/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2167974]

This is a very good book. Can anyone recommend me any more good history books?

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2167976]

Yes, a bunch.

[Anonymous No.2167978]

>>2167976
Cool, thanks. I'll F5 this thread eagerly.

[Anonymous No.2167989]

>>2167988
No, you can recommend stuff that you haven't read too!

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2167988]

Should I stick to what I've read?
This one was a real nice extension of what I've learn of Lawrence of Arabia. While reading it I found out there was a larger bio on him exclusively. I'm sure its fine too, but this double bio was a lot of fun for me.

I like a lot of Byzantine stuff too.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2168011]

>>2167988
>I've learnED of Lawrence of Arabia. While reading it I found out there was a NEW larger bio on him exclusively.
There.
Hero, its called. I may get it a few years down, but there's so much interesting me more now.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2168024]

A great introductory, Sailing from Byzantium, tells three stories on how they influenced their neighbors. The Slavic and Russian worlds, the Islamic world, and the west's renaissance. All of them would take turns as enemies and allies from one time or another. The book is like a prelude to the wider epic of this longest lasting empire in history.

[Anonymous No.2168032]

if medieval history does it for you --

a distant mirror - barbara tuchman
a world lit only by fire - william manchester
the great mortality - john kelly

the glory and the dream (also by manchester) is a fucking awesome narrative history of the u.s. from 1929 up to the mid 70s that i recommend whenever i see a history books thread

the savage wars of peace by max boot is a super fascinating one about the u.s.'s lesser known wars/military actions, like the philippine insurrection and the fighting in russia after wwi and stuff like that

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2168035]

This one, obviously, focuses on their Constantinople's year. The invention of large cannons did the trick, but if only a few more people had come to their rescue, they have lasted another hundred or more years.
Tragic, but so exciting. They should make it into a film.

[Anonymous No.2168041]

try this you won't be disappoint

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2168050]

I read Harvey J Kaye's Thomas Paine and the Promise of America, but its a half bio half history of his impact on the US. Which was great, but I'm thinking of getting Nelsons more in depth bio.
>>2168032
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.2168056]

>>2168032

Tuchman's alright in general, but that book is awful. Same goes for Manchester. Fine 20th century historians who had no business trying to write about the Middle Ages.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2168063]

>>2167976
After reading this book, I was introduced to all sorts of characters I have to read up on.

-Alexis de Tocqueville. Any book by him sounds rivetingly thoughtful. There's sure to be decent bios if political science isn't your thing.

-Giuseppe Garibaldi. What a life this guy had! Even after you pear down all the wild legends and rumors. Lincoln asked him to fight for the union even. Have this book, will read by next year.

-Alexander Herzen. Russian exiled at the time of the 1848 revolutions, for his socialist leanings. I don't know of any other book on him aside from his own. My Past and Thoughts, which I will get someday. Does anyone know of a biography on him?

[Anonymous No.2168079]

OP you need to read this novel.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2168082]

>>2168079
A novel?

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2168178]

A fun read on a small group of very interesting people. They were in Europe before everyone else, they made peace with Rome, later became catholic, first offshore whalers, fished the seas off the coasts Lief Erickson landed on in Newfoundland, Sailed with Columbus (but didn't take him to their fishing grounds!) A basque completed that famous Magellan trip, (Why is Magellan famous for circling the earth when he plainly died in the Philippines?) founded the Jesuits....

I bought this because they tested a lot of Europeans to find their genetic backgrounds. Everyone expected the Basque to stand out as a people apart, but it turns out that their ancestors crossed the ice bridge to England and endured all those various invasions. The so called Celtic people of the British isles are only culturally Celtic.

[Anonymous No.2168218]

Anyone have any interesting recommendations about the Napoleonic period?

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2168317]

>>2168218
This is the only one on my radar that (I think) touches on the subject. The little tyrant doesn't interest me particularly. But bumping.

