History, Histories, and Historical Novels [Archive]

Pompey Bum

01-21-2015, 05:01 PM

Anyway, the "proximate cause" of the thread (to talk like a historian) was a conversation with Manichaean on another thread, about the British Empire:

Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN
This may seem to many a strange gripe, but you must admit there was a certain stability in international affairs, and standards were more respected at the time of the British Empire. The formula was simple. We went in with the army or positioned a warship offshore and took control of large tracts of the globe, ostensibly before the French, Spanish, Germans or Portuguese did. The result was we imposed a unifying knowledge of the English language, (no aberrations with Microsoft Word Check in those days), imposed law and order, taught the inhabitants how to play cricket and gave them membership of the Commonwealth where they all got to have a common appreciation of the British sovereign and sing God Save the King / Queen. Unfair and colonial? Of course it was. Having fought over a long history every race and country then existing, (with perhaps the omission of Thailand and the Eskimos), they generally all acquiesced in what seemed a more peaceful planet. There were of course the odd insurgencies e.g. the Crimea, the Boers, the Mau Mau, Napoleon, the Opium Wars and the Kaiser, but overall there were no cyber-attacks, international terrorists or nuclear warfare scenarios. There also seemed, (and I am now showing my age), a degree of manners and maturity of behaviour. One queued, gave up a seat to a woman, did not wear torn jeans, have tattoos on ones spine, studs through the tongue or regard oneself as poverty stricken in not owning a TV, fridge, car or the latest brand of trainers.
Originally Posted by Pompey Bum
The Empire was a little before my time, except for Cyprus, and Kenya, and the Gulf of Aden--that sort of thing. But I can understand a certain amount of nostalgia for it among the British. There were terrorists in those days, though, even the occasional militant Islamist (remember the Mahdi army?) And the Opium Wars were probably more than an aberration. Still, to be honest, when I look at the hell that much of Africa is now, I sometimes wonder how much of a benefit it was to a place like Nigeria to have become independent when it did. Putting such considerations aside, however, the British Empire was a grand historical epoch that deserves to be better understood and more written about than it is now. That doesn't, of course, excuse the "aberrations," but the judgment of PC seems to be to pretend that the Empire never happened. Better to understand the truth--warts and all. Clio can be a funny girl sometimes. And hell hath no fury like a muse scorned.

By the way, I've found some amazing primary sources on the Empire (officer's memoirs, soldiers diaries, etc) available for free downloads at Gutenberg and Internet Archive. If you're interested, I'll can give you the titles.
First of all, I apologize to Manichaean for misquoting him. On rereading his post, I see he did not refer to the Opium Wars as "an aberration" but as "isolated insurgencies." I don't agree about that either, but much of what he says about the Empire bears consideration. One of my gripes about the period is that no one seems to want to talk much about it. Many 21st century Britons seem to see it as an embarrassment, while not a few post-colonial states appear to be interested in little more than constructing a British boogie man against which their own sometimes brutal and thuggish regimes may seem justified. That is obviously not the case for some former members of the Empire, but limiting (or "reframing") historical memory seems to me to be a common theme.

Oh and I also want to provide Manichaean (and anyone else interested) with the primary sources I mentioned. Read the one's from Internet Archive online, or download them in a compatible format to whatever you're using. You should end up with a photocopy, otherwise it will probably be very defective.

I don't know if you (speaking to Manichaean here, I suppose) have ever heard of Wilfrid/Wilfred Scawen Blunt, a Victorian and Edwardian poet who was also a minor agent and somewhat anti-imperialistic loose-cannon-about-the-empire (a famous bon mot of his was: "The white man's burden is the burden of his cash.") Blunt was the author of a little known (I'd never heard of it, anyway) "secret history" of what he knew about British doings throughout the Empire. There is:

The Secret History of the English Occupation of Egypt: being a personal narrative of events

The Land War in Ireland: being a personal narrative of events in continuation of The Secret History of the English Occupation of Egypt

Gordon of Khartoum: being a personal narrative of events in continuation of The Secret History of the English Occupation of Egypt

India Under Ripon: a private diary by Wilfrid Scawen Blunt continued from his Secret History of the English Occupation of Egypt

My Diaries Part I: the scramble for Africa

My Diaries Part II: the coalition against Germany

Atrocities of Justice Under British Rule in Egypt

Those are all available for free at Internet Archive (in photocopy, which is even cooler).

Internet Archive also has the remarkable Great Game-ish memoir: Narrative of a Mission to Bokara 1843-1845: to ascertain the fate of Colonel Stoddart and Captain Conolly by the Dr. Joseph Wolf.

If you are familiar with the history of the Empire, you probably know about the British agents Stoddart and Conolly, and their notorious captivity in the Emir of Bokara's vermin pit. This is the narrative that made it (and them) world famous, written by a missionary who led a humanitarian expedition to find out what had happened to them (and barely escaped alive).

There is also The Indian Mutiny of 1857-1858 (sometimes called Kale and Malleson's The Indian Mutiny of 1857-185) a six-volume contemporaneous account of the brutal race war that the British have long called the Mutiny, but which many Indian historians now call the Rebellion. The work is based on minute accounts by British officers on the spot. Look for the second version, in which the final editor, Colonel Malleson, incorporated the work of his predecessor, Sir John Kayle (who died after completing the first two volumes).

There is also Gallipoli Diary (in two volumes) by Sir Ian Hamilton, presented essentially as apologetic for the debacle by one of the officers upon whom much blame fell. And for a common soldier's viewpoint, there is John Gallishaw's Trenching at Gallipoli: The Personal Narrative of a Newfoundlander in the Ill-Fated Dardanelles Expedition.

While you are at Internet Archives, you can also get The Afghan Wars 1839-1842 [the Elphinstone disaster] and 1878-1880 [the one that Dr Watson fought in] by British war correspondent Archibald Forbes. Also the more propagandistic Lord Roberts of Kandahar, V.C.: the Life-story of a Great Soldier by Walter Jerrold; and another biography of Roberts: Lord Roberts, V.C. by Sir George Forrest. These seem to be volumes for patriotic clubs and general consumption "back home." Lord Roberts was a hero of Afghanistan and very well known once, although I'm not sure many people have heard of him today.

Okay, that's all free from Internet Archives, along with a huge amount more, no doubt. What I have here is just the result of a day or so of "happy hunting." Likewise Gutenberg surely has more than I have turned up, so you (Manichaean) may want to explore some for yourself. As it is, I have only a handful, including: South African Memories by Lady Sarah Isabella Augusta Wilson; My Reminiscences of the Anglo-Boor War by General Ben Viljoen, Assistant Commandant-General of the Transvaal Burgher Forces and Member for Johannesburg in the Transvaal Volksraad; and A Sketch of the K*fir and Zulu Wars: Guadana to Islandhlwana by Henry Hallam Parr. (If you thought primary British Empire history was hard to get hold of, try anything having to do with South Africa!)

Pompey Bum

01-21-2015, 05:09 PM

Double post. It's history now. :)

Iain Sparrow

01-21-2015, 05:37 PM

I much prefer histories that focus in detail on a specific person or people and events, within the broader arena of a particular era. I would rather get an intimate look at such people and events as opposed to the epic histories, which seem to always leave me feeling as if I just attended a very long lecture.

One example is, Empire of Blue Water: Captain Morgan's Great Pirate Army, the Epic Battle for the Americas, and the Catastrophe That Ended the Outlaws' Bloody Reign... which I read last year. It's within the context of the Golden Age of Piracy, but follows Captain Morgan's life and times. Another book I quite enjoyed was, Blood Royal: A True Tale of Crime and Detection in Medieval Paris. The backdrop is the epic history most of us are already familiar with, but featuring certain personalities and events that are missed, or hardly covered in history books.

I also love sociology... human behavior in proper context, to how we behave and why we do the things we do in the context of historical events and movements. I read Jon Ronson's Lost at Sea, a series of vignettes that say more about us then we'd like to admit. He does it with minimal condescension and loads of humor, and you find yourself feeling some sympathy for terribly misguided people.

NikolaiI

01-21-2015, 05:58 PM

Iain, have you read much by James Michener? I've only read a couple, but they were some of the best/most enjoyable novels I've ever read. They do exactly what you mention exceptionally well.

Iain Sparrow

01-21-2015, 06:13 PM

Iain, have you read much by James Michener? I've only read a couple, but they were some of the best/most enjoyable novels I've ever read. They do exactly what you mention exceptionally well.

I read Tales of the South Pacific in high school, and methinks because I was so young I couldn't appreciate it. Since then though, I've read Space, and also Caravans, both of which I enjoyed and for the reasons you mention. Even fictional stories, or tweaked histories (alternate history) I find very enjoyable. Books like The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco, and The Alienist by Caleb Carr are historical in nature.
And I also need to mention a book I read last year which was a kind of history lesson, with some really creepy history... The Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair that Changed America, by Erik Larson.

Pompey Bum

01-21-2015, 06:14 PM

I much prefer histories that focus in detail on a specific person or people and events, within the broader arena of a particular era. I would rather get an intimate look at such people and events as opposed to the epic histories, which seem to always leave me feeling as if I just attended a very long lecture.

One example is, Empire of Blue Water: Captain Morgan's Great Pirate Army, the Epic Battle for the Americas, and the Catastrophe That Ended the Outlaws' Bloody Reign... which I read last year. It's within the context of the Golden Age of Piracy, but follows Captain Morgan's life and times. Another book I quite enjoyed was, Blood Royal: A True Tale of Crime and Detection in Medieval Paris. The backdrop is the epic history most of us are already familiar with, but featuring certain personalities and events that are missed, or hardly covered in history books.

Personally I like the epic tomes, which usually make me feel like I've just attended a very expensive college course for free. :) But to each his own. Of the shorter, popular history sort of book you're talking about, you might like Over the Edge of the World: Magellan's Terrifying Circumnavigation of the Globe by Laurence Bergreen (especially if you like nautical history). There's no new scholarship in it, but the story is really gripping and oddly moving in parts. That voyage was rife with intrigue and skulduggery before it even set sail. There's another good one of that type called Nathaniel's Nutmeg, about the spice trade to the Indian Ocean and the violent competition between English and Dutch ships. Both are great reads, though neither are "cutting edge" history. If that's your cup of tea, though, I'd recommend both, especially the one about Magellan.

Iain Sparrow

01-21-2015, 06:19 PM

Personally I like the epic tomes, which usually make me feel like I've just attended a very expensive college course for free. :) But to each his own. Of the shorter, popular history sort of book you're talking about, you might like Over the Edge of the World: Magellan's Terrifying Circumnavigation of the Globe by Laurence Bergreen (especially if you like nautical history). There's no new scholarship in it, but the story is really gripping and oddly moving in parts. That fatal voyage was rife with intrigue before it ever set sail. There's another good one of that type called Nathaniel's Nutmeg, about the spice trade in the Indian Ocean and the violent competition between English and Dutch ships. Both are great reads, though neither are "cutting edge" history. If that's your cup of tea, though, I'd recommend both, especially the one about Magellan.

