(Part 3) Top products from r/AskHistorians

Huge, endlessly fascinating topic. I would love to hear about some reading suggestions on this subject from people here.

I've been reading Christians as the Romans Saw Them. It would seem from what I've read there that paganism was going strong in the first three centuries of Christianity and maybe even beyond.

It's important to not equate paganism with the kind of cartoon image we have of the Olympians from Hollywood. Greco-Roman paganism by the time of Christianity was massive and contained so much, just like modern Hinduism contains so much. It included a strong influence from philosophy—Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics. There were the civic cults, the mystery cults, the imperial cult, oracles, household gods, rural gods, sea gods, daemons, sprites, ancestral spirits. There were the Pythagoreans, Orphists, Jews, Manichaeans, Gnostics, Neoplatonists.

Religion was fused with everyday life to an extraordinary degree. It's hard to even pick them apart. For us, religion is mostly a private matter. For them, it was both private and public, profound and mundane. Everything from games to social gatherings had a religious significance.

Above the local gods, under the influence of Plato, some Greco-Romans believed in a higher, impersonal, henotheistic God, plus to mention the immortality of the human soul. (It went both ways, btw: Philo of Alexandria in an earlier era fused Plato with Judaism; what we know of as Judaism and Islam have a whole lot of Plato in them.)

Christians would claim that they too worshipped this philosophical God--with the caveat that Jesus was his equivalent and that the other local gods known to the world were actually demons and were not to be worshipped. God the Father and Jesus Christ his son, only, were to be worshipped.

Pagan intellectuals were befuddled by this parochialism. The High God does not "do" earthly revelations; he is known through nature and sublime contemplation. Further, Jesus was a man of unremarkable talents; how could he even be a lesser divinity like Heracles? He may have simply been a wise sage who was deified by his misguided followers or he may have been a wily magician who fooled others himself, but certainly he could not be the High God, who is unmoved and beyond change. (Muslims have a similar view, btw!)

Syncretism worked for nearly a millennium in the Greco-Roman world. I don't see why it couldn't have survived, given different circumstances.

The momentum was more in the direction of autocracy and state centralization, from Caesar right up through Diocletian and Constantine and into the Byzantine period. I think that is really the secret of Christian success. The Church and State were fused in a highly effective bureaucracy. To be a good Roman was to be a good Christian. And since Christianity was exclusive, like Judaism, all other religions would have to be extinguished.

Why Christianity and not Mithraism, the Solar cult, or the highly organized Syncretism of the sort that Julian favored? That's the million dollar question. I don't have an answer, except perhaps for the fact that the Christians had better charitable programs and were able to win the support of the masses.

If you only read one book on the subject it should be Robert Grant's Augustus to Constantine. It's a tremendous piece of scholarship, in-depth without being overwhelming or boring, and Grant does an excellent job of situating the rise of Christianity against the background of the larger Roman Empire.

Other suggestions:
Henry Chadwick's The Early Church is a classic survey, but it's a bit dated now. Still a very accessible introduction, cheaper and shorter than the Grant.

Peter Brown is, in my opinion, one of the greatest historians who's ever lived and he has written extensively on Late Antique Christianity. For this specific topic, I'd suggest The World of Late Antiquity or The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity. The advantage of Brown is that he's also a fantastic writer.

Another interesting source is Robert Louis Wilken's *Christians as the Romans Saw Them. While it won't give you a full survey of Christianity's rise, it provides the perspective of pagan thinkers reacting to the strange, barbarous, troubling religion that is Christianity. This one is more of a supplement to the other listed works, but I think it helps really understand Christianity against the religio-cultural background of the Roman Empire.

Finally, the great primary source on the subject is Eusebius's *History of the Church. Obviously Eusebius, the 4th century bishop, doesn't match up to modern standards of historical accuracy, but you still get a comprehensive picture of the rise of Christianity that's pretty darn fun to read. Read with a critical eye, it's a terrific source. Also, it's available for free online. (also Eusebius basically invented documentary history, so that's kinda neat)

If you want more recommendations, or want more specific suggestions, I'd be glad to help out. My strongest recommendation are the Grant and the Brown.

>bigger navy's

I don't think there were any larger navies, really. All of my books are packed up at the moment, but I am pretty sure the Royal Navy was, by far, the largest. It came at a price, though. The British army, by comparison, was small and much less effective. The British could afford to neglect their land forces, by comparison, because they for the most part, no longer had enemies that could invade by land.

Because of this, too, especially during the Napoleonic Wars, British sailors and officers were much more experienced than their Spanish and French counterparts, partly because the French Revolution decimated the French naval officer corps, and because French military ships spent most of their time bottled up in port by the British blockade. So, it is why Nelson wanted to sail in close with the French and Spanish at Trafalgar, trusting to superior British gunnery (In that they could fire much faster, thanks to experience) and the greater skill of his officers, to overcome the relatively inexperienced Combined fleet.

The French, on the other hand, had to maintain a large army because they were constantly fighting wars in Europe, specifically against their Habsburg rivals in Austria.

Nor did they always win. The most important example of this is the Battle of the Chesapeake in 1781, which led to the French blockading Cornwallis in Yorktown, and his eventual surrender during the American Revolution.

In any case, I'm not too knowledgeable about how promotion in the French navy of the period worked (And would love if someone could fill me in on it), but the British had a semi-meritocratic system of filling their officer corps and promotion. British officers started out essentially as apprentice officers, midshipmen. To get their first real promotion, they had to pass an examination conducted by superior officers to achieve the rank of lieutenant, and then had to either distinguish themselves, get lucky, or have family connections in order to receive a post-captainship. Though, once they got there, promotion was determined only by seniority, and as long as they did not die or disgrace themselves, they would eventually end up an admiral.