[Anonymous No.2168319]

>historical fiction
>having anything to do with actual history

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2168350]

>>2168319
You meant this "novel"? >>2168079

[Anonymous No.2168383]

A beautifully written history on social and cultural themes of the Gilded Age.

[Anonymous No.2168384]

>>2168319

>actual history

Care you explain?

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2168452]

>>2168383
The golden age for libertarians.

"The Incorporation of America began as a challenge to myself: how to tell the story of an era—three decades—that would bring together key moments, figures, and developments without regard for conventional disciplinary boundaries, a periodized story that would touch important bases, show relations among them, and do so within a coherent structure. Historians take these decades, the Gilded Age, as a turning point in US history, and I assumed that any account of a turning point requires as broad a selection of evidence as one can reasonably manage. Hence the book's deliberate refusal to fall within any conventionally segregated category, literary or intellectual or socioeconomic or political history, but to draw freely from whatever sources I thought contributed to a whole picture. To exemplify the interdisciplinary as such was not part of the book's agenda, which aimed only to tell as complete a story as I could about a critical passage in the history of US society and culture. "Critical cultural history" was how I described the project: "history" in the sense of concreteness and temporality, "cultural" in the sense of a totality of relations, a "whole way of life" ("whole" not as a unified homogenous field but as elements interrelated even where divergent and..."

Sounds good, thanks.

[turkish No.2168459]

>>2168035
>glorious and so exciting. They should make it into a film.
;)

I'll add that book to my list.

Here is my suggestion:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/64533.The_Crusades_Through_Arab_Eyes

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2168465]

>>2168459
No, it was pretty tragic. Mehmed didn't have to go and do that. He mellowed out with age later and tried to make it a lasting empire...

[Anonymous No.2168479]

>>2167978
>not using 4chan X
>2011

Get with the times son

http://aeosynth.github.com/4chan-x/

[Anonymous No.2168512]

>>2168465
>>2168465
>Mehmed didn't have to go and do that.
What am I reading?

From the 1st days of the Ottoman rule, Turkish sultans were fighting with Byzantine kings. This was how the early sultans found support from other stronger Turkish rulers in Anatolia.

And when the little settlement turned into an empire. Byzantine kings never stopped harrasing the Turkish power in the region.

Mehmed wasnt the 1st Turkish sultan that tried to eradicate Byzantine and wouldnt be last if he had failed.

Because Consantiapoli was the wall stoping the empire becoming any stronger.

Imagine you have a historical enemy nation with strong influence on your rival kingdoms, that it is in the fucking center of your empire. What would any ruler do?

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2168532]

>>2168512
I understand the motives of all the actors, and I'm hardly happy with 100% of what the Eastern Romans ever did, but The Seljuks before the Ottomans, before the Arabs, before the Slavs, etc. were not from Constantinople. They roamed around looking for conquests territory and riches just like everyone else. There were also plenty of peace treaties, including the one Mehmed's father held to.
(There was a tradition where princes had to kill each other off to claim the throne. That was particularly disturbing.)

>>2167988
Nor an auspicious ending. Nearly 500 years isn't bad for an empire I guess.

[Anonymous No.2168563]

>>2168532
>>2168532
Now you make sense... Of course in today's standarts all of the history's conquest are wrong but that was the norm in that era. While some leaders carried it to pyshopatic levels (sack of Baghad by mongols) some just did the regular things. And conquest of the Constaniapolis was the later.

So it is totaly normal for you feel sad for the fall of city if you are from Western-Christian background. But calling Mehmed acted wrong is just ridiculous.

By the way, maybe you already know but it wasnt actully a tradition that princes kills each other more like a lack of tradition about heritage and thrones causes power struggles whenever a sultan dies and seeds distrust among princes. Different powers supports different princes and bloodshed follows.

Now that is tragic, holds back the empire.