Both books sound like my cup of tea, I'll see if they're available at audiobook.com.
I tend to enjoy the seedy underbelly of history. :)

Pompey Bum

01-21-2015, 06:27 PM

Both books sound like my cup of tea, I'll see if they're available at audiobook.com.
I tend to enjoy the seedy underbelly of history. :)

Well, if you resd enough about history, you'll find that it's all seedy underbelly, really. :) But I'll give it some thought and see if I can come up with some seedy recommendations. (I read Devil in the White City, too, by the way, and yes, that guy retires the cup for creep).

NikolaiI

01-21-2015, 06:39 PM

I read Tales of the South Pacific in high school, and methinks because I was so young I couldn't appreciate it. Since then though, I've read Space, and also Caravans, both of which I enjoyed and for the reasons you mention. Even fictional stories, or tweaked histories (alternate history) I find very enjoyable. Books like The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco, and The Alienist by Caleb Carr are historical in nature.
And I also need to mention a book I read last year which was a kind of history lesson, with some really creepy history... The Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair that Changed America, by Erik Larson.

Mmhm. Yeah, that's why I thought of him. I remember Caribbean best. . also comes to mind since you mentioned Captain Morgan. So elucidating and fascinating. . really takes you there. I want to read Space, that's maybe next on my list of Michener books, and Poland I've heard is very good.

Another interesting book in history was Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, by Charles Mackay. Tells the story of John Law among other things.

Clopin

01-21-2015, 07:33 PM

Pompey Bum

01-21-2015, 08:23 PM

I tend to enjoy the seedy underbelly of history. :)

Okay got it. Try Midnight in Peking by Paul French, more of a historical true crime than a history, but well written (with the exception of one unintentionally funny line) and a hell of a lot of fun in any case. It's about the murder of a British Sinologist's daughter in a pre-Communist Beijing, full of apathetic, suicidal, former Russian aristocrats who have fled the Bolsheviks for feral lives of alcoholism and prostitution, and haunted, desperate Chinese who are expecting the Japanese to march in and butcher them any day.

It's a quick read but not mindless. What was interesting and kind of strange to me was that I had read a book by the Sinologist father a few years ago. It was a little unsettling to have an author (particularly the author of a somewhat dry book) suddenly become a very human character in a historical mystry.

You might want to check this one out, Iain. It definitely qualifies as "seedy underbelly" material.

MANICHAEAN

01-21-2015, 09:38 PM

Thanks Pompey

Interesting thread, and as you promised some good potential reference material.

I’ve read a number of books on the British Empire, or related aspects / personalities, and the ones that initially come to mind are:

1. Churchill:
• The River War, covering the Mahdist War of 1881-99. All good stuff, full of desert treks in the Soudan, stiff upper lips, confronting the Dervishes and revenging General Gordan.
• The Story of the Malakand Field Force. A story in the authors inimitable style about his adventures in the 1897 North West Frontier campaign, in what is now Pakistan.
• London to Ladysmith via Pretoria. This book is about the Boer War and once again based on Churchill’s first hand experiences; so much more refreshing in flavour than dry research. I went out myself to Natal and toured around all the old battlefields on the 100 Year Anniversary of this particular conflict, (also the Zulu battlefields). Fascinating country full of history. Even stood at the spot where Churchill was taken prisoner by the Boers when the train he was on was ambushed and derailed.

2. Charles Allen:

• Plain Tales from the Raj. Delightful set of reminiscenses by British residents from Imperial India at a time of benign autocracy. These persons were still alive at the time the book was published, and sadly came across as ducks out of water in UK retirement.

3. David Gilmour:
• Curzon. Masterly autobiography of Lord Curzon, Governor General and Viceroy of India under Queen Victoria.

4. Margery Perham:
• Main authority on Lord Lugard, 1st Governor-General of the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. Good background material for me when I worked there for six years.

5. Charles Miller:
• “The Lunatic Express, An Entertainment in Imperialism.” All about the daring-do enterprise and the adventures of a bunch of “good chaps” opening up East Africa with the construction of the Mombasa-Nairobi-Lake Victoria Railway.

Pompey Bum

01-21-2015, 10:11 PM

I don't really like reading history, especially anything relating to the 20th century and later because I never know what to believe and I find it frustrating that I can't just read a book about Mao, or WW2 and 'know' it because what I'm reading is almost definitely biased and flawed and it's hard to sort out what to believe without really extensive research that I'm not usually prepared to dedicate the time to.

Yes, reading real history (as opposed to fun popular narratives) involves a really different skill set than reading fiction. It requires first of all an appreciation that the past is gone and we don't know for sure what happened or why or what the implication is for us now. Not entirely, not for sure.

So first off you have to throw into the garbage the idea that history involves choosing whose truth to believe; or looking up what a textbook or Wikipedia says. It's more like, why does that guy say it was like this, why does this one say it was like that? What do either of them know that I don't know, and what are they trying to pull, and why?. And then, once you've answered those questions, what do I think happened, and why did it happen, and what do I think is the implication for us now?

In other words, it takes the clarity of critical thinking, and the courage to stand by your conclusions in the face of those with political axes to grind, who want to dictate to you (and everyone else) the view of history most expedient to getting what they want. (And I don't know about Canada, but there is quite a lot of that going around the United States these days). But the good news for you, Clopin, is that (from my observations in any case), you excel at exactly that kind of critical thinking (and God knows you don't lack the courage to defend your conclusions).

The other good news is that there is a historical literature that engages the reader at that level (critical history as opposed to "fun narratives"). That doesn't mean that a critical history won't have an academic ax to grind--it almost certainly will. You will have to figure out what it is (it's usually stated pretty clearly in the introduction) and question it constantly as you read. You will then learn what you can accept and what you must reject, and if you are the bright type (and let's face it, you are), you will be filled with your own ideas, too.

And yup, it takes some time to do that (scholarly histories are usually massive), but it's one of those things like reading literature that is a joy rather than a burden if it's for you.

I can defintively tell you what Chekhov means to me while I can't be so sure about people like Lenin, Mao, Gaddafi and Hitler.

You have no idea how funny that statement is. If you think that Lenin and Mao are hard to keep up with, try Charlemagne and Leo III. Try the historical Jesus for Christ sake! (Heh heh). It only get's harder with time, and if the subject has anything to do with sex, "gender," or religion, then you've got impassioned opponents on one side or another before you even start.

Then there's prehistory, where all you've got is archaeology. Anyone care about that? Ask them in Israel. Or the really remote stuff where all you have is fossils. Anyone ever get emotional about human less than critical about human evolution? You see why it takes a clear mind and a brave heart?

You'll have to do your own homework on Lenin and Gaddafi, but I will recommend two critical histories to you on other subjects: Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder, which is about the Hitler and Stalin regimes between 1930 and the death of Stalin in 1953; and The Tragedy of Liberation by Frank Dikotter, which is about the Maoist revolution in China from 1945 to 1957. Rather than restating the familiar interpretations, Bloodlands looks at the phenomenon of mass murder and purges in the same general area over the same general time period as a single phenomenon. In doing so, it remains critical while sidestepping familiar games of pointing fingers and calling names. The Tragedy of Liberation is definitely a history that Beijing does not want you to read, but neither is it one that Washington and Wall Street are not going to be untroubled with, either. Dikotter has written a second book, reportedly even more devastating, called Mao's Great Famine (I have not read it yet); but The Triumph of Liberation is the place to start. Obviously those are just suggestions. Always read only what you want.

mortalterror

01-21-2015, 11:08 PM

Favorite Historical Novel:
Three Musketeers, or Ivanhoe, really liked what I've read of The Last Days of Pompeii.

Favorite Historian:
Livy or Gibbon

Favorite Historical Period and Why:
Greco-Roman period. I like old things. I like their stories and their philosophies. Romans remind me of Americans.

Clopin

01-22-2015, 11:42 AM

But the good news for you, Clopin, is that (from my observations in any case), you excel at exactly that kind of critical thinking (and God knows you don't lack the courage to defend your conclusions).*

Well thank you, but sadly I'm just an internet tough guy and defending my often very unpopular conclusions in real life is another matter... Usually doing so just invites public ridicule of some sort, or some other brand of outrage based argument.

You have no idea how funny that statement is. If you think that Lenin and Mao are hard to keep up with, try Charlemagne and Leo III. Try the historical Jesus for Christ sake! (Heh heh). It only get's harder with time, and if the subject has anything to do with sex, "gender," or religion, then you've got impassioned opponents on one side or another before you even start.*

Yeh see I tend toward histories like Herodotus, Tacitus, Julius Caeser etc because at least I know I'm reading something of cultural and historic importance itself no matter how inaccrate or badly researched by todays standards. I don't think Charlemagne is as widely politicized as 20th century figures so I'm not as worried about agendas cropping up in my information... maybe that's naive though.

The last history book I read was Modern Times by Paul Johnson, which I liked but again... reading the reviews calls much of the information into question and now I have to determine whether Eisenhower and Nixon were good presidents and what effect Coolidge actually had on the economy and whether FDR was a great president or instead one of the worst, etc. I mean it will probably take at least six or seven thousand pages to barely get enough information to be able to say with any certainty what I think about even one of them, let alone four, let alone Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, The Weimar Republic, Bismarck, De Gaulle... etc etc. It feels like a lifelong discipline, though I recognize the importance.

Also...

Historical Novel - War and Peace I suppose, if it actually counts. The historical novel is not a genre I'm big on.

Historian - I don't have one. Maybe David Irving because I feel like he's mistreated though I've never read any of his books. Also from all the interviews and footage I've seen of him he just seems so awkward and naive about what he's saying and taking on haha, I found it endearing when he appeared to be very unguarded about admitting to being racist or whatever else. Uh but I've also read he wanted to start some sort of crazy neo nazi political party so ... I dunno.

Historical Period - Mmhm... I suppose 'right now' isn't really 'history' so I would have to say revolutionary France/the Napoleanic period and I like 1900 - 1945.

Pompey Bum

01-22-2015, 12:24 PM

Yeh see I tend toward histories like Herodotus, Tacitus, Julius Caeser etc because at least I know I'm reading something of cultural and historic importance itself no matter how inaccrate or badly researched by todays standards.

Try Gibbon if you get the chance. He's long, but his language is so rich that can stand with the greatest writers in English. If the whole thing is too much, just read the first volume or two. Also, if you like ancient histories, try Procopius' Secret History (with hilarious scenes of Theodora's stripper years). Or if you want an ancient novel, try Apuleius' Golden As s--better in Latin but worth it in Adlington's translation.

