Grand unified books thread

[Habbaku]

Does anyone have any recommendations for a history of Medieval Spain?

https://www.amazon.com/History-Medieval-Spain-Cornell-Paperbacks/dp/0801492645

Definitive book here. No idea if it's been surpassed by recent scholarship, but it's a great read.

[Gups]

Does anyone have any good readable accounts of the 1971 war over Bangladesh? It amazes me that this isn't better known about in the West.

I've not read it myself but this is meant to be good

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/mar/01/of-blood-and-fire-jahanara-imam-review

There is also history books by Srinath Raghavan and Wilem can Schneidal.

There are a lot of fictional accounts of the war. I'd recommend the reviewer Phillip Hensher's "The Friendly Ones".

[Razgovory]

I managed to accidentally buy a book written in medieval Italian.  Pratica della mercatura.  I read a sample of it on my Kindle, and found that the main text is in Italian.  The forward is in English and the notes are in English but not the text.  I tried to remove it from my Kindle and accidentally bought instead.  I couldn't find a way to get a refund for this particular book.

[The Brain]

Sure. You fell and landed on Pratica della mercatura.

[Barrister]

I managed to accidentally buy a book written in medieval Italian.  Pratica della mercatura.  I read a sample of it on my Kindle, and found that the main text is in Italian.  The forward is in English and the notes are in English but not the text.  I tried to remove it from my Kindle and accidentally bought instead.  I couldn't find a way to get a refund for this particular book.

Well the Fates have spoken.  You know what you must do know.

[Malthus]

It's American focused but I've heard good things about "The Blood Telegram: Nixon, Kissinger, and a Forgotten Genocide".

I'll check it out - seems more focused, as you say, on the (shameful) part played by the Nixon administration, though.

[Malthus]

Does anyone have any good readable accounts of the 1971 war over Bangladesh? It amazes me that this isn't better known about in the West.

I've not read it myself but this is meant to be good

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/mar/01/of-blood-and-fire-jahanara-imam-review

There is also history books by Srinath Raghavan and Wilem can Schneidal.

There are a lot of fictional accounts of the war. I'd recommend the reviewer Phillip Hensher's "The Friendly Ones".

Thanks! I'll check those out too - it is bizarre to think how little this is known in the West.

[The Brain]

Finished The Wars of the Roses: Politics and the constitution in England c.1437-1509, by Carpenter. From 1997, so doesn't include any more modern results. Seemed fairly OK, a plausible description of how kingship was supposed to work in late-medieval England, and the impact on political life of a completely incompetent king. The author has strong positive/negative views on various people, but seems to be open about it and discusses different opinions. One thing seemed odd to me: she twice states that it was a mistake by Edward IV not to kill Henry VI earlier, but she doesn't say why. My impression has always been that keeping Henry VI alive made perfect sense as long as his son was at large. As long as Henry lived his wife and son could only claim to act in his name/interest, and being in possession of Henry allowed a number of different cards to be played if needed. If Henry had been killed earlier then his son could have claimed, not unreasonably, to be the true King of England. A shame that she doesn't elaborate on why she thinks killing Henry before killing his son would have been a good idea.

[Habbaku]

A shame that she doesn't elaborate on why she thinks killing Henry before killing his son would have been a good idea.

A truly bizarre suggestion to put forth and not back it with some sort of reasoning. I've not read any other works that brought Edward to task over not having Henry killed earlier. If anything, they all criticize him for having Henry killed at all (assuming that's what happened).

[crazy canuck]

A shame that she doesn't elaborate on why she thinks killing Henry before killing his son would have been a good idea.

A truly bizarre suggestion to put forth and not back it with some sort of reasoning. I've not read any other works that brought Edward to task over not having Henry killed earlier. If anything, they all criticize him for having Henry killed at all (assuming that's what happened).

Yeah, it would not have made sense before Tewkesbury but with Prince Edward now dead, the Queen captured the timing was perfect for an unfortunate accident.

[FunkMonk]

Rereading The Guns of August and it's just as good a read as I remember it.

[Razgovory]

I managed to accidentally buy a book written in medieval Italian.  Pratica della mercatura.  I read a sample of it on my Kindle, and found that the main text is in Italian.  The forward is in English and the notes are in English but not the text.  I tried to remove it from my Kindle and accidentally bought instead.  I couldn't find a way to get a refund for this particular book.

Well the Fates have spoken.  You know what you must do know.

The doctor guy?  What did he say?

[Sophie Scholl]

Finished The Wars of the Roses: Politics and the constitution in England c.1437-1509, by Carpenter. From 1997, so doesn't include any more modern results. Seemed fairly OK, a plausible description of how kingship was supposed to work in late-medieval England, and the impact on political life of a completely incompetent king. The author has strong positive/negative views on various people, but seems to be open about it and discusses different opinions. One thing seemed odd to me: she twice states that it was a mistake by Edward IV not to kill Henry VI earlier, but she doesn't say why. My impression has always been that keeping Henry VI alive made perfect sense as long as his son was at large. As long as Henry lived his wife and son could only claim to act in his name/interest, and being in possession of Henry allowed a number of different cards to be played if needed. If Henry had been killed earlier then his son could have claimed, not unreasonably, to be the true King of England. A shame that she doesn't elaborate on why she thinks killing Henry before killing his son would have been a good idea.

As Habs and CC mention, damn strange line of thought there. Out of curiosity, who are some of her personal favorites/villains? I've always been a big Yorkist fan myself with Anthony Woodville and Richard III being personal favorites.

[crazy canuck]

Rereading The Guns of August and it's just as good a read as I remember it.

I was wondering about giving it another read through.

[The Brain]

Finished The Wars of the Roses: Politics and the constitution in England c.1437-1509, by Carpenter. From 1997, so doesn't include any more modern results. Seemed fairly OK, a plausible description of how kingship was supposed to work in late-medieval England, and the impact on political life of a completely incompetent king. The author has strong positive/negative views on various people, but seems to be open about it and discusses different opinions. One thing seemed odd to me: she twice states that it was a mistake by Edward IV not to kill Henry VI earlier, but she doesn't say why. My impression has always been that keeping Henry VI alive made perfect sense as long as his son was at large. As long as Henry lived his wife and son could only claim to act in his name/interest, and being in possession of Henry allowed a number of different cards to be played if needed. If Henry had been killed earlier then his son could have claimed, not unreasonably, to be the true King of England. A shame that she doesn't elaborate on why she thinks killing Henry before killing his son would have been a good idea.

As Habs and CC mention, damn strange line of thought there. Out of curiosity, who are some of her personal favorites/villains? I've always been a big Yorkist fan myself with Anthony Woodville and Richard III being personal favorites.

Loves: Edward IV
Hates: Henry VI and Richard III