Grand unified books thread

[Sheilbh]

We are risk of falling into the semantic rabbit hole: "Dictator" is name for a particular office under the Roman Republic - one that changed over time - but is also and English word of common usage connoting any ruler at any time with pretenses towards exercise of total or absolute power.  In the latter common English sense an absolutist monarch could qualify, although of course one can make meaningful distinctions between 17th/18th century monarchies on the one hand and both the Roman Republic dictator and 20th century dictators on the other.

So I know nothing about Roman history and wouldn't get involved in that. But if someone asked me if, say, Charles I or Louis XIV was a dictator or even trying to be a dictator I feel liked I'd say "sort of, but". While - I wouldn't hesitate with saying the great totalitarians are dictators. And I sort of feel like there's value in trying to understand that difference. The interesting stuff is often in the "yes, but" answers.

[crazy canuck]

  One of the differences is that Cincinnatus both gained and gave up power according to the norms and laws of the early Roman republic which anticipated Hobbes by recognizing that there were times when a Leviathan is needed if only for a limited period of time.  Modern day dictators warp the norms and laws of their societies to become an approximation of Leviathan but lacking the legitimacy which would otherwise attach to the exercise of that power if accepted norms and laws had been followed.

We are risk of falling into the semantic rabbit hole: "Dictator" is name for a particular office under the Roman Republic - one that changed over time - but is also and English word of common usage connoting any ruler at any time with pretenses towards exercise of total or absolute power.  In the latter common English sense an absolutist monarch could qualify, although of course one can make meaningful distinctions between 17th/18th century monarchies on the one hand and both the Roman Republic dictator and 20th century dictators on the other.

The reason we use the word of Roman origin for our own modern version of a dictator is that the Roman office held many of the same powers.  But there are of course differences which I started to describe.  I agree with Oex that using that term for a Monarchy is a bit of a stretch.  It is similar to the mistake of thinking about Feudal territories as states or countries.

[The Brain]

Started on Julian Jackson's The Fall Of France. The author writes "In the 'Battle of Hannut', which was the first tank battle in history (in the First World War there had only been tanks on the Allied side), ...". Er... wut? I'd like to think that a Professor of Modern History knows about German tanks in WW1 (both German built and captured Allied tanks), and knows about the Polish campaign in 1939, and possibly about the Spanish Civil War or the Sino-Japanese War or Khalkhin Gol (I don't remember if there was real tank-on-tank combat in these)... If he thinks that all previous tank battles were too insignificant to be considered real tank battles (maybe not obviously unreasonable, but fairly pointless), then he probably should say so to avoid uncertainty. The same with the number of German tanks in WW1. Fuck. I had high hopes for this book. I might continue reading it, but if I do it will be with a big bag of salt at hand.

[Malthus]

The first tank on tank battle is usually thought to have been the second battle of Villers-Bretonneux, where three British Mark IV tanks fought three German A7Vs - in 1918.

The Battle of Hannut was certainly the largest tank on tank battle up to its time, but clearly not the first  - unless the earlier ones don't count as being too insignificant.

[Agelastus]

The first tank on tank battle is usually thought to have been the second battle of Villers-Bretonneux, where three British Mark IV tanks fought three German A7Vs - in 1918.

Interesting; I'm fairly sure in older history books the first tank on tank battle was listed as an engagement between British tanks and British tanks captured by the Germans (a male and 2 female tanks on one of the sides?) Unfortunately, I am certain I don't have that reference in my somewhat limited personal library and it's not obviously online anywhere.

[The Brain]

Started on Holland's The War In The West: Germany Ascendant 1939-1941. The first thing in the book is a map of the world from Alaska to Persia, labeled July 1939. Finland appears to have been given its post-1944 borders. Sigh. I don't get these things. It's at best incredibly sloppy, and at worst extremely ignorant. I will probably try the text, see if it's better. The book is on double secret probation though.

[grumbler]

Having published history books, i can tell you that the author has little control over what maps appear and how accurate they are.  Don't judge a book's text by its maps.

[The Brain]

Having published history books, i can tell you that the author has little control over what maps appear and how accurate they are.  Don't judge a book's text by its maps.

Indeed. If the author's text had said "1944 borders trololol", then I would have stopped reading instantly. I hope the text holds up, and I haven't come across anything too bad so far.

[Josephus]

Having published history books, i can tell you that the author has little control over what maps appear and how accurate they are.  Don't judge a book's text by its maps.

But the author should have had a chance to look at the final proof.

[grumbler]

Having published history books, i can tell you that the author has little control over what maps appear and how accurate they are.  Don't judge a book's text by its maps.

But the author should have had a chance to look at the final proof.

He might get a chance to look at it, but he cannot force any changes to anything except the text.  If he says the map isn't accurate and the publisher says "I don't care," then the inaccurate map is what get published.

[Threviel]

Brainy should perhaps stop reading popular histories and rather dive in to academic discourses.

[The Brain]

Brainy should perhaps stop reading popular histories and rather dive in to academic discourses.

What's a good academic text on early WW2 Allied strategy?

[Sheilbh]

Might be worth seeing if any of those recent books you've bought have decent bibliographies? That's normally my first go to - get a generalist book and check bibliography for more detailed/interesting direction.

[Threviel]

I don't know, I'm not even qualified enough to find the faults that you find.

It's just that you know very much and many popular histories are, as you yourself often prove, of dubious quality. To deepen your understanding you should perhaps give academia a chance. I'm quite sure that there are a few doctoral thesises around about the early war in the west. glhf.

[The Brain]

I don't know, I'm not even qualified enough to find the faults that you find.

It's just that you know very much and many popular histories are, as you yourself often prove, of dubious quality. To deepen your understanding you should perhaps give academia a chance. I'm quite sure that there are a few doctoral thesises around about the early war in the west. glhf.

You certainly have a point. It's just that when I read a popular history by a real historian from academia, and s/he doesn't stay on the fairway, I get frustrated, and in my rage I forget the riddle of steel and leave it on the battlefield.