(Part 2) Best ancient greek history books according to redditors
We found 794 Reddit comments discussing the best ancient greek history books. We ranked the 238 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
This is actually really inaccurate according to all archaeological and historical (ancient or modern) data.
For starters the scale is out of whack. The city should not stretch all the way across the peninsula. Here is a map showing how big the Troad peninsula was, Troy only occupied a small portion of it, not this huge metropolis.
Another example showing the rivers and the famed Plain of Troy.
Here it is on Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B057'27.0%22N+26%C2%B014'20.0%22E/@39.9575,26.238889,2792m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d39.9575!4d26.238889?hl=en
There is also zero evidence of that inner harbour/lake at Troy VIIh (the "Homeric Troy") or any of the other levels of Troy. The plain was fed by a pair of rivers that converged very near Troy and flowed into the inner bay. They could use and divert those rivers, but never in such a scale. The harbours used were the natural bay where the rivers debouched and a smaller one facing the Aegean. There were also none of those little artificial lakes around Troy.
The city was also very different. For starters there was no castle with a moat around it, the citadel was a complex of palaces and religious houses that looked the same as the lower city houses only were bigger, richer, and more opulent. This is a close up of what the citadel might have looked like (of which there is a lot of excavated ground): http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/images/MiddleEast/Anatolia/Troy_City_VIh_02_full.jpg
OP is correct in saying that the citadel was once believed to be all, but that recently more has been found. However, it's not as expansive as the illustration suggests. This is the boring archaeological diagram of what has been excavated so far, and you can see the outlines of an outer wall (called the Lower City wall). It's significant, and Troy was likely one of the biggest cities in the ancient Near East (with 5,000 to 10,000 people), and the way the city is set up basically proves that the culture was a lot more Hittite than Mycenean Greek or anything else. So a lot has been learned over the past couple of decades.
This is the best and most faithful representation of what Troy VII might have looked like: http://forum.boinaslava.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=26810&d=1413378933
I love that people can be excited about Troy as the real city that it was, not just the legend, and there's a lot to still discover about it, but I think it's important to be cautious about how it's portrayed. Especially in such a historical period where archaeology is so necessary, it's easy to take a little thing, a tiny piece of evidence, and blow it out of proportion; for example seeing any evidence of using river water for crops and jumping to the conclusion that Trojans were master canal builders - there's no solid evidence of the kind. It's easy to mythologize Bronze Age civilizations, especially Troy, but reality is, unfortunately, less glamorous; however, its complexities can still blow you away if you don't expect too much from a civilization that lived 3,500 years ago.
Source: Historian with extensive research knowledge of the Late Bronze Age Near East, including Troy.
EDIT: Well, since I've been gilded (thanks for that, by the way) I'll go the extra mile and give some book rec's for those who want to know more.
Disclaimer: Most of these are very academic-y, can be quite dense; unfortunately when it comes to this topic this is the norm, but I'll spare you guys the real dull ones. I'll start with one of the most accessible.
The Trojan War: A New History by Barry Strauss.
In Search of the Trojan War Paperback by Michael Wood.
The Trojans & Their Neighbours Paperback by Trevor Bryce.
1177 BC: The Year Civlization Collapsed by Eric H. Cline.
Greece in the Bronze Age Paperback by Emily Townsend Vermeule.
Life and Society in the Hittite World Paperback by Trevor Bryce.
I'm pretty sure the details of their training have been lost to time, but there is a way to at least get the "feel" for their training.
It would be safe to assume that their program was probably not unique for the time. Meaning, the Spartan way of combat was not different from Athens or Korinth. Like the vast differences between Kung Fu and Karate and Tae Kwon Do. That's not to say there was no difference between them, but that difference was the men who comprised the armies.
You see, the Spartans trained all the time because they were rich enough to do so. The Helots did all the farming and Perioikoi did the artisan work. An Athenian or Boeotian farmer came off the farm and joined the Phalanx with little training. Indeed, hoplite warfare----until, to some degree, the Thebans and really the Macedonians come along----is deceptively simple. You lock shields, march straight ahead, then jab your spear in the other guys face until one side breaks. While there were all kinds of nuances and politics as to who lined up where and which city did what, it was really a bunch of guys running in one long line. (See Victor Davis Hansen's The Western Way of War for a spectacular explanation of the psychology behind the hoplite).