It feels like a lifelong discipline, though I recognize the importance.

Yes, it is lifelong, you know, in the same way that using reason instead of violence and the intimidation of violence is a lifestyle. History is really just an extension of that kind of thought. That's why it's so important to "civilization," in my opinion. But maybe your thing is lit. Still you should check out Gibbon at some point.

Clopin

01-22-2015, 12:30 PM

Yeh Gibbon is on my next reading cycle after I finish the last of my books here, I'll probably read the entire thing and I can't stand abridgements so it's the full six or however many volumes.

Actually one barrier to entry I have with history is unlike literature I never know what I want to be reading. I know what topics I want to cover, but I don't know which books are the most valuable. That's one good thing about havig such an established literary canon.

talleyrand

01-22-2015, 12:42 PM

I am starting this thread so that we have a place to discuss histories, historic novels, and history in general.

So, you know:

What is your favorite historical novel?

Who is your favorite historian?

What is your favorite historical period and why?

BUT NO LISTS!

(Just kidding. Do whatever you want).

I enjoyed reading the book "Le Comte De Monte Cristo" written by Alexandre Dumas, in addition the play "Lucrece Borgia" written by Victor Hugo.

I really admire the historian Simone Bertière because she has got wide knowledge and her essays as well as her novels are interesting and well-written. Furthermore, I like collecting old history books written by Malet and Isaac.

I am fascinated with the 19th Century and the beginnings of the 20th Century because there were lots of discoveries moreover revolutions: photography, blood transfusion, universal exhibitions and so on.

Pompey Bum

01-22-2015, 12:51 PM

Romans remind me of Americans.

They remind me a little of Americans, too. Or modern westerners, I suppose. Contrary to some of Bulwer-Lytton's ideas in Last Days of Pompeii, the Romans (by the time of the Empire anyway) loved diversity. Having lots of different kinds of people in their cities, and having exotic gods and temples everywhere, reminded them of how many places they had taken over. And that made them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. They were usually very tolerant of other religions. There was some ambivalence about Jews, but (outside of Alexandria), there was also a respect among educated Romans for the antiquity of Judaism (even if Roman satirists liked to pick on Jewish customs). But the Romans absolutely hated Christians, at least for the first three centuries or so. That was an exception, though, something 19th century writers like Bulwer-Lytton didn't really get. And it's still a misconception today, especially now that the legacy of Jew hatred has become so (deservedly) embarrassing to Christians. No worries, those intolerant Romans are now the bad guys. Happy endings all around!

Pompey Bum

01-22-2015, 01:16 PM

I enjoyed reading the book "Le Comte De Monte Cristo" written by Alexandre Dumas, in addition the play "Lucrece Borgia" written by Victor Hugo.

I really admire the historian Simone Bertière because she has got wide knowledge and her essays as well as her novels are interesting and well-written. Furthermore, I like collecting old history books written by Malet and Isaac.

I am fascinated with the 19th Century and the beginnings of the 20th Century because there were lots of discoveries moreover revolutions: photography, blood transfusion, universal exhibitions and so on.

Borgia is an interesting (if notorious) character. I wrote an epigram about her once:

Lucrezia Borgia popped the Pope,
Her dad at that, the dizzy dope!

I never read Hugo's play, though. Does he cast in the traditional debauched libertine or role or does he make her more sympathetic?

ladderandbucket

01-22-2015, 01:33 PM

I enjoy popular history, and books which follow ideas or patterns over long periods - I think this is known as the 'longue duree' approach. My experience of more scholarly history often involves a lot of skimming over details, whilst trying to stay focused on the overall theme. I don't know if that's how you're supposed to read those heavy kind of books. Sometimes I feel overwhelmed by facts, and know full well that 90% of them will be forgotten almost instantly.

Gibbon is a great read, and surprisingly welcoming for a non-intellectual like me.

My favourite history book is Norman Cohn's Pursuit of the Millennium - about utopian sects in medieval Europe. Also, Christopher Hill's The World Turned Upside Down - about English radicalism in the 17th century - which inspired an abiding interest in that period. Both of those books find a good spot between vivid depiction and intelligent argument.

The best history book I've read recently was Debt by David Graeber, which looks at global economic history with the view that debt preceded currency, and that credit and bullion systems have been cycling ever since. It was extremely eye-opening, and a lot more fun than I made it sound. I wish I had taken notes. I felt as though Graeber was presenting an extraordinary fact, or unveiling a novel perspective, every few pages.

Pompey Bum

01-22-2015, 02:12 PM

Thanks for the recommendations, L&B. Cohen's book is a classic, although I notice with annoyance that there is no ebook version available at Amazon (what else is new?) if you're interested in the fascinating but violent 17th century, you may want to check out The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy by Peter Wilson (from the University of Hull). It's prodigiously long, but worth it if you've got the time. And the Graeber book sounds great. It's a little startling how long people seem to get by without the "invention" of money. The idea that cash was a sort of symbolic add on to debt (if that's his premise) could make a lot of sense. Thanks for letting us know about the book.

ladderandbucket

01-22-2015, 05:17 PM

you may want to check out The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy by Peter Wilson

I've had my eye on that book for a while. It looks a bit heavy for me, but one day I will devote some time to it, for want of anything more accessible on the subject. There is a notable shortage of English language books on the Thirty Years War, which is surprising for such a massive event.

Pompey Bum

01-22-2015, 06:54 PM

IThere is a notable shortage of English language books on the Thirty Years War, which is surprising for such a massive event.

Ah but you are talking to the right man! Here is Friedrich Schiller's famous and beautifully written History of the Thirty Years War.

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/schiller/30yrswar.pdf

Here is the 19th century English historian Samuel Rawson Gardiner's less poetic but more critical History of the Thirty Years War:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40082/40082-h/40082-h.htm

If you prefer to download ebooks rather than use these online versions, you can do so for free at Gutenberg.

And since you seem keen on the 16th century, here are links to download the great Leopold von Ranke's six volumes on The History of England Principally the 17th century (along with many other of von Ranke's histories, mostly of 17th century subjects).

http://www.cristoraul.com/AUTHORS/Leopold-von-Ranke.html

These do need to be downloaded (if you have ibooks, that will do fine). They take up a lot of space, but they are worth it.

There are no copyright restrictions on any of these materials. All are completely free. Enjoy them, if you are so inclined.

ennison

01-22-2015, 07:11 PM

ennison

01-22-2015, 07:14 PM

Oops. Tare meant There. Boiling a cod roe carefully right now . That's my excuse. It's a large one . I'll let it cool in the pan and it'll be ready for slicing in the morning.

Vota

01-23-2015, 01:19 AM

prendrelemick

01-23-2015, 04:43 AM

As a member of "Herodotus is my homeboy " Facebook group, of course I like his undisciplined collection of stories. Plutarch is a good read too .
However, we ex British school boys know history started in 1066, ended in 1945 and happened in England.

Clopin

01-23-2015, 07:42 AM

"The U.K, all the way!"

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/two-world-wars-and-one-world-cup-6.png

^ All the history I need to know, baby.

ladderandbucket

01-23-2015, 08:47 AM

Ah but you are talking to the right man! .

Seems I hit the jackpot. Schiller's and Gardiner's books are both now on my kindle. Gardiner looks to be the better jumping off point. Perhaps this year I will finally get to grips with this rather forbidding topic. Thanks.

Pompey Bum

01-23-2015, 10:44 AM

Seems I hit the jackpot. Schiller's and Gardiner's books are both now on my kindle. Gardiner looks to be the better jumping off point. Perhaps this year I will finally get to grips with this rather forbidding topic. Thanks.

Oh you are welcome. And yes, if you want to get a grip on the issues, you should start with Gardiner. Schiller's histories can be like Voltaire's: consummate reading experiences but not necessarily consummate as history. And with Schiller, of course, you are dealing with translations, which may or may not mitigate his fine language. Gardiner was not as poet as Schiller was. but he was an excellent historian with an engaging style.

Wilson makes the claim in his book that neither of these works gives enough attention to the later years of the conflict (by which time virtually all the principle figures at the war's start were dead). On the other hand, his book is 997 pages long, so don't plan on reading much else for a while: it may be the reader who dies waiting for the Peace of Westphalia! Wilson also attributes the lack of current histories on the conflict to wide range of languages needed for serious study, and an excess of historical material:

To cover all aspects would require knowledge of at least fourteen European languages, while there is sufficient archival materials enough to occupy many lifetimes of research. Even the printed material runs to millions of pages; there are over 4,000 titles just on the Peace of Westphalia that concluded the conflict.

And yet, as you say, the war was a watershed event in European history. The Peace of Westphalia was arguably the reason that Europe was able to rise the heights that it later did. (Some historians even consider the period between 1914 and 1945 to have been a kind of "Thirty Years War II").

In any case, I hope you enjoy the histories. Von Ranke is also eminently worth your time, although I know these photocopies eat up memory like summer candy. Happy reading in any case!

talleyrand

01-23-2015, 11:35 AM

Borgia is an interesting (if notorious) character. I wrote an epigram about her once:

Lucrezia Borgia popped the Pope,
Her dad at that, the dizzy dope!

I never read Hugo's play, though. Does he cast in the traditional debauched libertine or role or does he make her more sympathetic?

Victor Hugo wrote a character not sympathetic at all who enjoys manipulating people in order to get more influence. However, I think Cesar - his brother - appears more vicious than her.

Pompey Bum

01-23-2015, 11:35 AM

Excellent links PB. Thanks.
One of my favourite historical novels was The Heart of Midlothian. The Patrick O Brian and CS Forester novels are very very good. Tare too many very good historians for me to single one out but when I was young I enjoyed John Prebble. Recently I read Schama's "Dead Certainties" An historical period I am interested in would be the Napoleonic Wars in The Peninsula but many others also.

You're welcome, and I hope you're enjoying your "Boston caviar." And thank you for the reference to Prebble. His trilogy of novels about the Highlands clans looks interesting, but--to my further frustration--I find that it is not available on Kindle. It's not like the old days when if a store didn't have something you could just ask them to order it. O tempes! O mores! Anyway...

Schama's an interesting character. He seems to have spent his career reacting against the trendy Marxism of his professors, so he's never been afraid to think for himself. His snobbishness can be a bit irritating at times, but at other times it's just sort of funny. Stand beside a man when measuring his snark, I always say.

Pompey Bum

01-23-2015, 12:31 PM

Victor Hugo wrote a character not sympathetic at all who enjoys manipulating people in order to get more influence. However, I think Cesar - his brother - appears more vicious than her.