So, I think it, generally, was a result of Britain's focus on its naval assets (which none of the other powers did to the same extent), it's system of semi-meritocratic promotion, and really, just luck in some of the people that ended up in the Royal Navy, such as Horatio Nelson.

This is really a question that can't be answered in such a short post. There are tons of books about the subject. Some works that are on the general subject are Command at Sea: Naval Command and Control since the Sixteenth Century, pretty much any of the books by N.A.M Rodgers on the subject. John Keegan also talks a bit about it in his chapter on Trafalgar in The Price of Admiralty

I hope the post helps. I don't think I really can do it justice in this format, though. Plus, I just kinda woke up, so I am not sure if my brain is completely on at this moment!

This is a really great question, and I was hoping it might have attracted the attention of some of our better qualified respondents. Alas, my recent focus has been mostly on 8-9c archaeology, which means I'm not terribly current with the sagas and other Old Norse literature, most of which wasn't written until late in the Viking Age or even shortly thereafter. But I can point you in a few good directions!

First off, I'd recommend the short and sweet blog post by Marianne Moen on Dangerous Women. Since we actually have very few surviving stories from a Norse perspective during the Viking Age, Moen does a good job bringing archaeological evidence to bear for demonstrating how powerful Viking Age women could be—as well as discussing why at least some archaeologists have been reluctant to do so.

Among the sagas, two characters who I can think of offhand are Aud the Deepminded and Melkorka. As I recall, you can read about them both in the Laxdæla Saga. It's available free online although it might be worth paying for a modern and more readable translation. There's an edition out by Penguin, which should be easy to find or order, and I think the same translation got used for the robust collection Sagas of the Icelanders (sorry: Amazon link).

And if you're up for a bit more, check out Nancy Marie Brown's The Far Traveler (also Amazon) about Brown's pursuit of information about the Viking Age woman Gudrid. Gudrid's story is exciting, and Brown's research techniques are interesting, so they make a useful pairing in this book. I think it does a good job bridging the textual and archaeological evidence for what life was like for women in the Viking Age.

This is a great opportunity (when is it not!) to discuss the holding of territory and the pacifying of locals during conquests from the perspective of the Romans, who did quite the conquering.

> Long-term

>Much more boring (in my opinion), but a lot of Roman generals gave land to their legionaries either after a conquest or once a legion - who had proven its self-worth - had expired it's length of service, which depended on the time period. Augustinian reforms raised the length to sixteen years, with four more in reserve. Depends really on the time period. Besides that, Roman's definitely had colonies in its territories, as often the governship of a far region was given to a particularly prominent man. For instance, before he became the man we know and love, Caesar was the governor of Spain.
>

> Short-term

>Now this is the cool stuff. Plutarch tells of a great quotation by Pyrrhus of Epirus who saw the Roman nightly fort for the first time and said, "The discipline of these barbarians is not barbarous." The Roman army built a nightly fort no matter where it was while on the march. A day of marching would lead to a night of digging and entrenching. Not only did this ensure the safety of the army at night, it also played heavily into the psychological warfare that we often overlook by the Romans. Now, these forts were legit - tall wooden walls, outlook towers, and trenches, and they made a new fort every damn day. With the battle over but the war far from won, the Romans continued to make their forts and block their flanks. This along with a decent idea of army logistics (insert joke about Crassus at Carrhae) allowed for the Romans to pick their battles and progress over unknown territory without fear of a counter-attack. They also used many local scouts (insert joke about Varus at the Teutoburg Forest) to help map the territory and play the locals off of one another. These jokes are sarcasm, Crassus and Varus were dumb.

>Another great tactic by the Romans after a successful campaign was to take hostages! Oh blimy. Imagine you just lost your army and your kingdom, and now the victors are willing to: A. not kill everyone, B. assimilate you into their empire, and C. let you keep most of your power, and all you had to do was send them your sons. This was a great way to keep the newly-conquered in check. In his conquest of Gaul, which was filled with many revolts, Caesar took hostages consistently. Oh, looks like the Helvetti have started a rebellion, let's kill one of their King's sons to send a message. Oh look they stopped rebelling.

Basically, the act of invading is a logistical nightmare. One must take into account a supply line, counter-attacks, local demeanor, and about 50 other things that I cannot even fathom from this spot in front of my computer. Unsuccessful invasions lead to the annihilation of armies, and this is why we hold successful invasions as archetype military stratagems. While I am not your high school history teacher, I would suggest reading about Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, and Caesar for a more thorough understanding of military invasions. Personally, Scipio is a boss, but there is more information on the other two.

Sources - Plutarch's Parallel Lives, Caesar's Conquest of Gaul

*edited for grammar and format

The core of Britain's Naval success lay around 3 things.
Firstly, the Royal Navy had powerful advocates at all levels of government, this resulted in what could most simply be described as 17th and 18th century interest group politics. This meant that there was always some degree of public funding and enthusiasm for the navy. Something essential in a service that cannot be built up quickly, ships take time to build.
Secondly, navies are expensive. In the 17th and 18th century Britain became the worlds leading economy, both from a basis of domestic manufacturing and internal trade as well as a dominant power in international trade. Additionally Britain had organized public finance, both in the form of the Bank of England, which allowed the government to take out loans at low rates of interest, as well as parliamentary control of expenditures, which meant a budget (this seems normal but both pre- and post revolutionary France lacked this).
Thirdly, due to Britain's extensive maritime trade the Royal Navy had access to a tremendously large pool of trained seamen. While an army can be recruited from the base of the entire population a navy functions best when recruited from a pool of skilled seamen. Despite having a smaller population than France the Royal Navy had access to a far larger pool of skilled sailors due to the relatively small part played by seaborne commerce and high seas fishing in the French economy.