I'd argue that what made Sparta different from the other Greek armies was their upbringing and experience in battle. They were taught from a young age to fight to the death, and would have been kicked out of Laconia (which did occur frequently, even a King was exiled for what was perceived as cowardice or weakness) went to war just about every summer. They were always fighting someone. And so until their later period, when Greece was always at war with itself, the Spartans had more experience than their foes. Another aspect of Spartan culture often overlooked, is they had to keep their slaves in line. So much of their "off" time might be spent engaging in psychological warfare on the enslaved helots and/or killing the bravest of them to make an example of them.
You can't really recreate their childhood education (which had a lot more singing and dancing than you'd expect) because stalking around stealing from people is frowned upon in our society. You can't really create their famous diet. Spartans spent much of their free time trapping and hunting game, so you could that. Also chariot racing, which is harder to get in to these days. So what's left?
This is conjecture, but, I'd argue, sound conjecture. Their exercise regimen was probably comparable to Olympic athletes of the day. The Olympians of that time were mostly from very wealthy families, who had "leisure time" to train in sports. Spartan men (and even a woman) often won Olympic victories. So where does this leave you and your regimen?
Sprinting would be good, and this would transfer well into the charge of the Phalanx. So too would push ups, pull ups, and throwing large rocks. Spartans were extremely competitive and I could see many competitions about who was strongest. Running in armor was a great Olympic event back then, so maybe buy a weighted vest and run around the track? There was the javelin, the discus and jumping too. Also, the Spartans loved to sing and dance and being unable to do was seen as a deficiency. So strut your stuff bro and belt a tune while you do it! Also, find eight or so buddies to train with. Then you all should move out of your house, into a barracks and live together and train together every hour of every day. You can see your wife/girlfriend at night but you can't sleep over, and if you don't give her a baby fast enough she'll cheat on you. But I digress.
Learning a little about Pankration might be a good place to start. It's basically a mix of western boxing and Olympic wrestling (with fewer rules actually). I know of no Pankration gyms. A boxing gym would be easy to find but wrestling instruction outside of high school and collegiate levels is hard to find. I'd argue modern MMA is pretty similar to Pankration, especially the spirit of the sport. Jiu Jitsu bay be Japanese with a Brazilian flair, but those joint locks and the concept of tapping out echoes of ancient Greek wrestling matches. Minus the Thai round kick or San Da side kick, MMA is how I'd imagine the Spartans sparring one another.
Some books to check out: The Spartans
is great. A great mix of history and culture, highlighting their rise and fall.
Gates of Fire is fiction, but it's the best show of hoplite warfare and the Spartan spirit that I have read.
And just to keep you well rounded, Lords of the Sea tells of Athens, whose navy and the men who manned it were nothing short of spectacular. They are to the sea warfare what Sparta was to land.
Hope that helps.
According to Christopher Matthew in his book, a Storm of Spears, a phalanx could involve different levels of order. For well-trained soldiers, a phalanx in close formation had the soldiers stand in a side-on fighting stance so that shields could overlap. Pushing with shields would disrupt such a tight order and expose hoplites to attack.
A phalanx advancing in close order could only do so slowly, and so the brief "shield on shield" collision which consisted of one side colliding with the other could not have happened.
A phalanx will less trained soldiers would have had a more open order, but this would not have involved pushing except in the initial stages of one side charging the other.
After the initial charge, both sides would then separate and start spear-fencing from a distance. Spear fencing was the primary means of combat as the spear was intended to be used at a distance. Why would a hoplite fight in such a manner that negated them the ability to use their primary weapon in it's most effect fashion, whilst exposing them to attacks from multiple ranks?
Source:
http://www.amazon.com/Storm-Spears-Understanding-Greek-Hoplite/dp/161200119X
I do think Virtue is the highest good, and living with virtue in accordance with your nature is everything you should strive for. But the Stoics are pretty clear in their writings that the intended consequence of living Stoically is to reach a sense of fulfillment, flourishing, or however you want to translate "Eudaimonia" through living with virtue. So if you're unhappy and anxious, then you're not using all the Stoic tools available to you to overcome this. And that's fine! That's not an admonishment of you or your Stoic skillset - there has never been and never will be a Stoic Sage, it's natural for us to trip and tumble on this journey! What's important is that we get back up and keep working towards our ideal. If you read Meditations and Seneca's Letters, you know they both make references to the study of this philosophy being like wrestlers and boxers who get up over and over again no matter how many times they've been punched and kicked and defeated - and that's us now, against our opponent, Fortune. So don't despair that your life hasn't suddenly improved on Stoicism, your entire life is your Stoic journey - and small steps are still progress.