[Anonymous No.2168581]

>>2168035
In this book, does he talk about the Ottoman ships that were run over the land to by-pass the Byzantine huge-ass chain wall.

This siege is full of movie stuff. They should film it like Kingdom Heaven, this way it would be popular both in west and east.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2168600]

>>2168563
I call all acts of violence wrong, I felt for the besiegers in the book ( >>2168035 ) as much as the the besieged, but the author is left with more westerner accounts to choose from.
In his youth he was a vicious brute. I feel the same about Napoleon. And by it not being a tradition to do anything about it, it became traditional.

>>2168581
Yes. Cool part. Also this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Grant

[Anonymous No.2168620]

>>2168024
You'll love Justinian's flea.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2168622]

>>2168620
Eventually.
I still have to get through three bios on him Theodora, and Belisarius

[Anonymous No.2168635]

>>2168600
After all Greek city-states were in war with Anatolian city-states. Roman Empire called whole the world barbars and wage war against it. Ancient history doesnt have a leader who wasnt a brute. I guess after the 2nd World War people started to give chance to peacefull policies but even today agressive leaders are more popular.

2nd Beyazit was relativly peacefull man and he chose a son of his as a successer but because there isnt a tradition, his words didnt weight much. An other son, who is an agressive person, Selim able to find supporters among army generals and fought with his brother, killed him. The third brother stayed away from all this political struggle and lived peacefully for a time. But when some political figures got tired of harsh rule of Yavuz Selim, they asked help from the brother, Yavuz fearing a coup acted fast and excuted his brother. In his time, he was a feared ruler but today he is a beloved figure because he is the sultan who united the Islam world under his family banner.

history is sure fun :)

[Anonymous No.2168643]

Herodotus' histories is really fun to read.

[Anonymous No.2168651]

>>2168635
Mehmet was far from a brute. At least my belief. He preserved the church hireacy in the Consantipolis, saved the jews from Spanish, invited artists to Istanbul, established the palace tradition in the Ottoman. He even acted against the Islamic tradition of shacking the fallen city for 3 days in order to save the city.

Some says he was seeing himself as the succeser of the Roman Empire.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2168652]

>>2168635
Brutal but fun.

The "enlightenment age" (partially caused from ancient Greek lit sifting out before the fall) is what helped us along to our relatively more peaceful age [of revolutions] My favourite, Thomas Paine is far better than any Byzantine I've ever heard of, but the men of Constantinople who kept those books safe, transcribing them over the centuries are owed a debt.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2168656]

>>2168651
I understand all that. After he won he mellowed out considerably. But he was quite cruel to many. You'd get a good unbiased story from Crowley's 1453.

[Anonymous No.2168677]

>>2168656
I will definatly read the book.But it just tells about the siege, right yet he ruled for 30 years.
>off-topic
When the IV. Murat wanted to rule the empire, the prince Ibrahim made it clear that he doesnt care about throne so he lived. But again Murad was a harsh ruler and some unhappy people tried to persuade Ibrahim. He rejected all yet feared those attempts may lead to an exucution and became more antisocial. When Murad died without a son, he was offered to throne, he rejected again fearing it is a political trap. They actully had to show the dead body to him to persuade.

[Anonymous No.2168683]

Brutal and efficient are two different things.
I mean, I wouldn't say Justinian was a brutal man, but look at the Nika riots.

[Anonymous No.2168689]

I was the Turksih guy, im tired now, goodnight people. It was fun talking with you, cheers. I dont have deep knowledge about histroy but a simple love.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2168878]

>>2168677
There's good bio shading of his youth and the last chapter is about the rest of his reign. Pretty fair portrait I think. Hope you enjoy the book.

For contrast. Thomas Jefferson. Not at all brutish, but looked at cockeyed in today's world for what he was like.

Opinions: Is this the best/better biography of Jefferson?

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2169313]

Another one I will have to get to next year

[Anonymous No.2169626]

Bumping this, interesting topic, noted some good recommendations.