Obviously all these factors are related, essentially 17th and 18th century Britain represented the perfect storm in terms of naval advantages, and while other states saw this and tried to compensate Britain's structural advantage was too great to overcome.

Edit for sources:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Command-Ocean-History-1649%C2%AD-1815/dp/0393060500

http://www.amazon.com/Pursuit-Glory-Europe-1648-1815-ebook/dp/B002RUA4Y8/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370804892&sr=1-2&keywords=the+pursuit+of+glory+europe+1648-1815

For starters, there really isn't such a thing as a "middle-class citizen" in the Roman Empire. Roman social classes did not work that way, and wealth actually had less bearing on your existence than social status, inherited mainly from your ancestors.

The best resource for this sort of thing would be Jerome Carcopino's Daily Life in Ancient Rome. Carcopino was the premier classical social historian of his day, and most of what he says is still very much to date. To say more than that would honestly not get you anywhere. The lives of citizens varied pretty wildly depending on social status, wealth, and of course location (life within the city would be very different from life in certain provinces, which would differ even more from each other). A very few things can be said in general, however. The vast majority of the Roman Empire was enjoying the benefits of peace, a blessing that was not lost on them after nearly a hundred years of civil wars and nearly a hundred and fifty years of political strife within the noble orders. The reign of Augustus was also blessed with an extreme degree of wealth, which Rome and her empire had not seen the likes of before, and which was even more welcome considering the extreme deprivation that most people had suffered duing the destructive civil wars. Among the lower social orders the climate of Augustus' reign from the period after the War of Actium was incredibly welcome, providing great social freedom and opportunity, as well as unheard-of wealth. The upper social orders, mainly the survivors of the nobility, were a mixed bag. Most of the remaining prominent members of the senate and nobility had originally been lowlives under Caesar or Octavian, and had joined them because they had hoped that supporting them would help pay off their massive debts from extravagance. The rest were the few survivors of the old nobility that had been sure to kiss up to the dictators, as well as aspiring tyrants like Pompey and Crassus. Since the beginning of the 1st Century, B.C. the political climate at Rome had increasingly been one of power slipping more and more firmly into the hands of private individuals, and as a result there were throughout the century great purges, either through proscriptions or wars, of the members of the nobility. As a result, there was great dissatisfaction with Augustus' seizure of power among the nobles, but for them Rome was rather like a police state, since any disloyal actions would result in Praetorians knocking on their doors. These attitudes are echoed by Virgil and Livy, who had mixed feelings about Augustus, by Cicero (for example, in his Philippics--although all of this is technically before Augustus' reign, it still very much applies, as the loss of political freedom had already been cemented in place following Caesar's victory over the Pompeians), and even by Horace, who owed Augustus and Maecenas everything but who nevertheless could not quite bring himself to agree with the autocracy. For more on the destruction of the Roman political system, see Ronald Syme's groundbreaking work, The Roman Revolution, which was the first study (on the eve of Hitler's declaration of war, to whom Augustus is implicitly compared) to challenge the old Victorian view of Augustus as the "benign dictator."

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.

During that period it was a balancing act of a few primary factors: speed, guns, and armor. The amount of armor and guns directly impacted both the size and the weight of the vessel, and this in turn effected the speed.

At the time, the pinnacle of tactics during Naval Battles was what is known as "Crossing the T". Essentially, one line of ships would cut-off the other, and in doing so were able to bring all their guns to bear on their opponent. Likewise, their opponent could not bring all of their guns to bear to retaliate. This diagram shows what it would have generally looked like.

For a tactic like that to succeed you needed, as a battleship, a good combination of guns, speed, and armor. A classic example of this would be Admiral Count Heihachiro Togo and his victory over the Russians at Tsuhima in 1904. Both sides had guns that could fire at about the same range (and the bigger the gun, the bigger the range and the more destructive power). William Pakenham, who was a Royal Navy observer on-board Admiral Togo's ship, stated "when 12 inch guns are fired, shots from 10 inch guns pass unnoticed, while, for all the respect they instill, 8 inch or 6 inch might as well be pea shooters". Basically, the goal was to have the biggest guns possible on-board. This provides maximum firepower and range.

Admiral Togo had one more advantage over the Russians: Speed. He had about six or seven knots advantage over the Russians. If you have greater speed and range, then you can determine where and when the fight actually happens - by engaging the enemy from a longer distance and even moving away to keep that advantage. So if you can control those factors you can control the battle.

"Armor is speed" is something Jacky Fisher (important British admiral, key in the conception and design of HMS Dreadnought) is reported as having once said. This is because the more steel you put on the boat, the slower it is going to go. Unless of course you have new and more powerful methods of propulsion/power, which would allow you to attain a higher speed with more weight. Armor of course is important, as your ships need to be able to withstand hits. HMS Warsprite at Jutland for example, sustained 11 hits. While she was severely damage (and ordered home to Roysoth) she survived those hits and lived to see another day (a lot of days to be precise, she was engaged in WWII as well).