First you should always remember that "ruin and recovery come from within." You are so powerful in regards to yourself / your mind, and you just have to remember that at every turn - I have the power to change, I have the power to appropriately judge this impression, I have the power to set my goals appropriately!
And that last part (about setting goals appropriately) is essentially why I felt the need to comment, because if you feel your dreams are crumbling around you, then you're not setting your goals according to Stoic principles, and if you're not setting your goals appropriately, then you're not applying the Stoic Fork appropriately.
You should break down every situation into its individual parts, then separate them between things you can control and things you cannot. Let's take a job interview as an example: You want them to like you, you want the interview to go well, you want to get the job. None of those are entirely up to you! So switch them around, look at them differently. Set your goals thusly: "I will try my best, if nothing stops me, to be a likable person in this interview. I will do my best, as long as nothing prevents me, to give compelling answers to their questions and give the best interview I can." And the last part of the goal: getting the job? ENTIRELY out of your control if you think about it - they will be making that decision, not you, so why are you concerned with something outside your sphere of control? You should be focused only on things you can control. These two techniques are called goal internalization and the reserve clause.
On top of that, are you spending time on morning and evening meditations? I'm not talking about mindfulness meditation (although I do love it), I'm talking about the meditations recommended by the Stoics.
In the morning, visualize how your day will go, how you will interact with disagreeable people, how you will react to common disturbances in your life (traffic, horrible boss, lazy coworkers, etc.), and perhaps even bigger disturbances if you have time. Then end that meditation with applying the Stoic Fork "these things are not in my control, only my impressions and my (re)actions are in my control."
In the evening, review your day and ask yourself "What did I do well today? Where did I falter? Where could I have done better and how?" A lot of people say journaling this helps, I'm sure it does. I just do it all in my mind though right as I wake up and just as I'm falling asleep - it takes 5-10 minutes each time, and it's easy. I think it will vastly improve your situation.
And I don't think you should "let go of [your] hopes" - that's not what Stoicism tells you to do. Yes, you should control your desires and set appropriate goals for life, but you are allowed to prefer things in life. The key is not to let your happiness or fulfillment hinge solely on those things. For example, while it's natural that you should desire good health, you shouldn't let the loss of your health defeat you if it ever does happen. Health and many other things are preferred indifferents.
I'd also highly recommend reading Epictetus' Discourses - you will probably get a lot out of it.
What translation of Seneca's Letters did you read? I highly recommend this one, it's super easy to read and flows so smoothly. Perhaps if you were reading the older translations, some of it didn't come across so well - I certainly struggle through the older translations myself. That book is expensive, but perhaps your local library would have it...or it is possible to find it online...
Most importantly, and I know you know this, although if you're anything like me you also forget about it sometimes - reading a book isn't going to help you. Studying it and practicing what it teaches will. Since I started Stoicism, I've actually been compiling all my favorite quotes and explanations into a book for myself, because it helps me keep it all straight. You need to think of Stoicism like seriously religious people think about their religions - you can't just read the bible or qur'an or Torah once and call yourself a follower - it's about reading them, studying, finding analyses of them, studying them in depth, seeing what other scholars are saying about it, and then actually practicing it. And the Stoics knew this, it's why they recommend using maxims so heavily - having these short little phrases that stick in the brain so you can think of them right away and remind yourself "I need to be practicing this...I can do better..." So next time you read any Stoic literature, write down some short phrases that are easy to remember and recall, and memorize them, study them, get the true meaning behind them, and I think this will help Stoicism become a more ingrained way of life for you!
Courtesans and Fishcakes: The Consuming Passions of Classical Athens.
I'm a nerd.
Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:
amazon.co.uk
amazon.ca
amazon.com.au
amazon.in
amazon.com.mx
amazon.de
amazon.it
amazon.es
amazon.com.br
amazon.nl
amazon.co.jp
amazon.fr
Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.
In-fucking-credible book. Another great read for the history is http://www.amazon.co.uk/Persian-Fire-First-Empire-Battle/dp/0349117179/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318348627&sr=8-1
You should read the book Courtesans and Fishcakes: the Consuming Passions of Ancient Athens. tl;dr: sex with women was very popular with classical Athenian men. As was drinking to oblivion and, perhaps more surprisingly, eating fish hot off the skillet. Fun fact: Socrates was present at every drinking party recorded during his lifetime.
