Grand unified books thread

[Gups]

Don't disagree with you or with the review.

That said, I don't think it's really possible to do a decent entry level narrative overview of Roman history. Not in one volume any way.

I also like the fact that Beard acknowledges the uncertainty and imperfection of historical knowledge.

[The Minsky Moment]

I haven't read the Beard book - that review makes it more likely I will.   Accurate knowledge about the ancient past is very slippery and a suitably hedging presentation is preferable to a more coherent, but unreliable narrative.

[garbon]

It is very fun.

[Malthus]

I haven't read the Beard book - that review makes it more likely I will.   Accurate knowledge about the ancient past is very slippery and a suitably hedging presentation is preferable to a more coherent, but unreliable narrative.

Preferable depending on what you are reading it for and your level of knowledge of the subject.

In this case, the ask was for an entry-level one-volume book on Roman history. For that use, I would not mind a coherent if unreliable narrative. One has to know the basic narrative (unreliable though it be) before the controversies and hedging makes any sense.

Some history books can be very frustrating for this reason - they are reacting against an established narrative, and so they rely on the reader already having a close knowledge of that established narrative (which the author of course has). If the reader lacks that knowledge, they can't really follow the arguments, and so they won't learn much from the book.

[The Minsky Moment]

One of the first history books I read on late antiquity/early ME was a monograph by Walter Goffart on barbarian land settlements, attacking the prevailing view on those settlements.  I then proceeded to read a number of other books in the vein, although broader thematically.  It'a way of jumping in to a particular area.  In the era of Wikipedia where basic information on people and dates is easily available it's a workable strategy, although I could see why others might not like doing it that way.

[11B4V]

Done




Time to compare with it with Cordesman & Wagner's book I read a few years ago. The above book has the benefit of the tape recorded staff/planning meetings captured in 2003. Saddam recorded all of them during the war. Not that he was paranoid or anything.



also these
I N S T I T U T E F O R D E F E N S E A N A L Y S E S
IDA Document D-3530
Project 1946


I N S T I T U T E F O R D E F E N S E A N A L Y S E S
IDA Document D-4121
July 2010
Project 1946: Phase II

[CountDeMoney]

   Saddam, how we miss you so. You fucking psycho.

Hey, 11B, you ever read Grau's Soviet stuff, like

[11B4V]

  Saddam, how we miss you so. You fucking psycho.

Hey, 11B, you ever read Grau's Soviet stuff, like

That is on the list. Recommended?

Amazon

Definitely a manual/lessons learned for Soviet leaders or those who have to read it for a class, etc...

Right up my alley. Give me the facts not a story.

[Malthus]

One of the first history books I read on late antiquity/early ME was a monograph by Walter Goffart on barbarian land settlements, attacking the prevailing view on those settlements.  I then proceeded to read a number of other books in the vein, although broader thematically.  It'a way of jumping in to a particular area.  In the era of Wikipedia where basic information on people and dates is easily available it's a workable strategy, although I could see why others might not like doing it that way.

Sure, that can work for some. Trigger an interest and all that. 

But if someone asked for "a good but entry level book into the history of late antiquity", it would be slightly odd to hand them "a monograph by Walter Goffart on barbarian land settlements, attacking the prevailing view on those settlements".  It just isn't what they asked for, exactly.

[CountDeMoney]

That is on the list. Recommended?

Amazon

Definitely a manual/lessons learned for Soviet leaders or those who have to read it for a class, etc...

Right up my alley. Give me the facts not a story.

Lol, yeah, it's very AAR....I understand Grau gets some flak somewhat for "cornering the market" on post-Cold War Soviet military studies--maybe even still?--but IMHO, he works with sooo much primary source material, it's hard not to give him the nod. 

As far as self-examinationgoes, I think it's a pretty open and (for Russians, somewhat surprisingly) candid acknowledgement of their failures, particularly early in the conflict. 

How do you prosecute a set-piece doctrine when the other side has no pieces?   

[11B4V]

How very Glantzian of him. 

[garbon]

One of the first history books I read on late antiquity/early ME was a monograph by Walter Goffart on barbarian land settlements, attacking the prevailing view on those settlements.  I then proceeded to read a number of other books in the vein, although broader thematically.  It'a way of jumping in to a particular area.  In the era of Wikipedia where basic information on people and dates is easily available it's a workable strategy, although I could see why others might not like doing it that way.

Sure, that can work for some. Trigger an interest and all that. 

But if someone asked for "a good but entry level book into the history of late antiquity", it would be slightly odd to hand them "a monograph by Walter Goffart on barbarian land settlements, attacking the prevailing view on those settlements".  It just isn't what they asked for, exactly.

One book I thought that was quite good for piecing together a chronological history of Rome for a novice who is historically inclined (though old and suffering from the stance of portraying things as immutable facts) is 'A History of Rome To A.D. 565' by William G. Sinnigen & Arthur E.R. Boak. Appears first edition was 1921 but was at least a regularly updated text book into 1977 with Sinnigen taking over for a sixth edition once Boak was dead.

Various versions seem to be available on Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk.

[Maladict]

Can anyone suggest a good book on Alexander the Great?

I've always enjoyed the various works by A.B. Bosworth and N.G.L. Hammond.
Maybe not entry level stuff, though.

[jimmy olsen]

Can anyone suggest a good book on Alexander the Great?

I've always enjoyed the various works by A.B. Bosworth and N.G.L. Hammond.
Maybe not entry level stuff, though.

Thanks for the rec. I'll take a look.

[Gups]

Can anyone suggest a good book on Alexander the Great?

I've always enjoyed the various works by A.B. Bosworth and N.G.L. Hammond.
Maybe not entry level stuff, though.

Thanks for the rec. I'll take a look.

I read one by Robin Lane Fox a few years ago. I remember it being good but not outstanding. It's quite scholarly and he does question sources etc.