As u/Vonadler notes as well, money is a key issue. HMS Dreadnought cost approximately £1,784,000 in 1905. As an upgrade over other ship designs, she only cost £181,000 more. However, you have to multiply that by the amount of ships you want to build and then the number only gets more astronomical. In August 1914, the Royal Navy had 22 Battleships in commission (with 40 Pre-Dreadnoughts which are the older battleship designs that came before the Dreadnought in 1905) with another 13 under construction. And the price had only gone up since 1905. The Germans for example only had 15 built with 5 under construction. However I disagree that Vanguard was about 10 million GBP more to construct. Vanguard was built in the 1940s, 40 years after Dreadnought. Using [this inflation calculator] (http://inflation.stephenmorley.org/) I compared £11,530,503 in 1941 (the year that Vanguard was laid down) to 1905 (the year Dreadnought was laid down). In 1905, Vanguard would have cost about £5,291,677.27 pounds. A substantial increase to be sure, but only of about 297% compared to 546%. The overall point stands however, that bigger Battleships with more armor and whatnot do cost significantly more than their smaller counterparts.

And with ships you do not just have the cost of building. maintenance, crew (in the case of the German Battleships 1000+ crew members), fuel, etc... Those costs add up quickly. u/thefourthmaninaboat is also correct that the infrastructure was also a factor in Battleship design. On the other hand, cruise ships didn't really have to contend with all of this. They had their own design challenges to be sure, but armor for example wasn't really a factor.

This is my first "real" reply on this sub, so I hope it's been helpful and informative!

----------------
Sources

• Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War by Robert K. Massie
  
  
• From Imperial Splendor to Internment: The Imperial German Navy in the First World War by Nicolas Wolz
  
  
• Warships and Sea Battles of World War One published by Beekman House
  
  
• Inflation Calculator

Hi there, I am not a professional naval historian (my master's was in American history, post civil war) but I have read quite a bit on the topic. Several books come to mind:

• I second the Massie recommendations. Here are Amazon links:
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Robert-K-Massie/dp/0345375564/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370960465&sr=1-1&keywords=dreadnought+massie
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370960472&sr=1-6
  
  
• The British historian N.A.M. Rodger has written two naval histories of Britain, which are very accessible. Rodger does a good job of balancing strategy and tactics with the political and bureaucratic matters that make a navy efficient.
  
  The Safeguard of the Sea:
  http://www.amazon.com/Safeguard-Sea-History-Britain-660-1649/dp/0393319601/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1370960428&sr=1-3
  
  The Command of the Ocean:
  http://www.amazon.com/The-Command-Ocean-History-1649%C2%AD-1815/dp/0393060500
  
  
• John Keegan wrote a short book, The Price of Admiralty, focusing on the naval battles of Trafalgar, Jutland, Midway, and the Battle of the Atlantic in WWII.
  
  http://www.amazon.com/dp/0140096507
  
  
• There are any number of books on Midway, but one that I enjoyed is Shattered Sword, by Parshall and Tully. They delved deeply into Japanese archives and reconstructed details of flight operations and naval SOP to illuminate the battle in a way that I had not seen before:
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Sword-Untold-Battle-Midway/dp/1574889249
  
  And, of course, if you want fiction, both the Horatio Hornblower and the Aubrey-Maturin series are good reads. A-M is a bit more modern lit; Hornblower is entertaining but starts to read a bit older.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Hornblower
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey–Maturin_series
  
  I hope this helps. When I get home I'll take a look at my shelves and see what else comes to mind.

For American History I recommend The Oxford History of The United States, which includes Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause, Wood's Empire of Liberty and about ten others. I would also recommend select biographies of the founding fathers:

• The First American by H.W. Brands
  
• Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie
  
• John Adams by David McCullough
  
• 1776 by David McCullough
  
• His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph J. Ellis
  
• American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph J. Ellis
  
• Lafayette by Harlow G. Unger
  
• Lion of Liberty: Patrick Henry and the Call to a New Nation by Harlow G. Unger
  
• Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation by Joseph J. Ellis
  
  For Science History refer to my WIP History of Science Reading List

Thank you so much! I am pretty envious that you get to take an entire course on this period. I just get so excited learning about it.

There is the parish library right across the street from my house, but I never use it for some reason. I have three short books I want to read, and then I am going to read all of the books you listed. I can't wait to read about Theodore Roosevelt. Regardless of if you agree with his politics, he is just a fascinating guy.

I had never heard of settlement houses during the era, but I will definitely be researching that.

Here are the links to the Theodore Roosevelt biographical trilogy, just so everyone can find them easily:

Volume 1
Volume 2
Volume 3

This may be a little more specific of a book question, but are there any books that explain the Progressive Era's impact on the rest of the world? Can youalso give me the definitive beginning and end of the Progressive Era (according to your course)? I seem to get a lot of differing years. There may not be an exact beginning and end but I might as well ask; it is AskHistorians anyway. Does it include or exclude WWI?

Keegan's History of Warfare touches on maritime power, but his Price of Admiralty is very good, and much more focused on Naval history. If you want a great memoir of WW2 in the Pacific, I'd recommend With the Old Breed by Sledge although this is the Marines, not the Navy specifically.

I'm trying to discern whether you're trying to say "what if Romano-British culture survived?" or why there is the lack of one.

Britain was inhabited by what we call Celts before the Romans came and colonized it. Many of the original inhabitants still retained their culture for the most part, they weren't romanized to the extent of Gaul or Hispania. So with that logic, had not anything else happened in history one would have found a more Romantic Britain later on.

However, that changed when Roman power declined and Germanic tribes started to invade. The Angles and Saxons soon took over the southern and eastern shores, where many of the Romans used to hold their own settlements. Many of the Britons -the nonromanized Celts- holed themselves up in the western and northern parts of Britain, where we now call Wales and Cornwall. Although Latin did retain its court language value, Anglo-Saxon cultured seemed to have been the more dominant one, until the Normans came a few centuries later. It was already a melting pot for other cultures.

