Grand unified books thread

[Savonarola]

I was listening to a series of online lectures about ancient Greece which covered the Iliad, among other things.  One of the points that the lecturer made, which I found interesting, is that Achilles is the hero that never cut the apron strings.  When things go bad he can (and does) go cry to mom.

Another was that the conflict arises over two distinct ideas of power.  Achilles is the mightiest warrior, even without his magical talking horses and divine armor he's still the strongest and the toughest.  Agamemnon is the richest, and has brought the most number of ships.

One point that I thought was kind of funny is; how does everyone know Achilles' fate?  He knows it, presumably Thetis had told him; but how do his talking horses know it?  And how does Hector know it (and in such detail)?

[Malthus]

I was listening to a series of online lectures about ancient Greece which covered the Iliad, among other things.  One of the points that the lecturer made, which I found interesting, is that Achilles is the hero that never cut the apron strings.  When things go bad he can (and does) go cry to mom.

Another was that the conflict arises over two distinct ideas of power.  Achilles is the mightiest warrior, even without his magical talking horses and divine armor he's still the strongest and the toughest.  Agamemnon is the richest, and has brought the most number of ships.

One point that I thought was kind of funny is; how does everyone know Achilles' fate?  He knows it, presumably Thetis had told him; but how do his talking horses know it?  And how does Hector know it (and in such detail)?

One of the more amusing lectures I remember from my undergraduate days was on the anthropology of warfare in the Iliad.

The basic thesis was this: the stories were written about a 'civilized' war, but they reflect war as practiced by 'uncivilized' peoples.

The Iliad was written about a war that allegedly happened during the latter part of the Mycenaean civilization; however, it was transmitted orally for centuries during the Greek "dark ages", only being written down long after, when those dark ages were over. The Mycenaean civilization was a lot more 'civilized' in its approach to war, with something approaching standing armies (including hundreds of chariots - there's a surviving script in "Linear B" about a king's storage of spare chariot-wheels).

In the Iliad, though, although chariots are mentioned, no-one uses them in the way they would have been used during the Mycenaean period - they just drive them to the battle, hop off, and fight on foot.

Moreover, those fights resemble battles between 'uncivilized' peoples more than state on state battles - there is nothing like a shield wall, individual champions pick each other out of the press, etc. 

Also, some speculation that the "wooden horse" that ends the siege may be a garbled reference to some sort of siege-machine, like a siege tower or a housing for a battering-ram.

[Savonarola]

One of the more amusing lectures I remember from my undergraduate days was on the anthropology of warfare in the Iliad.

The basic thesis was this: the stories were written about a 'civilized' war, but they reflect war as practiced by 'uncivilized' peoples.

The Iliad was written about a war that allegedly happened during the latter part of the Mycenaean civilization; however, it was transmitted orally for centuries during the Greek "dark ages", only being written down long after, when those dark ages were over. The Mycenaean civilization was a lot more 'civilized' in its approach to war, with something approaching standing armies (including hundreds of chariots - there's a surviving script in "Linear B" about a king's storage of spare chariot-wheels).

In the Iliad, though, although chariots are mentioned, no-one uses them in the way they would have been used during the Mycenaean period - they just drive them to the battle, hop off, and fight on foot.

Moreover, those fights resemble battles between 'uncivilized' peoples more than state on state battles - there is nothing like a shield wall, individual champions pick each other out of the press, etc. 

Also, some speculation that the "wooden horse" that ends the siege may be a garbled reference to some sort of siege-machine, like a siege tower or a housing for a battering-ram.

I've heard that about the wooden horse; I've also heard that it might be a metaphor for an earthquake since both horses and earthquakes are sacred to Poseidon.  (IIRC there's some archaeological evidence which suggests that at least one of the Troys was destroyed by an earthquake.)

It is interesting that the people carrying on the story kept the chariots in the story, even though it's obvious that, by the time the story achieved its final form, they had no idea how a chariot was used.  Another thing I've heard about the Iliad and Odyssey in regards to their lower level of sophistication as compared to the Mycenaean period is that the queens in the books are usually weaving or spinning cloth; something that the queens of the Mycenaean period almost certainly never did.