Well, he was probably right (although not as vicious as Cesar Borgia isn't saying a whole lot). In fact, there isn't that much known about Lucrezia Borgia apart from the calumnies her enemies maintained about incest and poisoning. One has to consider the sources on that, of course, and the lack of any real evidence against her. Some feminist scholars think she was just a gal doing what she had to do in the Machiavellian family into which she was born. Again, maybe but who knows? Sometimes a person's life takes on a legendary quality that quite eclipses the truth. Poor Lucrezia? I doubt it. She lived in some pretty cutthroat times.

I find it interesting how popular Hugo and Scott and Dumas remain, at least based on this thread. I'm surprised there haven't been more contemporary historical novels cited.

Emil Miller

01-23-2015, 02:35 PM

"The U.K, all the way!"

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/two-world-wars-and-one-world-cup-6.png

^ All the history I need to know, baby.

Not quite. If you care to read my novel Pro Bono Publico, you will see how it all came apart after WWII.

Pompey Bum

01-23-2015, 03:40 PM

Not quite. If you care to read my novel Pro Bono Publico, you will see how it all came apart after WWII.

Another empire man?

Clopin

01-23-2015, 03:59 PM

Speaking of the empire, when the queen (may she live forever) dies are we going to get William on our money? I don't think I'm comfortable with that if it is the case.

Emil Miller

01-23-2015, 04:02 PM

Another empire man?

No, it's concerned primarily with domestic politics, although any novel concerning the changes in post-war Britain would of necessity have some reference to its former colonies. If you want to Google it you will be able to read a synopsis.

Clopin

01-23-2015, 04:05 PM

Emil redpill me on Thatcher, good or bad for Bri'un?

Pompey Bum

01-23-2015, 04:08 PM

I have read half a dozen of Plutarch's Lives and thoroughly enjoyed them. Although his work is basically biographical comparisons for moral purposes, their is A LOT of history in his lives...

I've read about half of Herodotus's Histories and really liked it. I would recommend The Landmark Herodotus for its easy to read translation, clean presentation, numerous maps and pictures.

Yes, Plutarch is awesome. Many of his works are available online for free, including some of the lesser known ones. And like you, I would recommend the Purvis translation ("The Landmark Herodotus"), as long as the reader doesn't mind shelling out the dough (the hardback version is $72.35 from Amazon). If not, then once again there are good translations available online for free.

Last, but not least, War and Peace. This is an epic, sprawling, phenomenal story. I can't recommend this book enough. After the first 100-120 pages it just takes off.

"After the first 100-120 pages it just takes off" is another one of those unintentionally funny remarks, only because (I'm guessing) not everyone is going to take it as a recommendation. :) But I couldn't agree with you more about the book as a whole; except that I like the first 120 pages, too--Pierre was a sort of personal identification character for me when I first read it.

As I was discussing with someone or other a few months ago (never get old, Vota), War and Peace is not just a historical novel, it is also a theory of history, and moreover a theory of fate. Tolstoy is rejecting the "great man" theory of Thomas Carlyle, which was such an important part of the 19th century European mindset. A narcissistic Napoleon gives orders and imagines (along with much of Europe) that he is the incubus of martial brilliance. But no one on the battlefields really get the orders. Things just go along as they have to, dependent only on the constantly shifting interplay the force and needs of "small individuals" over vast tableaus of battles that Tolstoy creates. Likewise Kutuzov doesn't really have a master plan for beating Napoleon that involves withdrawing into the heart of Russia. In fact, when he learns that Napoleon has been stupid enough to evacuate Moscow, Kutuzov stands weeping before an icon, giving thanks because he finally understands how he is going to be able to beat the guy. (And even then, it's just by harassing his columns).

And as with war, so with "peace," that is, with the society of aristocratic families, and older men, and women, and lovers in Alexander I's Russia. For Tolstoy, fate works like the planchette of Ouija board, which everyone's fingers lightly touch. Tiny vibrations pull it this way and that. One senses a pattern, some assert a meaning to what is seen to transpire, but in fact it is just the collective machination of a great web of competing forces (as Tolstoy himself describes it) pushing and pulling humanity at war and peace into the trajectory of the planchette. No great hero has imposed his will and led the way. These ideas, which drew on Augustine, link that remote past to modernist ideas of the 20th century and beyond. If only for that, War and Peace is a phenomenon.

But as you say, there is so much more to War and Peace that the novel cannot be recommended highly enough. There the conception of fully human characters like Pierre, Prince Andrey, Natasha Rastova, and Marka Bolkonskaya, and others; their character development into real adults; and even, in the case of Pierre and Natasha, by the end, hints of changes into people we may not completely like: who seem, in a way, to be lesser than their "fully realized" adult selves. That is a difficult realism recognizable only from the vantage point of age. Only Tolstoy. Only Tolstoy.

And then there are the magnificent and sometimes experimental images. Andrey, wounded at Austerlitz, staring up at God, who seems to be staring down at Andrey--staring down at Austerliz. The minor gunnery soldier, sitting on his promontory raining down death like a thunder god. But away from battle he is an anonymous mediocrity. And then there is the almost post-modern description of the city of Moscow, after Kutuzov has withdrawn but before Napoleon's troops have entered, as a great, moribund beehive--with the metaphor extended for an entire chapter. This is not just brilliant prose, it is radical and experimental literature.

Oh I'm sorry, I got carried away. I like War and Peace. It's my favorite historical novel. Somebody (E.M. Forster?) said that those who read long books like them because they like the fact that they finished them. Anyone who feels that way about War and Peace seriously needs to open the book up from the beginning and read it for real this time.

Clopin

01-23-2015, 04:14 PM

One of my bigger pet peeves is people insisting that the Russian novels are 'slow' somehow... I suppose because they are long they must necessarily also be slow. Whatever.

Prince Andrey is probably my favourite literary character alongside Bernando Soares or Raskolnikov who will always maintain a top spot for being my first love (Crime and Punishment was the second or third 'serious' work of literature I read).

Emil Miller

01-23-2015, 04:36 PM

Well my book ends where Thatcher's arrival in Downing street begins. In principle I support what she did in saving the country from the bankruptcy that had overtaken it by 1976. However, there are signs that she covered up for paedophiles in her cabinet: something that has come to light since she died and which implicates some of the highest members of the political elite during the period both before and after her premiership.

Clopin

01-23-2015, 04:40 PM

Emil Miller

01-23-2015, 04:46 PM

Well that's pretty bad, but you would say that she left the country better than where she found it when she took office, or no?

Oh definitely! It couldn't have been much worse than when she took office.

Lykren

01-23-2015, 04:58 PM

War and Peace is wonderful, but the essay sections in which he deals with fate and historiography are incredibly dull, pedantic, depressingly didactic, and lead nowhere. Anna Karenina is much better for that reason, and also because its characters have so much less of that caricature-like Dickensian quality than War and Peace.

Clopin

01-23-2015, 05:11 PM

I think it's funny to compare Tolstoy's frank Napoleanic asides in War and Peace where he tries to convince the reader that Napolean was some sort of lucky, pudgy, oaf with the similar digressions on Napolean in Les Miserables by Hugo who seems to have a boundless love and admiration for the emperor.

Pompey Bum

01-23-2015, 05:25 PM

War and Peace is wonderful, but the essay sections in which he deals with fate and historiography are incredibly dull, pedantic, depressingly didactic, and lead nowhere.

On the contrary, properly understood, they are radical and exciting expositions on the very things that make War and Peace something greater than a novel. But historiography's not for everyone, and I remember thinking the first time I read them: Other people can't possibly be enjoying this stuff as much as I am.

Anna Karenina is much better for that reason, and also because its characters have so much less of that caricature-like Dickensian quality than War and Peace.

Well I strongly disagree with your comparison of the characters in War and Peace to Dickensian caricatures (which is utter rubbish in my opinion), but I do agree that Anna Karenina is a somewhat better if more conventional novel. I am in agreement with Tolstoy himself that whatever War and Peace was, it wasn't a novel. For me, that makes it all the more exciting. But comparing the two is like comparing champagne to Courvoisier.

ennison

01-23-2015, 05:38 PM

I agree PB. That must have been a slip of the pen by L. Tolstoy does not use Dickensian caricature. Too bleeding serious for that. Or reading it another way they were serious in diametrically opposite ways. I enjoyed the roe this morning, this evening and I hope again tomorrow. Did not know that it was called Boston Caviar.

Pompey Bum

01-23-2015, 06:04 PM

Or reading it another way they were serious in diametrically opposite ways.

Yes, that's fair enough. Dickens wants to show that most problems are made by "wicked men," but they can be solved by the good ones. Tolstoy thinks that the "great men" are mostly full of poo, and sees humans more as fish in the sea than ocean liners. Not the best analogy, but you've got me thinking about Cod. I grew up beside the great New England fishery and miss the wondrous critters to this day.

ennison

01-23-2015, 06:12 PM

Oh by the way. These are not novels byPrebble although some dull Conformist Brit Nats complained they were. He did write a Western called Buffalo Soldiers ( very violent) which was of the Searchers / Butcher's Crossing type. A really good Highland historian is Grimble who wrote The Chief of Mackay, The Trial of Patrick Seller and the excellent The World of Rob Donn. He also wrote about Cochrane - one of the inspirations for Forester's Hornblower

Vota

01-23-2015, 10:48 PM

Pompey Bum, War and Peace is the only novel I have read that qualifies distinctly as historical fiction. As such it is my favorite, but I wouldn't be surprised if it always remains my favorite because hot damn will it be hard to beat.

I also found the historiography fascinating. I had never thought about actions and events like that before. I wrote a short review about my experience reading it in the book review section which covers some of this.

War and Peace is the greatest novel that I have read so far, and will likely remain one of the greatest novels I will ever read. It really is greater than the sum of its parts, and its parts are amazing.

I loved the book so much I almost immediately researched any film productions and decided upon the 1966-67 Sergei Bondarchuk 4 part movie series. It was nice to see certain elements on film because they will help me better visualize the surroundings when next I read the book, but in the end I felt like their is no way to truly capture the grand scope and beauty of the book in film form. If it can be done, it would take a fortuitous series of events to occur. The right actors, the right special effects guys, the right lighting people, the right director, the right soundtrack, the right cinematographer, and so on would all be necessary, working in harmony, to bring such a project to fruition. I'm not sure its possible and I'm not even sure it needs to be.

I'm a huge film buff, but I've slowly come to the realization that certain books should probably stay books because part of what makes them so amazing is how they act on your heart and imagination, bringing you into the world of the book as you create its image in your mind's eye.

miltonebx

01-24-2015, 01:24 AM

Pompey Bum

01-24-2015, 11:01 AM

I read Michener's "Hawaii" when it was first published. This was the first of this genre for him. It is still his best. Two motion pictures were made from the novel.
Another great book is "Northwest Passage" by Kenneth Roberts. Also a great movie with Spencer Tracy. A second movie was planned in order to complete the novel but did not come to fruition.