I think to assume that the British would be speaking a Romance language is a bit counter factual. The culture was never quite strong to begin with and was dispersed at the intrusion of the Germanic cultures. Even French and Spanish suffered from foreign inflections. It's a bit more of a linguistic question, but that's almost like a hobby of mine.

Some books on Roman Britain and Anglo Saxon Britain that might be up your alley.
Nicholas Higham's Rome, Britain and the Anglo Saxonsand Robin Fleming's Britain After Rome

PS
Upon a brief googling and wiki looking, it looks like someone created a "British Romance" language as a sort of alternative history thing. Kind of fun to think about.

When you say "historicity," are you talking about whether or not Jesus existed or what the historical Jesus would have been like?

Bart Ehrman, an atheist, has a book on the former that pretty well represents the consensus of historians that Jesus did, in fact, exist.

I haven't read this, but this book looks like it might be a good intro to the historical Jesus. I don't know all of the scholars on this list, but the ones I do know are good, and it shows a spectrum.

There are lots of great books about Port Royal in its heyday. The first ones I'd recommend are The Sack of Panama by Peter Earle and Empire of Blue Water by Stephen Talty which both give really solid broad introductions to the politics and environment of the Caribbean and Port Royal's relationship with buccaneers during its heyday in the 1660s until 1671 when England started to crack down on them.

If you want more specialized reading exclusively on Port Royal then I'd recommend Pirate Port: The story of the sunken city of Port Royal by Robert F. Marx for some light reading, and if you want a really excessively meticulous study of everything you ever wanted to know about Port Royal from written records and archaeological findings with lots of maps and reconstructions included then read Port Royal Jamaica by Michael Pawson and David Buisseret.

Lastly, a great primary source on Port Royal in its heyday is the contemporary book The Buccaneers of America which was published by Alexandre Exquemelin in 1678. Exquemelin himself was an actual former French/Dutch buccaneer and the book contains many of his first-person recollections, such as this describing the activities of buccaneers in Port Royal in the 1660s which has clearly influenced some modern pirate tropes:

> Captain Rock sailed for Jamaica with his prize, and lorded it there with his mates until all was gone. For that is the way with these buccaneers -- whenever they have got hold of something, they don't keep it for long. They are busy dicing, whoring and drinking so long as they have anything to spend. Some of them will get through a good two or three thousand pieces of eight in a day -- and next day not have a shirt to their back. I have seen a man in Jamaica give 500 pieces of eight to a whore, just to see her naked. Yes, and many other impieties.

> My own master used to buy a butt of wine and set in the middle of the street with the barrel-head knocked in, and stand barring the way. Every passer-by had to drink with him, or he'd have shot them dead with a gun he kept handy. Once he bought a cask of butter and threw the stuff at everyone who came by, bedaubing their clothes or their head, wherever he best could reach.

> The buccaneers are generous to their comrades: if a man has nothing, the others will come to his help. The tavern-keepers let them have a good deal of credit, but in Jamaica one ought not to put much trust in these people, for often they will sell you for debt, a thing I have seen happen many a time. Even the man I have just been speaking about, the one who gave the whore so much money to see her naked, and at that time had a good 3,000 pieces of eight -- three months later he was sold for his debts, by a man in whose house he had spent most of his money.

>I'm hoping to tell some version of Arthur's story from as pure a place as can be historically verified-omitting later romantic additions like the stone castles, chivalrous knights... basically, I want to do a non-Hollywoodized version of what the Clive Owen movie purported to do.

Don't worry, everyone's working on that book. I'M working on that book. =)

And yes, Halsall is still a good reference for getting an idea of the chaos of the time, however I'd also recommend Britain After Rome which is a little more evocative, but just as scholarly. She just happens to take liberties with applying continental Frankish sources to theorize what might've happened to Britain after the Romans left.

At the very least, you'll get a working idea of what the post-Romanic world ended up becoming, and you can extrapolate at your leisure.

Otherwise, for looser and more outdated history, Osprey Publishing has a book on Arthur and the Anglo-Saxon Wars that's been a big hit with military history fans, but most solid historians take issue with the supposed cohesiveness of a post-Roman British military that the book tends to portray.

You would probably enjoy Did Jesus Exist? by Bart D. Ehrman.

Ehrman is a well regarded main stream expert in academic Biblical studies. He writes well and alternates between publishing articles in academic journals and publishing popular books. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Bart Ehrman had a Christian religious conversion experience while in high school. He attended a bible college after high school then went on to University to study Christianity academically. Along the way he lost his faith because he could not square the existence of a loving God with the existence of pain in the world. He describes himself as "an agnostic with strong leanings towards atheism" but most of his family, friends and colleagues are Christian.

Modern writing on this subject began with The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweiker in 1906. Most books about the historical Jesus usually end up concluding that (surprise!) the historical Jesus matches each author's preconception of who Jesus was.

For anyone interested in a great historical fiction (fiction but based on historical facts) Bernard Cornwell wrote an amazing book called Agincourt, you guessed it, about the battle of Agincourt, as seen from the perspective of an English archer. Amazon.com link here

He also has a 3 book series (historical fiction again) focusing on an English archer. The series is called "The Grail Quest" and the first book is called The Archers Tale. Amazon.com link here.

No, I am not him or his publicist, but he is my favorite author :)

The podcast comprises large chunks of his book Lost to the West. While Popular History, it has gotten good reviews all around, including from academics. I recommend it.

By the way, there is another ongoing podcast, History of Byzantium, which goes over the same territory but in more detail. It is done in the same mold as the famous History of Rome podcast, and is quite good. I also recommend it.