Greek Religion: A Sourcebook https://www.amazon.com/dp/1585100315/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_YZ-HDbFWZVY2D
Captivating History's book on Greek Mythology
Currently reading
Greek Warfare: Myth and Realities by Hans Van Wees
and A Storm of Spears: Understanding the Greek Hoplite at War
by Christopher Matthews
both are examinations of Archaic and Classical Greek warfare. Fer people into serious history work, not light reading at all.
In my view, Nietzsche was overly optimistic in citing the will to power as the fundamental drive of living humans. Ironic that one so associated with nihilism would be too optimistic. Reading Nietzsche helped me realize that the vast majority of people don't really care about finding meaning in life, and are perfectly happy substituting complacent contentment for meaning. Contentment, on the surface, feels like existential fulfillment, but it's impossible to stress how harmful that nondistinction can be. Meaning-seeking is proactive and individualistic, of which most people are neither and few are either. Most people who (mis)read Nietzsche see themselves as the higher man, rather than a sheep, for who wishes to see himself as an ovine puppet? Nietzsche is fantastic at exposing hypocrisy, including (indirectly) in his own readers, even if they're not self-honest enough to see it. He was one of the best arguers for relativism of beliefs, showing how our morals (and most other ideas) are influenced so heavily by circumstance and bias that they can scarcely be called objective or untouchably sacred.
Beyond that, Nietzsche's Apollonian-Dionysian distinction is my favorite dichotomy in philosophy, one that has shaped many aspects of my thinking. He didn't coin it, but he popularized it (along with Walter Otto).
Nietzsche goes against so many values my society holds, so he's rejected, caricatured, and miscontextualized left and right. To be clear, I don't think many people should subscribe to his philosophy; it's not for everyone, and it wouldn't be feasible for everyone to be Nietzschean. But (and I say this as a female liberal) I think his particular idealization of masculinity is something to be celebrated, something quite missing in our imbalanced culture today (especially when most people who think they're manly are anything but).
He's a delightful writer, and probably the easiest philosopher for me to read (factoring in how important the flow of prose is), and he's so independent from philosophical canon that laypersons could read him without immense difficulty or much preparation. I think they should. Nietzsche has a lot of things to say that people would benefit from hearing and understanding.
Well, in the old Byzantine Empire AKA the Eastern Roman Empire, the typical mode of inheritance was non-familial. Generally, the successor to an Emperor would be adopted early in life, serve time in the military or civic offices, and then was elevated to co-emperor, gradually taking on the Imperial roles as the old Emperor aged. The accession of Emperor Justinian I is a good example of the old mode of "Late Roman" succession.
During the reign of Emperor Heraclius, in the era of the Arab Conquests (when the Empire saw the loss of the vital provinces of Africa, Egypt, and Syria), the Empire begins its drastic "medievalization", a necessary change in order to preserve what was left of the once-great Eastern Roman Empire. Included in this transformation is the disappearance of "adoptive succession", the traditional mode of Imperial succession stretching back all of the way to the time of Augustus. During the transition period, we begin to see a tendency towards hereditary succession, which becomes fully fledged by the era of iconoclasm and which would persist in Imperial succession until 1461.
In the era of the Komnenoi, a successor was generally appointed from the current Imperial family and would be elevated to the title of "co-emperor" or "σεβαστοκράτωρ" for a time. The then-Emperor or "βασιλεύς", would rule for life, or until retirement (which surprisingly, did occur several times) at which time the co-emperor would take his place. But other than usually being from the Imperial family, there was never really an organized method of succession like in modern monarchies, and as observed during the period, there was a lot of political strife, even amongst family members.
For relevant literature, I would certainly recommend reading the Alexiad by contemporaneous historian Anna Komnena. She provides a lot of insight into the events that occurred in the Imperial court during the Komnenian period.
Some recently-published books, such as Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire and Lost to the West, both provide well-written overviews of the history of the period. These will help you get a feeling for the Byzantine political scene in the High Middle Ages.
Not pop history, but this is an amazing primer on the Hellenistic world. I loved it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hellenistic-Age-History-Chronicles/dp/0812967402
You might find this particular translation of "The Handbook" with commentary quite useful.
Robert Graves' 2 volume The Greek Myths is comprehensive, but there's a catch: Graves has arranged and chosen his version of the myths in order to facilitate a kind of narrative continuity that's not particularly true to the way that the Greeks understood their myths. Karl Kerenyi and Carl Kerenyi's The Greek Gods and The Greek Heroes are closer to the source material, and will give you a better sense of the variety and disagreements involved. Ultimately, though, it's a matter of preference: Do you want narrative sweep, or fidelity to tradition?