As an octogenarian, Milton, you should be a good source of 20th century historical information. Did you live in New York in the glory days of Dizzy Gillespie and Joe DiMaggio and all that? Those sound like interesting days.

talleyrand

01-24-2015, 11:31 AM

Pompey Bum

01-24-2015, 11:42 AM

I loved the book so much I almost immediately researched any film productions and decided upon the 1966-67 Sergei Bondarchuk 4 part movie series. It was nice to see certain elements on film because they will help me better visualize the surroundings when next I read the book, but in the end I felt like their is no way to truly capture the grand scope and beauty of the book in film form. If it can be done, it would take a fortuitous series of events to occur. The right actors, the right special effects guys, the right lighting people, the right director, the right soundtrack, the right cinematographer, and so on would all be necessary, working in harmony, to bring such a project to fruition. I'm not sure its possible and I'm not even sure it needs to be.

I'm a huge film buff, but I've slowly come to the realization that certain books should probably stay books because part of what makes them so amazing is how they act on your heart and imagination, bringing you into the world of the book as you create its image in your mind's eye.

I know what you mean. The problem with a film version of War and Peace is that it runs the risk of becoming just a costume drama: Downton Abby with cannons. And War and Peace is just too profound for that sort of treatment; because ultimately, it's not a book about love, or war, or society, or even about growing up (although those things are all there), but about being an adult--about realizing and acting on one's adulthood. And about how that road varies with each life, but criss-crosses other roads and other lives that push and pull against each another in constant tension. I don't think you can get that in a movie. As you say, it is something that has to happen in heart and the mind's eye.

stlukesguild

01-24-2015, 11:42 AM

Pompey Bum

01-24-2015, 12:53 PM

I do not know whether his name is known beyond the French frontiers but I also enjoy reading the essays as well as the novels written by Jacques Bainville. He had talent to write stories about history although he was a quite controversial person (he had lots of antisemitic friends) moreover he was not so objective. However, his essay named History Of France is interesting.

I have heard of Bainville in connection with the right-wing Action Francaise, to which you presumably allude. He also has a reputation for having made the right analysis of the Treaty of Versailles and its potential to make the trouble it eventually did. I don't know of many translations of Bainville into English, but here is a free ebook version of his Histoire de France in French:

http://www.feedbooks.com/userbook/6734/histoire-de-france

There is a French historian named Jules Michelet who I would love to read in English (I can fudge the French but it takes too long). The only English version of Michelet that I can find is a Bowderdised Victorian translation of his history of European witchcraft. (I despise censorship that cuts up a text--at least they could have left the dirty parts in French! :)) If you (or anyone else) knows where I can find English translations of Michelet, please let me know. But I don't they were ever done.

talleyrand

01-24-2015, 03:47 PM

Pompey Bum

01-24-2015, 04:25 PM

I have never read books written by Jules Michelet but I would like to discover his essay about the French revolution. I had found two interesting links for you, Pompey Bum, but the reply is always denied when I want to submit it. However, you should have a look at the websites Ebay and Amazon because there are some great stuff to buy in English.

I couldn't find it in French, but to my surprise I did turn up this online English translation. Apparently some of his work was translated after all. Thanks!

https://archive.org/stream/historyfrenchre00michgoog#page/n22/mode/2up

Pompey Bum

01-24-2015, 05:05 PM

This is still in English, but here is an online version of Michelet's Joan of Arc: Maid of Orleans:

https://archive.org/stream/historyfrenchre00michgoog#page/n22/mode/2up

And here is a downloadable edition of his Les Femmes de la Revolution (in French)

http://manybooks.net/titles/micheletj1873818738-8.html

Some of the 20 volumes of his Histoire de France (in French) are also available from ManyBooks, and some or all of the English translations of the work appear to be available at Internet Archives.

So much better than I thought. Thank you indeed!

Lykren

01-24-2015, 05:40 PM

I'm surprised by the implicit denigration of the medium of film on this thread. No treatment of a particular theme can be the same twice of course, so expecting a film to replicate Tolstoy's achievement exactly would be absurd - but film is a young art form, and has not had so many chances as the written word has to attain excellence. But there have been many powerful films made in the last 100 years or so, and to say that film cannot access similar thematic ground in as powerful a manner as Tolstoy does to me indicates a lack of appreciation of the cinema's history amounting to wilful ignorance.

Since most film adaptations of great novels are made to capitalize on a famous title, and not with any particular vision or coherence of their own, that accounts for the maxim 'the book is always better than the movie.' But there are plenty of counter-examples to contradict this categorical assertion: Eyes Wide Shut, Solaris, Rashomon, and so on.

Calidore

01-24-2015, 06:40 PM

Pompey Bum

01-24-2015, 06:44 PM

I'm surprised by the implicit denigration of the medium of film on this thread...and to say that film cannot access similar thematic ground in as powerful a manner as Tolstoy does to me indicates a lack of appreciation of the cinema's history amounting to wilful ignorance.

Well, I don't see how my opinion constitutes an "implicit denigration of the medium of film," but even if it does, would lese majeste against cinema really merit such a response? I think I've got a pretty good appreciation of cinema's history (perhaps better than yours, although I only say that because I think I may be older than you). It's certainly not fair to characterize it as "willful ignorance." Are you sure you are not employing an over-blown personal attack because you find yourself offended by something I've said? Hmmm?

Look Lykren (and there's no sarcasm here), I apologize for referring to an opinion of yours as "utter rubbish" in an earlier post. I felt like I shouldn't have put it that way at the time, and I regretted it later. Everyone is entitled to express an opinion, after all. And if my insensitivity has anything to do with the zealousness of your comments, then I accept the responsibility and ask you to overlook my remarks. None of that, of course, is going to stop me from articulating my own opinion: I find War and Peace a poor candidate for a film. Personally I wouldn't advise a reader to see such a film before or while reading the novel (but afterwards, why not?) If that makes me a Philistine, then so be it. But let's be friends, okay?

Pompey Bum

01-24-2015, 07:19 PM

I watched all three major filmings of War and Peace two years ago (already?) as preparation for reading the novel and posted my thoughts in some detail here:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?73661-Finally-starting-War-and-Peace-films-book-project

Just in case anyone might find it useful.

Thanks Calidore. The casting of Henry Fonda as Pierre Buzukhov is surpassed only by that of William Shatner as Aloysha Karamazov in another film. I actually remember when the Soviet version of War and Peace was released, although I was only a little boy at the time. I want to suggest that the aspect you noted in that film, that it "really did seem to deliberately eliminate or downplay the personal relationships as much as possible, instead emphasizing the 'bigger' stories of Russia and Russian society" was almost certainly political. It was the Soviet Union in 1966, after all. Khrushchev was on the way out and the Neo-Stalinists were on the way in. The film would never have been released without passing an ideological smell test.

I've only seen bits of the BBC version. The acting seemed reasonably good, but on the whole it looked like the production was in over its head (at least based on the parts I watched). I recently found a good film version of War and Peace on Youtube, though. It was a modern Russian production, but unfortunately there were no English subtitles. If you know the story well enough, though, it's probably worth checking out.

Carousel

01-24-2015, 08:21 PM

I've always found it amusing by those who purport to know, and tell anyone who will listen, exactly what the writer’s intentions were even down to the finest details, ignoring the fact that the author had been dead for a hundred years or more. Have they got a hotline to the other world? (If there is one) It’s opinion, nothing more.

Read the book and form your own opinions. What anyone writes or has written, some will like and some won’t, no big deal, it’s called a personal preference.

Pompey Bum

01-24-2015, 08:45 PM

Scanning the secondary cast listing, I finally find a Russian-sounding name: Dimitri Konstantinov, with the promising credit "Young Officer at Orgy"

Heh heh. In 1956 that just meant drinking a double martini and playing a little Eartha Kitt on the high fi--sans necktie!

Vota

01-25-2015, 07:05 AM

I checked your reviews out Calidore. I couldn't disagree with your assessments more.

ladderandbucket

01-25-2015, 07:15 AM

Vota

01-25-2015, 07:17 AM

Lykren, not sure why you feel people are implicitly denigrating film. I am a huge film buff and have been for the better part of 25 years. It was common for me to know the movie selection better than movie store employees.

I think film is a superb medium, but everything has some degree of limitation. I'm sure War and Peace could be done justice, but like I previously posted, it would take many fortuitous events occurring at once to make that possible, not to mention how expensive it would be to make the film now. My vision of the perfect W&P movie would be an old school 4 hour movie with intermission like Cecil B. Demille's The Ten Commandments. The bankroll for the actors alone, the sort I would populate a movie of this magnitude with, would be immense. The costume costs would be atrociously high. Of course, I wouldn't cgi any of it. I can even come up with a number for how much the movie would cost to make, but it would dwarf the cost of any movie made to date. I wouldn't be surprised if it cost as much or more as the entire LotR trilogy took to make.

Now this is off the top of my head, and I have no idea how much productions run or how to calculate their cost with anything coming even close to accuracy, but I know it would be astronomically expensive to do it justice.

Again, I'm not even sure certain books need to be films or can be made into films that accurately represent them. I am well aware that certain films are far superior to the books they are based on, but oftentimes this is because the book wasn't that good in the first place, or happened to be a short story that could be improved upon in a film length feature. I am also certain there are many films that it would be impossible to make a book out of.

I guess my point is that I don't feel like anyone here, from what I can see, is purposely denigrating film.

prendrelemick

01-25-2015, 08:10 AM

Just to mark the card of those residing in the Old Country, Radio 4 (BBC) is doing an epic War and Peace adaptation at the moment - Saturday 9.00pm. I have to say it is brilliant.

Clopin

01-25-2015, 08:38 AM

Book to film is usually a bad jump and I really hated that old BBC production of War and Peace. I hated the BBC Crime and Punishment too even though I think that book could be filmed pretty easily. I hear the recent Anna Karnerenina was also really very bad.

Ecurb

01-25-2015, 10:30 AM

I watched the Russian version of "War and Peace" up until the point that Natasha started prancing about like a little elfin sprite turned Russian ballerina. At that point, I couldn't take it anymore, and stopped watching,

I'd like to see a movie version of War and Peace complete with the philosophical asides. We could fade out to a tweedy, BBC Professor type sitting in a well-appointed office saying, in a plummy Oxbridge accent: "We shall now compare the movement of history to that of a locomotive....." That alone would be worth the price of admission (but, please, no stylized prancing from Natasha! I can't take it!).