Bede is not the only source, although he is the best and fullest historical account. We can turn to Bede’s sources, the best of whom would be Gildas. Although Gildas is not writing “history” in the way that Bede envisioned it, and thus includes no dates and fewer details than we would wish, he does discuss the invasions and the effects the Germanic tribes are having on the land.

In addition to Gildas, there are archaeological findings, which have laid out a somewhat clear picture of the settlement patterns. A 5th or 6th century hall in Kent was recently found and numerous 5th and 6th century grave sites identified as Germanic have been found.

It is also well known that there were Germanic tribesmen in Britain long before this, presumably as mercenaries for the Romans. I don’t know the book you are talking about and so I don’t want to discuss it directly, but I'm a bit confused about the brief summary of it you give here. The name "Celts" is given to a large number of peoples in the prehistoric period, from Britain all the way to Turkey, but I don't see what that has to do with the Germanic settlement of Britain.

If you want a fully detailed account you should read the recent book Britain After Rome 400-1070 by Fleming. It is excellent and will cover everything about this period, and the sources for it.

His memoirs, The Gallic Wars and The Civil Wars are great places to start, and they are rather short. And its all written by Caesar, so who better to tell you about how great Caesar is!

http://www.amazon.com/The-Conquest-Gaul-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140444335/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374613113&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Gallic+Wars+Penguin+Classics

http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Caesar-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140441875/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374613143&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Civil+War+Julius+Caesar

If you are interested in the political views of the founders, founding brothers does a really excellent job of summing them up. Interesting to see what almost did and did not get into the constitution.

There's probably no better book on the occupation of Japan than Embracing Defeat by John Dower. Excellent, excellent book.

If you're interested in events in Japan after World War 2 then I definitely recommend that you check out the book Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II. If I remember correctly, it only covers events in the early part of the Cold War, but it might be a good place to look for ideas. It does include a lot of discussion about the Japenese Communist Party, although that isn't the focus of the book. You can see how frequently the Communist Party is mentioned by looking at its entry in the book's index on Amazon.

Heinz Guderian wrote a book called "Panzer Leader". Amazon link here:
http://www.amazon.com/Panzer-Leader-Heinz-Guderian/dp/0306811014

I haven't read it myself, but my second-hand understanding is that Guderian tends to give himself credit for every successful operation that he was involved with, and none of the blame for the unsuccessful operations.

Check out Bernard Cornwell's stuff - he's known as one of the top historical fiction writers (if I recall correctly) and he definitely does his homework. There's a bit of fluff, obviously, like his inclusion of the chopping off of longbowmens' fingers (which we're not 100% sure happened - it's possible though!), but his books about the Hundred Years War are fantastic. I've personally read 1356: A Novel and Agincourt: A Novel.

Hope this helps! :)

This collection from Penguin is very good, has a decent selection of sagas and an excellent introduction. If you have not read any of the sagas before, I don't think there is a better entry point. After going through those you will need to read Njal's Saga, generally considered the best one.

Penguin has published several of the other ones, but personally I was not able to read all of them until I had access to a university library.

Agincourt by Juliet Barker, and Conquest - on the following Hundred Years War.

Have just finished both, and as well as being extremely readable, are filled with interesting facts and figures about 15th century life in England and France. Highly recommended.

Also Return of a King by William Dalrymple; superbly written book about 19th century Afghanistan. Best book I've read in a long time...

Goodluck! Here's the book I was referring too: http://www.amazon.com/Theodore-Roosevelt-Modern-Library-Paperbacks/dp/0375756787

Hope it helps!

If you want to go more in the direction of looking at different historians' interpretations of events leading up to the war, the following three will be very good:

Kristin L. Hoganson (1998). Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars. New Haven: Yale University Press.

James L. Offner (1992). An Unwanted War: The Diplomacy of the United States and Spain over Cuba, 1895-1898. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Thomas Schoonover (2003). Uncle Sam’s War of 1898 and the Origins of Globalization. Lexington: The University of Kentucky Press.

If you wanted to do something specifically on TR, then look into Edmund Morris' biographies. They're broken down chronologically, beginning with The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt

It also might be interesting to study some of the books that TR wrote himself, as primary sources. Particularly The Rough Riders, his Autobiography, or, if you're really ambitious, The Winning of the West.

This is a good read if you're interested mate:

www.amazon.co.uk/Conquest-Gaul-Classics-Julius-Caesar/dp/0140444335

Yes there are numerous sources and I think you would be intrigued by just how much both of their public perceptions have changed over time. Hamilton was originally castigated, almost demonized, by many upon his death due to the harsh political lines that existed between him and his opponents (Jefferson, Burr, and really any anti-Federalist), and his extraordinary/imperfect personal life. Jefferson on the other hand was pretty ubiquitously lauded for a long time and it wasn't until historians began viewing his life later on that his legacy began to be questioned, when it has been revealed just how much Jefferson was a man of great contradiction.

Both were undoubtedly great men with perhaps even greater character flaws.

Really any book written during the Revolutionary period would expand on this in great detail, but specifically biographies of the two men or any of the Founding Fathers. You cannot research the men who typically are associated as the Founding Fathers or Framers without talking about the political discord that developed between the two sides.

Some of my favorites are below:

https://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Hamilton-Rivalry-Forged-Nation/dp/1608195430/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480308951&sr=8-1&keywords=jefferson+hamilton

https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Ron-Chernow/dp/0143034758/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1480309330&sr=8-2&keywords=jefferson+hamilton

https://www.amazon.com/Founding-Brothers-Revolutionary-Joseph-Ellis/dp/0375705244/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480309352&sr=8-1&keywords=founding+brothers

But this is by no means limiting and I didn't even link any Jefferson-centric biographies.