Alternately, you could go back to the sources themselves. Ovid's Metamorphoses is basically a treasury of Greco-Roman myth. Again, there's a catch: Ovid's theme is that of things transforming into something else (hence the title), so there's a definite bias in favor of myths that suit that motif. That said, Ovid is also as close as you're going to get to the original form of a lot of Greco-Roman myths, so it's hard to go wrong there.
If you really want to do some heavy lifting on the Greco-Roman myths, get a copy of Pausanius' Guide to Greece, Vol. I and Vol. II. This is basically a travelogue of Greece, written for the Roman Emperor, and it lists in detail most of the locations associated with Greek myths and legends, and gives some detail on most of the lesser known ones. There's a lot to sift through here, and you'll probably want to have an Atlas of the Ancient World on hand to get a sense of where he's talking about at any given time, so I definitely don't recommend starting out here, but if you're looking for really in-depth source material, this is the place to go.
For the Norse myths, there's the Poetic Edda and the Prose Edda, as well as a slew of sagas that are worth looking into. On of the most famous is certainly The Nibelungenlied, on which Wagner based his [Ring Cycle]() (you know, "Ride of the Valkyries," and all that), which was the basis for much of Lord of the Rings. Personally, my favorite of the sagas I've read so far is the Volsungs.
For the Sumerians, the obvious starting point is Gilgamesh. Our sources are pretty fragmented, and there are editions that reflect that fragmentation, but for pure readability, I suggest the Herbert Mason retelling. Or, if you're really into it, get both and compare. The go-to author for Sumerian myth and religion in general is Samuel Noah Kramer; his book Sumerian Mythology is as good a general survey as you're likely to find, particularly if you're interested in the archeological method behind our knowledge of the Sumerians.
What else? For the Egyptians, E. A. Budge is your man. Dover Books in general has a good series of older, public domain works on mythology, including books on Japanese and Chinese mythology. I wish I had some sources to give you on meso-American or African myth, but those are areas of inquiry I'm just delving into myself. But then, you're probably overwhelmed as it is.
Good luck.
If you're interested in the 'rarer' and more obscure Greek myths, try to find copies of The God of the Greeks and The Heroes of the Greeks both by Karl Kerenyi. He does an amazing job pulling many of the Greek myths into a very good narrative and really focuses on a lot of the lesser known stories or versions of stories, many which I've not seen referenced outside the source material.
Apart from the wikisource translations, the only full translation of Seneca's letters is the University of Chicago Press Translation by Margaret Graver and A.A. Long (https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Ethics-Lucilius-Complete-Annaeus/dp/022626517X).
The book can be expensive but it is worth it, the most modern translation I believe. I'd highly recommend it.
I suggest that you do some reading on ancient history before you go interpreting ancient warfare through the lens of 20th/21st century culture. Some good starting points would be Arrian, Freeman and Sheppard. I suggest that you start with this source, which provides a good insight into the way the ancients viewed warfare and its connection to their lives.
I tell you what, i'll give you the booklist from a class i took called "Fall of Rome," and you can go to the library and check them out and read them and make your own evaluation.
The Roman Empire, a Study in Survival, by Chester G. Starr
The Later Roman Empire by Avril Cameron
The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, by Bryan Ward-Perkins
Byzantium, by Judith Herrin
Then there's a book on Charlemagne by Matthias Becher and another book by an Italian whose name i cannot remember right now. Also, look up Henri Pirenne and his thoughts on the rise and fall of Rome, both East and West.
The Greeks called Dionysus Bacchus as well. There's a really good book called Dionysus: Myth and Cult that goes into the particulars of his history as a deity worshiped in Greece and cultic practices that sprung up.
I think my favorite Dionysus story is when the maenads wanted two house wives to come with them to the forest, but since they were devotees of Hera they stayed home. Well, old Dionysus didn't like that very much so he decided to visit them. Things ended poorly for the women. The walls started bleeding honey, they went mad, and tore their eyes out. He's my favorite Greek god. I actually have a statue of him that my cat likes to knock over.