Pompey Bum

01-25-2015, 10:51 AM

I'd like to see a movie version of War and Peace complete with the philosophical asides. We could fade out to a tweedy, BBC Professor type sitting in a well-appointed office saying, in a plummy Oxbridge accent: "We shall now compare the movement of history to that of a locomotive....."

Sounds good. Then a dragoon could ride by and lop his head off a la Monty Python. :)

But I'm now confused. I may have been remembering a Russian version of Dostoyevsky's The Idiot that was only in Russian. I could have sworn it was both, but I just found an English language version of the War and Peace production on Youtube. Perhaps they did Russian and English takes to give it greater marketability (?). Here is part four of four, apparently the only segment now available. If anyone finds the others, though, please let me know.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pl1tu6OFTuQ

Pompey Bum

01-25-2015, 11:13 AM

Just as an aside, the BBC are filming a 6-hour version of War and Peace, to be aired later this year. Could be great, more likely to be a travesty.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30615942

Thanks L&B. I'll certainly give it a chance.

Just to mark the card of those residing in the Old Country, Radio 4 (BBC) is doing an epic War and Peace adaptation at the moment - Saturday 9.00pm. I have to say it is brilliant.

Actually a radio production sounds interesting. It keeps a lot of the story in the mind's eye where its potential impact is greatest. My biggest problem with the film versions is that, if viewed before reading the book, they can have an undue sway on the readers imagination. But radio leaves more room. Glad to hear you like it. Hopefully I'll be able to hear it someday.

prendrelemick

01-25-2015, 03:20 PM

Anya Seton and Jean Plaidy are two gals that are (were) too popular to to ever be called literary, but both write a fine tale, in good style and do the research beforehand.

Back to those Russians. Doctor Zhivago is a book that meets the criteria of having a historical worth, but in that case I would say the film is better.

ennison

01-25-2015, 03:45 PM

I agree about Plaidy. Seyton I don't know. Heyer was another who did a lot of background research. Her work was sometimes dismissed as pastiche but if it was, it was entertaining and lively. In modern times the novelist Tremaine is a very good historical novelist.

Pompey Bum

01-25-2015, 05:45 PM

Back to those Russians. Doctor Zhivago is a book that meets the criteria of having a historical worth, but in that case I would say the film is better.

The film is a personal favorite, but the book is probably a little better, at least in my opinion. Zhivago is a more believable character, and Pasha Antipov's sexual hang ups are not so hidden away. But I think this is another case of comparing champagne to Courvoisier. Lean's film is also a masterpiece.

Calidore

01-25-2015, 07:01 PM

Thanks Calidore. The casting of Henry Fonda as Pierre Buzukhov is surpassed only by that of William Shatner as Aloysha Karamazov in another film.

Fonda himself said he knew he was wrong for the part and just took it for the money.

I want to suggest that the aspect you noted in that film, that it "really did seem to deliberately eliminate or downplay the personal relationships as much as possible, instead emphasizing the 'bigger' stories of Russia and Russian society" was almost certainly political. It was the Soviet Union in 1966, after all. Khrushchev was on the way out and the Neo-Stalinists were on the way in. The film would never have been released without passing an ideological smell test.

Agreed. A Russian-government-sponsored version, especially at that time, was always going to be about Russia Triumphant first and foremost.

I've only seen bits of the BBC version. The acting seemed reasonably good, but on the whole it looked like the production was in over its head (at least based on the parts I watched).

Well, you're talking about early 70s BBC-TV budgets, after all. For comparison, check out Doctor Who's ninth season (Jon Pertwee's third). Just getting twenty episodes was probably a big deal. And if there's anything the BBC loves more than costumes, I don't know what it is; that's probably where most of the money went.

Heh heh. In 1956 that just meant drinking a double martini and playing a little Eartha Kitt on the high fi--sans necktie!

Pretty much, but without even Eartha Kitt.

I checked your reviews out Calidore. I couldn't disagree with your assessments more.

'Sokay, but just that doesn't offer much food for conversation. :) Did you think I liked the movies too much or not enough, or was it something else?

I watched the Russian version of "War and Peace" up until the point that Natasha started prancing about like a little elfin sprite turned Russian ballerina. At that point, I couldn't take it anymore, and stopped watching,

I'd like to see a movie version of War and Peace complete with the philosophical asides. We could fade out to a tweedy, BBC Professor type sitting in a well-appointed office saying, in a plummy Oxbridge accent: "We shall now compare the movement of history to that of a locomotive....." That alone would be worth the price of admission (but, please, no stylized prancing from Natasha! I can't take it!).

Since the actress actually was an elfin Russian ballerina, she probably couldn't help it. Personally, I'd rather watch Natasha prance than listen to endless ponderous soliloquys. Diff'rent strokes....

Actually a radio production sounds interesting. It keeps a lot of the story in the mind's eye where its potential impact is greatest. My biggest problem with the film versions is that, if viewed before reading the book, they can have an undue sway on the readers imagination. But radio leaves more room. Glad to hear you like it. Hopefully I'll be able to hear it someday.

I'd think you'd have to be very familiar with the book and characters, though. Otherwise, I can't imagine trying to keep all of them straight just by voice alone.

Pompey Bum

01-25-2015, 08:39 PM

Fonda himself said he knew he was wrong for the part and just took it for the money.

I wonder what Shatner's excuse was? I mean, I know it's different book and a different author, but come on!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sHtzZ1l5WaI

I'd think you'd have to be very familiar with the book and characters, though. Otherwise, I can't imagine trying to keep all of them straight just by voice alone.

Yes, good point. Unless they say each other's names with every line. That could get a little weird. I suppose they could use a voice-over narrator. Or an announcer like the Lone Ranger used to. He could even provide the historiographic interludes (instead of doing the commercials).

Have the names been a problem on the radio version, Prendrelemick?

mortalterror

01-27-2015, 03:02 AM

Mortal Terror- Greco-Roman period. I like old things. I like their stories and their philosophies. Romans remind me of Americans.

Under which emperor? It's beginning to look more and more like we're heading in the direction of Nero, Commodus, and Caligula.

Come on, Obama's not that bad.

But in all seriousness Bush Jr reminds me a little of Claudius, and Washington reminds me of Diocletian. But more than the politics I just find attitudes similar. The idea that Europeans/Greeks are these sophisticated but effete intellectuals which we've largely dominated or surpassed through our excess of vigor, and while they are wallowing in ennui we are stoicially acting, making money, getting things done. There seems to be more surety and self-confidence among the Romans and Americans, along with a very down to earth pragmatic view of the world, and those two combinations make for an irresistible force.

I remember years ago, the first time I read D.H. Lawrence's quote "The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.” Thinking, "You're god damn right!" It's sort of like how our marines took the nickname "devil dogs" as a badge of honor and a sign of their strength and ferocity when the Germans labeled them in world war one. There is definitely a through line in western history of common traits that descends down to us: masculinity, paternalism, warrior culture, piety, republicanism, excess, hedonism, imperialism.

At the same time, I feel we've definitely softened when compared to the Romans. As I was driving on a long windy road recently, I couldn't help but think "The Romans would have bored a hole into this mountain and tunneled straight through. Nobody resists the Roman Will, not even God or Nature." I look around my town and see a lot of ugly concrete buildings and think "The Romans would have fountains and statues all around here with marble covering the drab exteriors. Everything is cheap and whatever is nice we keep locked away so no one can see it. We have no civic pride." Part of my being enamored with the Romans is sort of a nostalgia thing for a lost ideal. Some people want to turn the clock back to the fifties. I want to turn it back two thousand years.

I do often find myself seeing analogies of our times to theirs though. I picture Mithridates as an ancient Osama Bin Laden, the Asiatic vespers as their 9/11, which leads the dominant western power who'd been in the habit of manipulating it's far off puppet governments to commit to a war of revenge in the middle east. Or I think of Muslim terrorists having an analogue with Jewish Zealots in the Jewish Wars.

Carousel

01-27-2015, 08:11 AM

I think if you read the whole of D.H. Lawrence, Studies in Classic American Literature in full, you will find that he was addressing the feelings of American white supremacy rather than describing America as a nation of heroes.

It's sort of like how our marines took the nickname "devil dogs" as a badge of honor and a sign of their strength and ferocity when the Germans labeled them in world war one.
.

Quote.
The theory is that the moniker actually came from the U.S. media. In fact, evidence shows that the media used this nickname months before the battle at Belleau Wood. From there, the myth was twisted to work as propaganda for recruitment posters, and to boost the confidence in the Marines. Who concocted the story is up for debate. Some say the Marines did themselves, and others say the media did in order to raise spirits. Either way, it is certain that the U.S. came up with this story, not the German army.

The same identical myth was used previously in the same war when the Germans supposedly labelled the Scottish kilted regiments as ‘The Women from Hell’
Notice the similarities?

I think you show an interest for history but any study of a nation’s past involves peeling back layers of myth, make believe and propaganda to get anywhere near the truth.
As one American critic said. ‘Expecting Hollywood to portray an accurate account of history is to expect a barrel organ to play Mozart’.

MANICHAEAN

01-27-2015, 09:01 AM

Like when the Americans got their hands on the first ENIGMA code breaking device!

And I hate to think of the reality of the 'Braveheart' film.

'Killers in skirts' was I believe what young Hitler's regiment called the Scots they faced in the First World War. Strange, the Jocks never took any POW's.

mona amon

01-27-2015, 11:46 AM

I wonder what Shatner's excuse was? I mean, I know it's different book and a different author, but come on!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sHtzZ1l5WaI

Denny Crane as Alyosha? The imagination boggles. :D He looks good in the trailer, though.

Pompey Bum

01-27-2015, 12:03 PM

Denny Crane as Alyosha? The imagination boggles. :D

Not to mention Captain Kirk. ("Damn it, Jim, I'm a doctor not a monk!" :))

Carousel

01-27-2015, 12:09 PM

Yes Braveheart, where do we start with that blockbuster? Simple facts like dates of birth for example. Scarcely a minute on Google will tell you that when Princess Isabella was supposedly engaged in bedchamber gymnastics with Mel she was four years old.

The first act of the grizzly means of the execution of traitors practiced by the English in those times was being half hung, which I suggest doesn't do a hell of a lot for one’s vocal chords.
Then Mel would have us believe he cried 'FREEDOM' while hideous things were happening to his nether regions. Really? I think he maybe had other thoughts on his mind.
There was indeed a history of last speeches from the condemned at the scaffold. The assembled crowd looked forward to them but never during the act itself for obvious reasons.

The Patriot-- No don’t get me started on that extravaganza.