Agincourt by Juliet Barker is definitely worth reading.

From Daily Life in Ancient Rome, by Jerome Carcopino:

pp. 152-153:

>"On a base of interwoven strips of webbing were placed a mattress (torus) and a bolster (culcita, cervical) whose stuffing (tomentum) was made of straw or reeds among the poor and among the rich of wool shorn from the Leuconion flocks in the valley of the Meuse, or even of swan's down. But there was neither a proper mattress nor sheets above. The torus was spread with two coverings (tapetia): on one (stragulum) the sleeper lay, the other he pulled over him (operimentum). The bed was then spread with a counterpane (lodix) or a multicoloured damask quilt (polymitum). Finally, at the foot of the bed, ante torum as the Romans put it, there lay a bedside mat (toral) which often rivalled the lodices in luxury.
>A toral on the pavement of the bedroom was almost obligatory. For the Roman, though he sometimes protected his legs by a sort of puttees (fasciae), wore nothing corresponding to our socks or stockings and went barefoot when he had taken off his sandals to go to bed. His normal footwear consisted either of soleae, a kind of sandal such as Capuchins wear, with the sole held by a strap passing through their eyelets, of calcei, leather slippers with crossed leather laces, or of caligae, a type of military boot. On the other hand he was no more accustomed to undress completely before going to bed than the oriental of today. He merely laid aside his cloak, which he either threw on the bed as an extra covering or flung on the neighboring chair.

>The ancients in fact distinguished two types of clothing: that which they put on first and wore intimately, and that which they flung around them afterwards. This is the difference between the Greek endumata and epiblemata; and similarly between the Latin indumenta, which were worn day and night, and the amictus which were assumed for part of the day only.

>First among the indumenta came the subligaculum or licium, not as is sometimes supposed, a pair of drawers, but a simple loin cloth, usually made of linen and always knotted round the waist. In early days it was perhaps the only undergarment worn either by nobles or by labourers. Manual workers had no other."

p. 166:

>"Whether she slept in a room of her own or shared a room with him, the Roman woman's morning toilet closely resembled her husband's. Like him, she kept on her undergarments in bed at night: her loin cloth, her brassiere (strophium, mamillare) or corset (capitium), her tunic or tunics, and sometimes, to the despair of her husband, a mantle over all. Consequently she, like him, had nothing to do when she got up, but to draw on her slippers on the toral and then drape herself in the amictus of her choice; and her preliminary ablutions were as sketchy as his. Pending the hour of the bath, the essential cura corporis for her as for him consisted of attentions which we should consider accessory."

The Historian's Craft by Marc Bloch is a good start, in my opinion.

One of the most revealing books about the Eastern Front that I have read was published by a German General who served there at the time. It is called Panzer Leader by Heinz Guderian and it lays out the strategic successes and failures of the German army throughout its different fronts pretty well.

It is also interesting to read because Guderian was one of the first to pioneer the Blitzkrieg tactics and Panzer formations early in the formation of the Wehrmacht. Additionally, Guderian was one of the few generals that Hitler fired but brought back again because he realized how damn good Guderian was.

I would recommend reading Stephen Harding's The Last Battle: When US and German Soldiers Joined Forces in the Waning Hours of WWII. The book depicts the events surrounding the last major engagement between American and Nazi forces of the war, which took place on May 4th, 1945 in the Austrian Tyrol, at a castle outside the town of Itter. Itter Castle had been used by the SS as a "VIP Prison" for French notables - including two former prime ministers, two former military chiefs of staff, and several other politicians the Nazis thought would be valuable in the post-war settlement that never came. After Hitler's suicide, as the Allies swept across Western Europe, Himmler ordered the prisoners killed, so a ragtag force consisting of a small American tank squad and Austrian Wehrmacht soldiers who had decided to support the anti-Nazi resistance defended the Castle and the French VIPs against an assault by a sizable contingent of Waffen-SS. Just one day later, the Nazi's unconditional surrender was signed.

The book, written by an American military historian, gives great insight into the tenuous and dangerous situation in rural Germany and Austria in the War's final days. Many Wehrmacht soldiers decided to lay down their arms, but there were still roving bands of SS men who were aggressively resisting the Allies' advances and generally harassing anyone who they suspected of being a "defeatist" or supporting the resistance. Definitely check out Harding's book if you're interested in this period. The story he tells will make a great movie someday.

More info:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/12/world-war-ii-s-strangest-battle-when-americans-and-germans-fought-together.html
http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Battle-German-Soldiers/dp/0306822083/ref=as_at/?tag=thedailybeast-autotag-20&linkCode=as2&

Source: I finished reading the book yesterday.

As a heads up, historical Jesus is a FAQ on the /r/AskHistorians wiki.

I don't have much to add, so I'm not sure if this will qualify as a top-level comment, but I hope this answers your question, as these answers are all well-written and sourced. Additionally, a book that is often recommended on this topic is Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by Bart Ehrman.

A really great, accessible book of Roman criticism of early Christianity is here: The Christians as the Romans Saw Them http://www.amazon.com/The-Christians-Romans-Saw-Them/dp/0300098391

The Peloponnesian War by Donald Kagan is great, although with that war you can read about straight from Thucydides as well (I have this book). These books are about the war, not sieges.


The other stuff I picked up in various textbooks and classes, I couldn't give you an exact book, sorry.


I wish I had a good book to recommend to you about the history of siege warfare, but I don't.

>Ps. It's spelt Azincourt by Cornwell not Agincourt.