Right, back again, so as books go you really can not go wrong with Jean Bingen's Hellenistic Egypt, and/or Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic Age, Alexander to Actium, and The Hellenistic Age: A Short History all by the eminent Peter Green with the last one being especially useful to familiarize yourself with the topic, and here is a link where you can read Greek Nomos and Egyptian Religion by Ronaldo Guilherme Gurgel Pereira without having to go buy a book and wait for it. Now, I tend to favour Oxford journals and publications a bit too much but I think you should not go too far astray in reading Social Unrest and Ethnic Coexistence in Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucid Empire and the Oxford bibliography of Hellenistic and Roman Egypt has some good recommendations.
PDF of Evolution of the Technique of Mummification by Riana McArthur this one is a bit self explanatory and can also be read online for free.
Plus, a somewhat random NatGeo article about Lion Mummification in Hellenistic Egypt (this one I remembered just because it is kind of neat, I mean imagine if one of these was resurrected a la The Mummy :-p)
Edit: I just condensed the other comment into this one for convenience.
We actually know remarkably little about his life, considering how important he was.
I'm more of a military history nerd, and I liked this book-
http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Great-War-Battles-Military/dp/1849084807
It focuses on Alexander's army and the details of their battles.
It's been a long time since I've read this but you may want to look into this. Strauss has a good reputation and as far as I can recall it was a good read. Although, I can't remember how much emphasis was placed on mythology.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Trojan-War-New-History/dp/0743264428
Good morning! It's near 5am and I can't sleep, woo.
Right, well I go to Swansea university! I'll in my second year of my superduper awesome history degree come September/October time. I did literature for a year and a half before truly acknowledging it bored me silly and it was the historical context and the impact the literature and the time had on one another. Seeing how I haven't studied history since I was 14 this was deemed both a bold and a stupid move by many. I am studying all the cool stuff this year: Ww1 and its impact on society (perfect for my literary angle), Roman warfare, Norman warfare, Ancient Greek city states, silly compulsory core module where our assignments are centered around a specific type of source rather than era which could be interesting anddd got a study trip which I've been told is to Italy this year.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0006863434/ref=aw_ls_2_4?colid=2QNVOI81XJ2RT&coliid=IJM76MS576NA4
Book! Courtesan and fishcakes: the consuming passions of classical Athens. For one the title amuses me somewhat and would be awesome on my bookshelf. But more importantly last year I rocked at my classical Athens module and was second highest in the class and led our athenian style assembly because I'm a bossy boots. I intend to do better with Greek city states thus year which means more and wider reading. Even if it doesn't end up directly tying in, a good base of knowledge is never a bad thing.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0863560237/ref=aw_ls_2_7?colid=2QNVOI81XJ2RT&coliid=INI4OFB9X5L34
The crusades through Arab eyes! Seriously this is an amazing book, especially as someone who adores crusader warfare and history. Whilst it doesn't currently directly link to my modules, it is a fascinating book and I'm super good at twisting things to my interest (i'm looking at you core module and third year)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B001LROSD6/ref=aw_ls__10?colid=153S0RWLKO7S0&coliid=IKGNVIMCS2GG4
Harvest moon, island of happiness, to keep me from murdering the 19 year olds when trying to arrange the numerous group projects I know are coming. Especially as I've learnt the hard way that many currently can't even keep their bibliographies together, find pictures or get out of bed on time.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B00E5RZC9S/ref=aw_ls__1?colid=1JBIXB61FKU32&coliid=IZC4KR4CV3HT8
Sticky page markers, for all my referencing and flicking back and forth in books.
I have read through two different versions of Seneca's Letters. The first version I read was Letters from a Stoic. I thought that it was decent, even though it only contains a selection of Seneca's Letters. It got me interested enough in Seneca to seek out more of his work.
I then read through the Loeb editions of Seneca's moral essays, and while I did enjoy them for the most part, I found the translation to be a little dry, perhaps old fashioned, for my tastes, and I ended up returning them. I also cannot read Latin, so having Latin on the reverse side of the page was of little benefit to me besides the coolness factor.
Note that Seneca's works are for the most part divided into 3 sections, his Letters (Epistles), his Essays (Dialogues), and his Tragedies. This confused me for a while as I was not sure what I would be getting with certain books.
I second version of Seneca's Letters that I read through was Letters on Ethics and in my opinion the translation is excellent. To quote the book itself "the translations are designed to be faithful to the Latin while reading idiomatically in English". The footnotes are also extensive and insightful. This is however, potentially one of the most expensive versions of Seneca's letters you will find out there, so you might want to try and find it at a book store first and read through it. Amazon's "Look Inside" does let you read through a large portion of the Introduction as well as the first few letters, so you could try to use that to gauge your interest.