Pompey Bum

01-27-2015, 03:08 PM

Washington reminds me of Diocletian

That's an interesting comment, Mortal. Do you mean Washington DC (used collectively) or George Washington? The latter is sometimes dressed up as Cincinnatus in older American statuary, although many Americans don't have the Livy these days to understand why.

But more than the politics I just find attitudes similar. The idea that Europeans/Greeks are these sophisticated but effete intellectuals which we've largely dominated or surpassed through our excess of vigor, and while they are wallowing in ennui we are stoically acting, making money, getting things done.

I know what you mean, although I think it's probably more the result of the times in which we've lived than question of national character. The British saw themselves in a similar way in their Empire, especially during the Raj and the Chinese expansion (that is, as the "masculine," "take-charge-guys" dominating the somewhat effeminate (in their view) and spiritually detached Easterners. In fact, as irritating as his book is, Cambridge fellow Piers Brendon makes a pretty good case that the architects of the British Empire were consciously modeling themselves on the Roman Empire (at least as they understood it from their classical educations) and its supposed mission of law and civilization for the world. And Pericles' Athenians probably thought they were doing something similar when they held islands and city-states in the Delian league though the 5th century BC equivalent of gunboats. Everyone with a club thinks he's the Man.

There is definitely a through line in western history of common traits that descends down to us: masculinity, paternalism, warrior culture, piety, republicanism, excess, hedonism, imperialism.

Again, I know what you are saying, but your claim is strained by the factor of time. A thousand years passed between the Roman kings and the fall of the Empire in the West; and another thousand passed before the fall of Constantinople and the end of Byzantium. To take the West alone, your "through line" covers the equivalent distance in time that would be represented for the "German character" from Alaric the Goth to Martin Luther. The line is just too long to be much good historically. But perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "through line"?

I do often find myself seeing analogies of our times to theirs though. I picture Mithridates as an ancient Osama Bin Laden, the Asiatic vespers as their 9/11, which leads the dominant western power who'd been in the habit of manipulating it's far off puppet governments to commit to a war of revenge in the middle east. Or I think of Muslim terrorists having an analogue with Jewish Zealots in the Jewish Wars.

I have often considered the same comparison between bin Laden and Mithridates (and also between Jugurtha and Saddam Hussein--two loud-mouthed pests who caused more trouble than they were worth). Certainly Mithridates threatened Roman control of the East, but the analogy with Osama becomes tenuous beyond that. Mithridates and his son were Alexander the Great wannabes who had more in common with some of the Roman strongmen who fought them than with the people they tried to liberate. Still, it's a shrewd analysis to recognize some parallels.

Thank you for your comments, by the way. You obviously know your stuff. :)

mortalterror

01-27-2015, 05:47 PM

That's an interesting comment, Mortal. Do you mean Washington DC (used collectively) or George Washington? The latter is sometimes dressed up as Cincinnatus in older American statuary, although many Americans don't have the Livy these days to understand why.
I was thinking in the Cincinnatus sense: the patriotic general who declined to be king and went back to his farm. As for why I think of Bush Jr. as Claudius it's generally because even though Bush was a shrewd academic with an MA in business from an Ivy league school, and Claudius was an educated man who wrote histories, they were generally seen as bunglers and fools. I think of that story, maybe I heard it in Suetonius so don't trust it's accuracy, that he fell asleep at table once and his family put his slippers on his hands. Then when he woke up he started rubbing his face with his shoes while everyone laughed. And then there is that satire of Seneca's which pokes merciless fun at him and how he died.

"The last words he was heard to speak in this world were these. When he had made a great noise with that end of him which talked easiest, he cried out, "Oh dear, oh dear! I think I have made a mess of myself." Whether he did or no, I cannot say, but certain it is he always did make a mess of everything."

I think of this and then I picture that highlight reel video on youtube of Bush trying to open locked doors and looking sheepish, dancing silly, spitting on the ground, or saying ridiculous things.

I know what you mean, although I think it's probably more the result of the times in which we've lived than question of national character. The British saw themselves in a similar way in their Empire, especially during the Raj and the Chinese expansion (that is, as the "masculine, "take-charge-guys" dominating the somewhat effeminate (in their view) and spiritually detached Easterners. In fact, as irritatingly as his book is, Cambridge fellow Piers Brendon makes a pretty good case that the architects of the British Empire were consciously modeling themselves on the Roman Empire (at least as they understood it from their classical educations) and its supposed mission of law and civilization for the world. And Pericles' Athenians probably thought they were doing something similar when they held islands and city-states in the Delian league though the 5th century BC equivalent of gunboats. Everyone with a club thinks he's the Man.
There is definitely more than a bit of truth to Edward Said's Orientalism thesis about the west feminizing the East to subjugate it and feel superior.

Again, I know what you are saying, but your claim is strained by the factor of time. A thousand years passed between the Roman kings and the fall of the Empire in the West; and another thousand passed before the fall of Constantinople and the end of Byzantium. To take the West alone, your "through line" covers the equivalent distance in time for the "German character" that would be represented from Alaric the Goth to Martin Luther. The line is just too long to be much good. But perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "through line"?
I probably shouldn't have said through line. Maybe, indirect heirs would be preferable, although I'm not sure that's entirely right either; since most warrior cultures probably share the same characteristics from the Vikings, the Maasai, the Zulu, the Maori, to the Samurai.

I have often considered the same comparison between bin Laden and Mithridates (and also between Jugurtha and Saddam Hussein--two loud-mouthed pests who caused more trouble than they were worth). Certainly Mithridates threatened Roman control of the East, but the analogy with Osama becomes tenuous beyond that. Mithridates and his son were Alexander the Great wannabes who had more in common with some of the Roman strongmen who fought them than with the people they tried to liberate. Still, it's a shrewd analysis to recognize some parallels.

Thank you for your comments, by the way. You obviously know your stuff. :)
Historical parallels are always tenuous and destined to break down at some point. Like Mark Twain said, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

As for the Jugurthine war I'm a little ashamed to say that I don't remember much of my Sallust.

Thank you for your compliment, you obviously know the subject better than I do though.

Ecurb

01-27-2015, 06:50 PM

I have often considered the same comparison between bin Laden and Mithridates (and also between Jugurtha and Saddam Hussein--two loud-mouthed pests who caused more trouble than they were worth).....
:)

It's only natural that someone called 'Pompey' would "often consider" Mithridates. One question, why does my enjoyable biography, "The Poison King", by Adrienne Mayor, spell it "Mithradates", but you (and the spell checker on LitNet) prefer Mithridates?

Pompey Bum

01-27-2015, 07:35 PM

It's only natural that someone called 'Pompey' would "often consider" Mithridates.

Yes, true, although I was actually named for a Shakespearian pimp.

One question, why does my enjoyable biography, "The Poison King", by Adrienne Mayor, spell it "Mithradates", but you (and the spell checker on LitNet) prefer Mithridates?

Both forms are acceptable. The Romans preferred Mithridates, and the form was later adopted by English speaking classical academics. Mithridates himself used Greek rather than Latin letters in his inscriptions, but used alpha rather than iota, so "Mithradates" is closer to the way he would have written it. "Mithra," as you probably know, was the name a Zoroastrian divinity and later a Roman cult god.

Mothra is right out. :)

Clopin

01-27-2015, 07:52 PM

Mothra is right out. :)

https://jameskillough.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/mothra-girls.jpg

Ecurb

01-27-2015, 08:04 PM

Yes, true, although I was actually named for a Shakespearian pimp.
:)

In the beastliest sense, then, you are Pompey the Great.

Pompey Bum

01-27-2015, 08:49 PM

Clopin: I like a fellow who knows his Japanese monsters. :)

In the beastliest sense, then, you are Pompey the Great.

Too true, too true.

How are you liking Poison King? It looked interesting, and of course it's a great story.

Ecurb

01-28-2015, 12:15 AM

I read "The Poison King" 4 or so years ago (so I barely remember it now). It is a great story. I had only barely been aware of Mithradates prior to reading it -- and I prefer the "Mithradates" spelling because (evidently) it means "gift of Mithra". I mean, who knows what "gift of Mithri" means?

Among other excellent histories I've read recently:

The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain by Maria Rosa Menocal. Menocal was a Yale professor (so the book may not appeal to you, Pompey), who was originally a leading expert on Medieval Romantic Poetry -- the tradition of the troubadours. Evidently, this tradition was largely based on the romantic poetry of the Arabs, which led Menocal to write her book about the Golden Age of Cordoba, when the ruling Muslims sometimes employed Jews and Christians as their leading advisers, generals, scholars, etc. Unfortunately, the "culture of tolerance" all fell apart -- but it's a great book for anyone interested in the history of literature and scholarship in Europe and the Mediterranean.

Menocal died of cancer a year or two back, while still relatively young.

I read the book while traveling in Spain -- where I also read "The Battle for Spain" by Anthony Beevor -- also very good, about the Spanish Civil War. One of the creepiest (but most impressive) places I've ever seen is the Valle de los Caidos, outside of Madrid. It's a fascist monument to those who fell in the Spanish Civil war, gigantic in stature, fascist in design, and very impressive (and scary). If you're ever near Madrid or El Escorial, don't miss it.

One outstanding history I've read recently that may interest Litnet members is "Lives Like Loaded Guns" by Lyndall Gordon. It's a biography of Emily Dickinson, and includes the dramatic family history that followed her death. Great book! I think I reviewed it on Litnet a couple of years ago.

Pompey Bum

01-28-2015, 12:35 PM

I read "The Poison King" 4 or so years ago (so I barely remember it now). It is a great story.

The lady who wrote it is better known for a book about how the ancients interpreted the dinosaur and mega-mammal fossils that they came upon from time to time. It's a really fun read, called The First Fossil Hunters. She wrote another one on the same subject for prehistoric America. I have not read that one because, typically, it is not available on Kindle. It's a really cool subject, though.

I prefer the "Mithradates" spelling because (evidently) it means "gift of Mithra". I mean, who knows what "gift of Mithri" means?

I agree. Why take chances?

Among other excellent histories I've read recently:

The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain by Maria Rosa Menocal. Menocal was a Yale professor (so the book may not appeal to you, Pompey)

Hey, it's about tolerance, right? :)

I read the book while traveling in Spain -- where I also read "The Battle for Spain" by Anthony Beevor -- also very good, about the Spanish Civil War.

If you liked Beevor's history of the Spanish Civil War, you may want to check out his better known book on the Battle of Stalingrad. I can't vouch for it personally, but it has a good reputation. I think it is a "military history," that is, a narrative of the battle itself rather than its importance in the overall course of the war or history in general. But as I said, I've never read it.

One of the creepiest (but most impressive) places I've ever seen is the Valle de los Caidos, outside of Madrid. It's a fascist monument to those who fell in the Spanish Civil war, gigantic in stature, fascist in design, and very impressive (and scary). If you're ever near Madrid or El Escorial, don't miss it.

