muster with you. That said, it's a book in an amazingly similar vein to Treadgold's, is reasonably recent and does a chronological and subject-oriented overview of most subjects with similar timeliness to Treadgold's (i.e. "fairly well in line with modern scholarship if there is a consensus up to the time of writing which was unfortunately twenty years ago, and of course there were major reinterpretations which have happened since but oh well w/e").

YES. Alexander to Actium was a fantastic book. Though it could've given more attention to the Bactrians, they got probably five pages.

As for Alexander himself, there are about fifty bazillion books out there, very few of which I've actually read. You're pretty much guaranteed to hit something good if you throw enough darts. Cheezy's actually read Green's Alexander biography, and I'm not sure what he thought about it.

I read several Alexander biographies that semester, and Green's was both the longest and the best. Its not really that long, it flies by before you know it. In the term paper for that class, I actually used Green's bio to correct other biographies, because he addresses popular myths (like force numbers at Issus) and why there are different versions.

 

[Masada]

So, Alexander to Actium, Green, and the Cambridge Companion are on my list. Thanks, all.

 

[EmpressCaesar]

Gates of Fire- Steven Pressfield

 

[Narz]

I'm reading Emergency. It's entertaining so far.

Also, I have Mutual Aid out from the library, but I haven't started it yet.

This thread should go in the new Arts subforum, right?

 

[Adria]

I just started Tom Holt's For Two Nights Only. It contains two stories: Overtime and Grailblazers. I'm hoping these are more like Little People and less like Nothing But Blue Skies, which I wasn't a fan of.

 

[Jan H]

Just finished The Road and I'm going to start No Country For Old Men (both by Cormack McCarthy)
I haven't seen either of the two movies, but after finishing the first book, I'm certainly interested in comparing the two versions!