That being said, Seneca is currently my favorite of the 3 Roman Stoics to read, however I do enjoy reading from all 3 Roman Stoic authors for different reasons.
I have two very accessible books for you. One is on Persia, the other on the life of a Roman town. Take a look!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Persian-Fire-First-Empire-Battle/dp/0349117179/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372602655&sr=1-5
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pompeii-Life-Roman-Mary-Beard/dp/1861975961/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372602655&sr=1-4
The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece
For the Hellenistic era as a whole (including lots on Diadochi) I'm finding Alexander to Actium by Peter Green very engaging and informative. It provides an interesting mix of narrative political history and sections on art, literature, society etc. For the first round of Diadochi wars after Alexander's death Ghost on the Throne and Dividing the Spoils both seem to be fairly accessible but also taken seriously by scholars.
The books that really shaped my 'model' of how it wall went down are:
Romans: The Roman Army at War 100BC - 200AD
Greek: Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities
There are two similar approaches I like for this for this, both from dice pool systems:
​
As for the roman vs phalanx argument: Not only were the roman formations much more flexible than phalanxes, but they were better equipped as well. Myke Cole had a great book on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07FXNNWBT/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
I doubt we're going to see much more of Euron this season as his primary purpose was to ally the Greyjoys to the Targaryen cause. I think it's more likely we're going to see some kind of Moqorro/Victarion aspects being merged into Theon as D&D continue to develop the Iron Islands plotline.
A War Like No Other states that it would take 6000 man-days to build a trireme. S6E4 and S6E5 were about two weeks (Varys mentions a fortnight) apart. If the time jumps continue at their current pace, Pyke would need 200+ men working day and nite to finish only the ship itself by the time S6E7 rolls around. I'm guessing that we'll get an Iron-Fleet-leaving-Pyke shot around either the end of E9 or in the finale.
>It had nothing to do with sexual preference of the period.
I would contend that this is incorrect, according to most evidence from the period. The small penis was viewed as the ideal of male beauty in Greek society. Big penises were, as I noted, considered to be vulgar and a depiction of a man as being more beast than man, or as belonging to a barbarian. This was a matter of sexual culture, as well.
It's well-documented that the ideal male penis, according to the ancient Greeks, was "small, thin, and had a pointed foreskin," as noted by McLaren (2007).
Good sources which discuss this matter are:
Garland, Daily Life of the Ancient Greeks, 1998.
Hodges, The Ideal Prepuce in Ancient Greece and Rome: Male Genital Aesthetics and Their Relation to Lipodermos, Circumcision, Foreskin Restoration, and the Kynodesme, 2001.
>Here, the allusion to the posthe clearly, although humorously, summons up an image of the entire penis, albeit one that conforms to the aesthetic ideal seen in artistic depictions of gods and heroes. The imprecise use of the word posthe serves the humorous context because, as others have shown, the Greeks valued the longer over the shorter prepuce in relation to the length of the entire penis, and the smaller over the larger penis as a whole. Even if one were to argue that the word posthe was being used precisely here, the rules of proportion, as deduced from art, would require that a petite posthe be part of a proportionally even more petite penis. (Hodges, 2001)
McLaren, Impotence: A Cultural History, 2007.
McNiven, The Unheroic Penis: Otherness Exposed, 1995.
>Most nude male figures in Athenian vase painting are standard types: handsome, slim, and well muscled. With few exceptions, the penis is small. That this was associated with the ideal in ancient Athens is clear from Aristophanes' Clouds (l.l0l4).
You may also read Kenneth Dover's book, Greek Homosexuality.
Always happy to help! For more info on Dionysus:
Subreddits:
/r/dionysus
Books to learn more about Dionysus (I used Amazon because it is easy, you may find these cheaper elsewhere):
Dionysus Myth and Cult - Considered by some Dionysians to be the Dionysian Bible.
Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life - Also very helpful scholarly source.
Ecstatic - Written by a Dionysian priest, this is a really good book for beginning to know the god.
Tending the Bull - Written by the same guy, focuses on a more specific aspect of Dionysus, within the Starry Bull tradition (Will explain more in the website section). If you do find yourself interested in the Starry Bull tradition, this author has several other books on amazon, you can find them on his author page.
Websites:
The Dionysion - Kinda old, lots of sites missing, but still has some useful info.
Temple of Dionysus - Another old site, might be of some use though.
The Theoi page for Dionysus - Lots of scholarly info on the god.