Yes, I've been there. And as you say, it's creepatonic.

I hope you got a chance to visit Cordoba while you were in Spain. It's one of the loveliest and most interesting cities I've ever seen. Granada is no longer lovely (thanks to Franco and Goering), but the Alhambra is still magnificent. Spain, as I'm sure you discovered, is a gorgeous country full of warm (and gorgeous) people.

Ecurb

01-28-2015, 09:16 PM

I have read Beevor's Stalingrad book. Good stuff.

I was in Cordoba decades ago, but went to Northern Spain two summers ago. We hiked a few days on the Camino de Santiago del Compostela, and one of the highlights (since you like theology) was attending the Pilgrims Mass in Santiago. You've probably at least seen the pictures of giant incense pendulum, designed (presumably) to hide the odor of thousands of pilgrims who haven't bathed in weeks.

The sermon was given by some potentate, wearing funny clothes -- maybe even a bishop. He spoke in Spanish, which I studied in high school, but I understood most of it. At the climax, he said, "There are many pilgrims gathered here, and each of you had his own reasons for your pilgrimage. Some of you wanted the exercise. Some of you wanted the companionship of the refugios. Perhaps, even, some of you went on the pilgrimage because you were searching for God. To those who took the pilgrimage to look for God, I can tell you that, search as you might, you can't find Him. He has to find you."

It was a great sermon.

Perhaps apropos of our discussion about Charlie Hebo, St. James's (Santiago) bones were found near Santiago when the Northwest corner of Spain was Iberia's only Christian stronghold. One key to the invincibility of Muslim Arms was the fact that they carried with them the Arm of Mohammed. This talisman was purported to be the actual arm of the Prophet, and when carrying it into battle, the Muslim armies could not be defeated. Fortunately, the Christian defenders of Santiago discovered the buried bones of St. James, which, although the Saint was martyred in Rome, had supposedly been toted back to Spain where he had been an evangelist. Aha! The tide of battle turned! Carrying the bones of St. James (thus neutralizing the Arm of Mohammed), the Christian forces were able to drive the Infidel Hordes back. That's why the Camino became the most famous of all Medieval Christian pilgrimages.

MANICHAEAN

01-29-2015, 12:06 AM

Beevor's "Berlin:The Downfall 1945" is also rather good, but in terms of war history my two favourites are:

1. "The Years of the Sword" by Elizabeth Longford.
2. "The Last Lion" by William Manchester. He started another one after this called I think "The Lion at Bay," but unfortunately died before the end could be attained.

Great line: "To those who took the pilgrimage to look for God, I can tell you that, search as you might, you can't find Him. He has to find you."
And it can be quite a shock when He does, especially if you are not exactly the most conventional representation of spiritual values.

Finally, a question.
Were the words "Infidel Hordes" deliberate when referring to the Musselman forces?
Am now trying to imagine an appropriate description of the Christians, "peace and blessings be upon them."

Pompey Bum

01-29-2015, 01:46 PM

I was in Cordoba decades ago, but went to Northern Spain two summers ago. We hiked a few days on the Camino de Santiago del Compostela, and one of the highlights (since you like theology) was attending the Pilgrims Mass in Santiago. You've probably at least seen the pictures of giant incense pendulum, designed (presumably) to hide the odor of thousands of pilgrims who haven't bathed in weeks.

Probably. And in Medieval times such places usually had thriving dung heaps not far off, too. Where the olfactory sense is concerned, we live in an unusually pleasant age. Maybe the Defenestration of Prague was worth 30 years of slaughter after all.

Perhaps, even, some of you went on the pilgrimage because you were searching for God. To those who took the pilgrimage to look for God, I can tell you that, search as you might, you can't find Him. He has to find you."

Yes, it's well said. Whatever kind of funny hat he wore, they ought to kick him up at least to the next funny.

Perhaps apropos of our discussion about Charlie Hebo, St. James's (Santiago) bones were found near Santiago when the Northwest corner of Spain was Iberia's only Christian stronghold. One key to the invincibility of Muslim Arms was the fact that they carried with them the Arm of Mohammed. This talisman was purported to be the actual arm of the Prophet, and when carrying it into battle, the Muslim armies could not be defeated. Fortunately, the Christian defenders of Santiago discovered the buried bones of St. James, which, although the Saint was martyred in Rome, had supposedly been toted back to Spain where he had been an evangelist. Aha! The tide of battle turned! Carrying the bones of St. James (thus neutralizing the Arm of Mohammed), the Christian forces were able to drive the Infidel Hordes back. That's why the Camino became the most famous of all Medieval Christian pilgrimages.

That stuff, though, you can't make up. Strategically, of course, it has to do with the morale of one's own troops, which is important for victory; and was even more so in those days, when it was a lot easier for soldiers to kill the officers and treat with the enemy on their terms. But from the distance of the centuries since the Reconquista, it all just seems so--World War Z?

Pompey Bum

01-29-2015, 03:13 PM

Thanks for the recommendation of Countess Longford's book on Wellington, Manichaean. It is (predictably enough) unavailable in ebook form at Amazon. The Last Lion is an old favorite, though. As for Wellington, there is an enjoyable (but not much more than that) magical fantasy novel by Susanna Clarke, called Mr. Norris and Jonathan Small, in which Wellington appears in a supporting role. Fans of that novel have told me that they found the part with Wellington (during the Peninsular Campaign and later at Waterloo) to a distraction, but I thought it was the best part of the book

By the way, a really great history that covers the period from Marlborough's campaigns to the American Revolution is Brendan Simms' Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire. Simm's is a history professor at Cambridge, and this is one of those "real histories" that give you a world-class college course for the price of an ebook.

Simms approaches the material in a new way (apparently, I'm still trying to get my bearings with British historiography). He takes exception, as it were, to the historiographical tradition of British exceptionalism (or at least the idea that because Britain is an island, its historical development was less constrained and informed by events on the Continent). Simms shows how Marlborough's struggle to forestall a universal European monarch in the person of Louis XIV were succeeded by German (Hanoverian) kings of England who continued to play the continental game, especially using their Dutch and Prussian allies; and France's counter attempt to forge a union with the House of Hapsburg, and to encircle Britain geopolitically through her possessions in the New World.

If you've ever wondered what the War of Jenkins' Ear was all about, Professor Brendan is the man to tell you. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Victories-Defeat-British-Empire-ebook/dp/B0088Q9R20/ref=tmm_kin_title_0

Ecurb

01-29-2015, 05:38 PM

My favorite Wellington anecdote:

During the Peninsular Campaign, Wellington was returning to camp from crawling through the mud to reconnoiter the French positions. He and his aide were besmirched with mud, and as they returned to camp a company of re-enforcements came marching into camp, bagpipes playing, all spit and polish. Wellington turned to his aide and said, "I don't know what effect they may have on the enemy, but, by gad sir, they scare the hell out of me."

MANICHAEAN

01-30-2015, 12:50 AM

I was aware of the quote, but are you sure regarding the circumstances Ecurb?

Wellington was an accomplished horseman who normally did recons in the saddle.

Pompey Bum

01-30-2015, 09:15 AM

Here's a cute book of Wellington anecdotes. I haven't looked up the one in question, but perhaps it's in there.

https://archive.org/stream/wellingtonianaan00timb#page/n5/mode/2up

ennison

01-30-2015, 09:17 AM

Well Ecurb has a story which he has apocryphalised. Wellesley did use words to that effect but not of a Highland Regiment. Not many of the Peninsular regiments were into "spit and polish". They were years in the field and often wore patched and tattered uniforms . It was also the case that quite a few of the English regiments were composed of what Wellesly would have called "the dregs of society." These regiments had to be led with ferocious discipline. It was watching a regiment so composed that led to that remark. They were probably a grim-looking vicious lot.

Ecurb

01-30-2015, 11:15 AM

I was aware of the quote, but are you sure regarding the circumstances Ecurb?

Wellington was an accomplished horseman who normally did recons in the saddle.

Needless to say, no, I am not "sure" regarding the circumstances. However, I did read the anecdote in a book of historical anecdotes that also included the Churchill story about pinning a flower to the "white meat" of a lady, if you will accept that as SOME evidence of authenticity.

Pompey Bum

09-02-2016, 04:41 PM

This is a response to chuckcharles' post on the introductions thread:

I'd love to study American history (partly because of the american literature), if you have any authors/books to suggest?

My knowledge of American history is rudimentary. I am writing a history of my family, which came to America in the 17th century, and I am chronically frustrated by how little context I actually have. But I have been helped by the Oxford History of the United States, a generational series that is still being written. I can recommend Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815 by Brown professor Gordon Wood; What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 by Oxford/UCLA professor Daniel Walker Howe; and Battlecry of Freedom: The Civil War Era by Princeton professor James McPherson. All won the Pulitzer Prize, which is more or less the American version of Man Booker.

There is also The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789 by Berkeley professor Robert Middlekauf. This is from the same series and also won the Pulitzer Prize, but I can't recommend it personally because I haven't read it. It's considered a standard, though, and I'm sure it's worthwhile. It was written in the 1970s and used to have a reputation for being a little dated, but it was later revised by the author and got all kinds of kudos from the wise. Just make sure you get the revised version. There are books that I haven't read in this series, too, some or all of which have won the Pulitzer Prize.

Empire of Liberty focuses on law, What Hath God Wrought on technology, and Battlecry of Freedom on politics; but each also covers economic, sociological, and geopolitical/military history in detail. These books are weighty, magisterial tome. If you're a student, you would be well advised to wait for a substantial break to try one. Each is a university course in itself.

Before this year I made excavations on prehistoric and medieval sites, but this year, thanks to my teachers, I will be in Italy and Greece ; Unfortunately (for us) it seems that the excavations in Egypt by foreigners are increasingly limited, so I do not think I can go any time soon.

I excavated sites in Egypt and northern Israel in the late 70s and early 80s. I also traveled/hitchhiked through Egypt, Syria, and Turkey about the same. All these places that are in hell today--Aleppo, Homs, Latakia--I remember them well. When I got to Palmyra (I was shot at on the way, which at the time I thought was very romantic) there was no tourism there, just ruins. I remember climbing to the top of the Temple of Bel--the one that the Isis goons dynamited last year-and just looking out over the ruins. Palmyra was built at an oasis in the middle of the desert, which is why so much of it survived. It just felt like being on the moon.

I'm glad there are still options left today, even if the Near East is out for the time being. Achaeology and history are not the same discipline, but every historian should get a crack at it. The work is backbreaking, or it was in my day. But there's nothing like finding the chess pieces right where the gods left them. (Extra credit to Lokasenna or anyone else who can identify the reference).