[Jacob]

The People vs Democracy - a Harvard prof paints a very dim future for the survival of Liberal Democracy and then sets out to propose ways it might be saved.  But his solutions were not very convincing and so I came away persuaded that we are at the end of the period of Liberal Democracy and entering an age of populist politics or technocrats.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674976825

I'm interested in hearing a bit more on this - what does Yascha Mounk suggest, and why is it unconvincing - so I started new thread: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,15539.0.html

[Maladict]

One point that I thought was kind of funny is; how does everyone know Achilles' fate?  He knows it, presumably Thetis had told him; but how do his talking horses know it?  And how does Hector know it (and in such detail)?

Probably because the gods know and the gossiping maniacs can't help themselves.

[The Brain]

Just finished Richard Ayoade's book The Grip of Film. Entertaining, but it was more focused on 80s action movies than I had realized. It's probably best if you have seen at least some of those (I have).

[Syt]

I was picking up a history magazine about the Cold War the other day at the book store, and they also had a new Cold War book that came out in 2017: The Cold War: A World History by Odd Arne Westad

https://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-World-History/dp/0465054935

Two chapters in, liking it so far.

[Savonarola]

Classics of literature survive, in part, because they continue to speak to us even though they come from a different time or place.  In turn each era, to some degree, recreates the work appropriate to their own age (for example Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes vs Robert Downey Jr.'s)  This headline from the BBC struck me as funny:

Heathcliff and Literature's Greatest Love Story are Toxic.

The Byronic hero, condemned by his toxic masculinity.   

[Habbaku]

I recently finished the entire Expanse series, which I started reading when the show got canceled, then re-upped. It has its ups and downs, and the weakness is definitely in characterization throughout the series, but the plot is strong and I'm really, really eager to get the 8th book this December.

Unrelated: does anyone in the Languish brain trust have a recommendation for reading on Charlemagne or the early Medieval period?

[crazy canuck]

Perhaps a bit dated now, but I enjoyed this

https://www.amazon.ca/Charlemagne-Father-Continent-Alessandro-Barbero/dp/0520239431/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1533949364&sr=8-2&keywords=charlemagne

[Habbaku]

Dated and from 2004? I think that might do the trick. I'm not sure how much groundbreaking work is being done in that realm. 

Thanks!

[crazy canuck]

Dated and from 2004? I think that might do the trick. I'm not sure how much groundbreaking work is being done in that realm. 

Thanks!

I see the world through the perspective of my sons' POV 

I hope you enjoy it.

[Razgovory]

Finished a book on the Venetian Empire City of Fortune.  Disappointing.  The book says nothing about government structure of Venice and very little on trade practices.  Mostly about military actions in the Eastern Mediterranean.  Oddly didn't even mention the Italian Wars.  It begins with Sack of Constantinople an ends in early 16th century with the collapse of the Mediterranean spice trade and the rise of the Ottoman empire.

[The Brain]

Had to guit another book. Napoleonic Warfare: The Operational Art of the Great Campaigns, by Kuehn. The author spends a lot of time on various definitions of operational level and what parts are required for an operational level (which is a warning sign, people talking a lot about definitions are often more interested in a system than in understanding, and I guess also often feel out of their depth on the issue but writing about definitions is something everyone can do). He quotes other historians for no apparent reason (huge warning sign). In many ways the text felt like student work. What finally made me close the book was the following. "Austrian regular infantry was composed primarily of the many storied imperial regiments known to history as the Kaiserliche (German for imperial)." What the hell dude.

And when I checked, lo and behold the author is a professor at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. I have to remember to check these things before clicking buy.

[The Brain]

Instead I started on Towards the Flame: Empire, War and the End of Tsarist Russia, by Lieven. I just finished his Russia Against Napoleon, which I enjoyed. I may not agree with everything he writes but he generally seems to know his stuff and writes well. Towards the Flame seems to be good too, one little thing struck me as odd though so far. When talking about Muscovy/Russia's imperial achievement he says "No other great empire was ever created in such northern latitudes...". Er... Moscow isn't exactly up north, it's on the same latitude as such empire-building bumblers as the UK. And if he means that it's somehow harder for Europeans to build empires in the temperate zone than in say the tropics then he doesn't say why. And I assume he means that the Mongol empire wasn't great or didn't include enough of Northern Siberia, which is fair enough. Edit: And obviously that Canada (as part of the Empire) doesn't count, also fair enough.