The Bakcheion - This is the website of the Starry Bull. It's a bit much at first, but the information is well sourced and presents a side of Dionysus many don't see. Please be sure to practice khernips before exploring their pantheon page, but their Dionysus page has a lot of great things, specifically the Feast of the Senses and Devotional Activities for Dionysus.
Here is my post after my first attempt at Enthousiasmos (Possession by the god)
Here is my post about one of my early rites for Dionysus.
Labrys, a Greek polytheist group, also celebrates Phalleforia, a Dionysian festival, once a year in Athens, and has some pretty good videos of the festival. Here are some:
2017 Phalleforia - 7:33 The official video of the festival
2017 Phalleforia - 4:19 A better edited version
2016 Phalleforia - 28:02 Unofficial video of the festival
2016 Phalleforia - 18:11 Official video of the festival
Finally here is Daemonia Nymphe's Hymn to Bacchus, probably the most well known musical hymn for the god.
Edit: Sorry if this is too much, but I missed one thing. The Bacchae's Sacred Chants from the Greek movie Two Suns in the Sky.
Myke Cole (Twitter) is a fantasy author that is also an ancient military historian. He wrote a book called [Legion vs. Phalanx] (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07FXNNWBT/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1) that is in depth review of six battles and why the Roman Legion was superior to the Greek Phalanx.
Have you checked out A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War? It isn't exactly what you're looking for, but it is chuck full of great information, and just a solid read altogether. Also, the book probably references other works that might be exactly what you need.
This isn't fiction necessarily, but Plato's Dialogues deal with a lot of the questions of existence (and they're extremely fun to read and think about). Kinda heavy, but worth the read once you get through it and ponder it for a while. I don't remember which subreddit I saw this under, but here's a link to Plato's complete works (for free!) on Amazon, in case you're interested: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07H7J2LCX
This one is excellent for the immediate aftermath of Alexander's death. The author I feel tackles the insane cast very well.
This is better for the actual wars themselves and getting a good idea of each of the Diadochi. I felt he could jump around a little, but that's just my preference of reading history.
This book is good if you want a shorter read. Its split into two parts, one being about the actual situation and the other being about the battles and tactics used amongst the Diadochi. I found it's biggest problem to be taking people like Plutarch as gospel - the book is too short to really discuss the source material whereas the other two were more willing to do so.
Welcome to Hellenism! May the Gods smile on you.
The links Kalomoira provided are great places to start! I would also recommend HellenicFaith and this book if you can afford it. If you have any questions my PMs are always open as well.
Related reading
Karl Kerenyi: Dionysos: Archetypal Image of Indestructible Life
https://www.amazon.com/Dionysos-Archetypal-Image-Indestructible-Life/dp/0691029156/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1467401166&sr=8-3&keywords=kerenyi
Karl Kerenyi: The Gods of the Greeks
https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Greeks-Karl-Kerenyi/dp/0500270481/ref=pd_sim_14_5?ie=UTF8&dpID=51fE0nLHjeL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR108%2C160_&psc=1&refRID=AGC3MSCM73V53NBM0SHD
I'm quite new to Stoicism myself and, like you, am trying to figure these things out. My advice would be to invest in some good books. Something you can take your time with, study, highlight, write in, keep under your pillow at night. Here's a short list of the ones I've found to be most helpful:
[All things Epictetus](http://www.amazon.com/The-Discourses-Epictetus-Fragments-Everymans/dp/0460873121/ref=sr_1_10?
ie=UTF8&qid=1382479293&sr=8-10&keywords=Epictetus)
And to help you understand Epictetus: Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life by A.A. Long
A very helpful translation and commentary on Epictetus' Handbook by Keith Seddon
Marcus Aurelius' Meditations
Along with this indispensable study of the Meditations by Pierre Hadot
One of the best introductions that I read was Democracy and Classical Greece by J. K. Davies. It's a relatively slim volume, but it's readable and covers lots of the bases – plus it's quite cheap on Amazon.
Tom Holland's Persian Fire is a very readable account of the Persian Wars (c.494-478 BCE), which also comes highly recommended. It's generally pretty accurate, although he doesn't shy away from including all the sensational and salacious details, which most 'proper' histories probably wouldn't include.
Finally, I'd recommend G. E. M. de ste. Croix's The Origins of the Peloponnesian War, which (as the title suggests) focuses a little more on the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BCE) rather than the 5th century as a whole. That said, it's very readable and was hugely influential, although it might be a little expensive.