Also can someone recommend me a book that documents France's history in the last few centuries (say, 17th to now)?

[Anonymous No.2169652]

This a terrific book. Brown was one of the craziest, most driven motherfuckers in American history.

[Anonymous No.2169673]

>>2168035

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2169787]

>>2169673
Offensive. This guy? (pictured) an all-seeing-eye of evil? His own people hated him for being a unionist/pro-catholic. He was only trying to protect his city and subjects. Read the book.

[Anonymous No.2169823]

>>2168082
just bought this after a recent holiday in spain, my journey there really opened my eyes about the spanish civil war. still yet to read it though, as i'm halfway through war of the worlds by h.g. wells.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2171212]

>>2169823
Cool. I found this one not too long ago, you might be interested.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2171512]

On my want list.

[D/Generation !PsWaArQzRE No.2171527]

Do you like grandiose architecture?

[Anonymous No.2171708]

everything by Robert K Massie is good. He has a new biography out actually, it's about one of the female rulers of Russia

[Anonymous No.2171719]

>>2168635
You're obviously a Turk. Who else would refer to Greek cities in Anatolia as "Anatolian City States"?

Turks were regarded as barbarians because they literally never kept their word, they always broke treaties, they didn't even keep their promises to surrendering armies of besieged cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Antonio_Bragadin#Death_and_legacy

[Anonymous No.2171724]

>>2168651
Jews are not perennial "victims", they were expelled from Spain for a plethora of reasons - Many of them at least partially valid, and they were taken into the Turkish fold because they offered a good potential tax base, it had nothing to do with any humanistic reasons.

Nor was their conduct in the Ottoman Empire any better than it had been in Spain. If you read Zaporozhian Cossack accounts you'd know Jews had a notorious reputation as slavers.

[Anonymous No.2171729]

>>2168532
You're not happy with the fact the Romioi were defending their heartland (Asia Minor) from Turkish aggression?

Byzantines were never an expansionist power in the same way the various Caliphates were because Roman Imperial policy from Hadrian onwards had been against expansionism. When they conquered, e.g. under Justinian, they just regarded it as the reintegration of provinces that had been Greco-Roman for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Eastern Rome was rather like Qing China in their attitudes, extremely insular, chauvinistic and so on. But they can't be called expansionist, and attacking them for wanting to recapture their heartland from the Turks is absurd.

[Anonymous No.2171733]

Anyway, it depends what kind of material you're looking for. Really, if you want to study history you should be going straight to the primary sources. I can't remember much about the Fall of Constantinople other than my secondary stuff (Gibbon, Runciman, Norwich etc) - But I've read most of Sphrantzes account of the fall of the city, and Procopius, Anna Komnena, Michael Psellus etc all have fairly decent Penguin Classics releases with good translations, so go for those if you're interested in Byzantine History.

Antiquity is more obvious: Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, Marcellinus etc.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2172030]

>>2171733
I've considered getting original source material, but think I'll have to pass for the time being.
Maybe later on a kindle or something

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2173425]

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2175021]

Any other history nerds out there?

[Anonymous No.2175022]

>>2175021

yo i started reading the 3 volume version of john julius norwich's byzantium and it rules, read it

[Anonymous No.2175040]

I used to read a lot of history books, but then one day I thought "why the fuck am I doing this?", and I started just reading fiction

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2175048]

>>2175022
SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.2175058]

>>2175048

hot sex

julian the apostate just got owned by a spear to the liver, kind of a bummer

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2175066]

>>2175040
I appreciate good fiction immensely, but have always enjoyed ancient history, shunning American history as boring for some reason, but now I find I have been living my whole life on a pivot in American history. I watch and read the news to get the latest, and I can see the big picture, this long story of humanity before me unfolding. Each history book is like a tiny chapter in our epic.
I forgot to put this in that thread, but this beats The Mahabharata by a mile!