Grand unified books thread

[Habbaku]

Thanks, but not available as Kindle, it seems, and decent editions seem to go for silly prices.

The Kindle hold-up is understandable, but used editions go for ~$8-10. I suppose the shipping might eat into that, though.

That makes me wonder: what are Austria/Vienna's libraries like?

[Syt]

I've never been to one. 

Cheapest option I see on German Amazon shop seems to be €30 for one volume, others being more expensive.

[Syt]

I got the two Sansom books to 1615. Nice enough but old.

I tend to be a bit wary of history books that are 30+ years old, because research and analysis will likely have advanced notably since then. There's exceptions, of course.

[Habbaku]

Ditto, but I think it depends on the subject matter. I am less leery of, say, medieval Japanese history from 30 years ago than I would be of, for example, WWII East Front from 30 years ago. Hurrah for the Herrenvolk! was all the rage, but these days...

[Habbaku]

I've never been to one. 

[Syt]

I've never been to one. 

I like owning books.

I just checked their online catalogue, no George Sansom books. I didn't check university libraries, though.

[Habbaku]

I'm the same in regards to owning books--my shelves keep having to grow to accommodate the new tomes--but libraries help me find the, er, less affordable histories. University library loan is the best.

[Savonarola]

I finished the museum guide to the Salvador Dalí Museum (the one in Saint Petersburg, FL.)  It was surprisingly in depth for a museum guide.

Surrealism is the one art movement that came out of the First World War that had legs^1..  It lasted for nearly two decades and generated international attention, even becoming an influence on Hollywood, everything from Hitchcock to Looney Tunes.  Dalí is almost synonymous with Surrealism, so I was amused to find out that he had been thrown out of the movement by André Breton.

I learned that Dalí's earliest works were influenced by Calatan Nationalism; which was all the rage when he was young.  Some things never go away.

Sometimes it's hard to know how much of Dalí's persona was a put on.  In the thirties he claimed to have sexual fantasies about Hitler in which Hitler was a woman.  I doubt that was any more than an attempt to get attention; but I thought it would be of interest to Languish.

I also learned that the Surrealist Movement was associated with Communism.  Due to Vigo, I had assumed that it was associated with Anarchism .

1.)  Other than Socialist Realism; but that's another story, comrades.

[The Brain]

I've started reading The Roman Army: A Social & Institutional History, by P. Southern. On page two I came across this:

The new Republican political system that replaced the rule of the kings was carefully thought out, owing nothing to its regal antecedents.

My understanding from other sources is that the changes made in the transition to republic were in fact very small (though not unimportant), the Romans essentially just putting a time limit on the office of king and splitting it in two. Which is it? I hate it when I read weird stuff in the beginning of a book, if I feel that the author cannot be trusted factwise then I find it hard to muster the energy to read the rest of the book. Please tell me what I've missed here, I'd love to be able to trust the book on basic stuff.

[Oexmelin]

I've started reading The Roman Army: A Social & Institutional History, by P. Southern. On page two I came across this:

The new Republican political system that replaced the rule of the kings was carefully thought out, owing nothing to its regal antecedents.

My understanding from other sources is that the changes made in the transition to republic were in fact very small (though not unimportant), the Romans essentially just putting a time limit on the office of king and splitting it in two. Which is it? I hate it when I read weird stuff in the beginning of a book, if I feel that the author cannot be trusted factwise then I find it hard to muster the energy to read the rest of the book. Please tell me what I've missed here, I'd love to be able to trust the book on basic stuff.

Pat Southern takes a position in an ongoing historical debate by making it as if there was nothing uncertain about it. Short story: later Romans (our main sources for that event) portrayed their Republican institutions as having changed overnight to accommodate new conceptions of freedom. Historians disagree whether it was a matter of fact, or whether it was later development ascribed to an earlier beginning than historically, to reinforce an ideological point. It would have been better to be a little more circumspect.

My classicist colleague recommends: The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992)

[The Brain]

I've started reading The Roman Army: A Social & Institutional History, by P. Southern. On page two I came across this:

The new Republican political system that replaced the rule of the kings was carefully thought out, owing nothing to its regal antecedents.

My understanding from other sources is that the changes made in the transition to republic were in fact very small (though not unimportant), the Romans essentially just putting a time limit on the office of king and splitting it in two. Which is it? I hate it when I read weird stuff in the beginning of a book, if I feel that the author cannot be trusted factwise then I find it hard to muster the energy to read the rest of the book. Please tell me what I've missed here, I'd love to be able to trust the book on basic stuff.

Pat Southern takes a position in an ongoing historical debate by making it as if there was nothing uncertain about it. Short story: later Romans (our main sources for that event) portrayed their Republican institutions as having changed overnight to accommodate new conceptions of freedom. Historians disagree whether it was a matter of fact, or whether it was later development ascribed to an earlier beginning than historically, to reinforce an ideological point. It would have been better to be a little more circumspect.

My classicist colleague recommends: The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992)

Thank you. My understanding is and has been that the republican political system was constantly under development, with many things associated with the more mature republic appearing in stages after the overthrow of the kings. My impression is that Southern is being at best misleading here (and my guess is that she is being simply wrong), I'm likely to avoid reading her book since I don't feel I can trust her.

[crazy canuck]

Beard deals with the foundational myth making of the Republic in SPQR - a good antidote to Southern

[Oexmelin]

I have been mostly reading for work these days (years?) but Joane Freedman's latest book may be of interest to you. Sav was following her online course on the American Revolution recently. It's about physical violence on the floor of Congress, and the erosion of norms...

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374154776

[Syt]

Beard deals with the foundational myth making of the Republic in SPQR - a good antidote to Southern

Second that.

[Savonarola]

One of the jokes in Futurama is that Fry uses an antiquated pronunciation of the word "Ask" in the thirty first century it's pronounced "Axe".  I thought of that when reading selections from the Canterbury Tales; in the Pardoner's tale "Ask" is written as "Axe." The grammarians were right all along; our language is devolving... back to Middle English.