It's printed with both spellings on the cover, depending on the localization.

http://www.amazon.com/Agincourt-Bernard-Cornwell/dp/0061578908

There's another thread on here somewhere that talks about all the research Cornwell does.

>Also if anyone has the time perhaps point to someplace where I can read more without being overwhelmed?

Try Donald Kagan's single volume Peloponnesian War, in addition to Thucydides, already mentioned in another comment.

I just ordered this.

I'm not sure if it has Bosa Saga in it. 13th century dick jokes are a particular favorite of mine, so I'll be bummed if it's not included.

Thanks!

For the innocent and at the same time fundamental question, "what is history actually good for?", I would recommend:

Marc Bloch: The Historian's Craft (Apologie pour l'histoire ou métier d'historien)

Written by Marc Bloch, a historian, french patriot, jew and member of the Resistance during the german annexation of France. He was killed by the bullets of a german firesquad in 1944, mere weeks before D-Day. For me, he is sort of a historian "rolemodel", standing up for his convictions both in academic controversy and in matters of life and death, while never giving in to blind "ideologism" and always putting forward a sincere wish to understand.

Dreadnought by Robert K. Massie

http://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Robert-K-Massie/dp/0345375564

If you really want to gather as much info as you can, you should check out some of the dozens of excellent books on this subject, including Mary Beard's Pompeii: The Life of a Roman Town (link), Aldrete's Daily Life in the Roman City: Rome, Pompeii, and Ostia (link), or Carcopino's Daily Life in Ancient Rome: The People and the City at the Height of the Empire (link). As you can see, there is a lot of material on many aspects of life in Pompeii in the first century--way too much to cover here. I can provide some outlining to get your started on your questions, however.

 

Pompeii was a typical town of its type (veteran colony), and had all the amenities we expect from such a place. It was neither large nor small for a veteran colony, but about in the middle, having about 12,000 inhabitants (a third of them slaves) and about twice that many in the immediate surrounds (villas, farms, etc). Most of the "big" buildings were constructed or embellished in the decades after the town became a colony after the Social War, or during the early Empire under Augustus and Tiberius: an aqueduct, a theater, an amphitheater, a recital hall, public baths, temples, markets, etc. There was a large forum, of typical Roman design, with a capitolium temple at its head, a temple of Apollo, a public meeting hall, flanked with colonnaded wings connecting basilica and markets for meat and vegetables, and adjoining a modest bath complex. The streets were roughly orthogonal, with a few kinks and sharp turns belying very ancient foundations, nicely paved but grimy enough to warrant the famous stepping stones.

As far as its importance to the Empire: not very, unfortunately. It was a hub of local commerce in Campania, but one of several, and obviously not indispensable. The city had sided against the Romans in the Social War, and even at the end still wore vestiges of its non-Roman past. Pompeii shared the arena with a neighboring town, Noceria, and had in recent times engaged in a full on riot against the Nocerians over, apparently, a sports disagreement, to the general annoyance of the Emperor back in Rome. In other words: yes, the city was "on the map" at Rome, and big enough to deserve consideration, but not big or important enough to warrant resurrection after the event. In a few decades, the town was apparently almost completely forgotten. Pompeii had been the crossroads of a few important Roman roads, particularly the route moving north and south along the coast between Capua/Neapolis/Stabiae, but this road was completely obliterated in the eruption anyway and when it was rebuilt, it simply traveled over the moonscape terrain which had once been Pompeii. A road leading east to Noceria might have continued to function and might have linked up with the region again after the dust settled, but I can't find any good information on that.

I really encourage you to take a look at one or all of the books I linked above. They are very accessible and stuffed full of good information on the daily goings-ons of the Roman world in the first century.

Ok two disclaimers: I'm working off of my course work from my degree in Japanese history and on my phone so I can't look up sources, but here goes:

Imperial Japan had developed a virtual cult of the emperor. That's why nobody surrendered until Hirohito's radio broadcast. Because of this worship and his agreement to acquiesce to terms set by the US, it was decided that leaving him as a figurehead would go further toward stabilizing and westernizing Japan, especially with the dangerous military leadership eliminated and US occupation a going concern.


edit: Ok, so I'm home now and I can get you a source. The book Embracing Defeat points out that during the meeting with MacArthur following the surrender, Hirohito expected to be deposed, but MacArthur and the provisional government decided that Japan would be easier to govern if they kept their emperor, who was also a religious leader as much as a dictator. In the end, Prime Minister Tojo and General Matsui took the blame for the emperor and killed themselves, and MacArthur left Hirohito in power, more or less.

It depends on the time period in question:

First, the original assault guns were not anti-tank weapons. They were anti-infantry/stronghold, hence the word "assault". The original stug 3 was a short barreled weapon.

The reason not to have a traversing turret is that the traversing turret was expensive and also has a higher profile (i.e. easier to target with anti-tank weapons).

As experience with the eastern front went on it was decided to put anti-tank weapons on these because the Germans needed cheap and effective anti-tank weapons. The lack of a traversing turret turned out not to be such a bad thing.

For example: A tank is always a trade-off between speed/mpg and armor. So, tanks have very heavy front armor with less side armor and even less rear armor.

The experience of the 75mm stug III's turned out well, and when their commanders transferred to tanks with traversable turrets the result was amazing. For example, the legendary Michael Wittman started out as a Stug 3 driver. He did so well as a tank commander later because he never traversed the turret, therefore his Tiger was always displaying it's front to the enemy.

The German's picked up on this and decided to make the Stug 4 as the war winning tank but were never quite able to build enough of them.

Edited to add: It is all well described in Guderian's book: http://www.amazon.com/Panzer-Leader-Heinz-Guderian/dp/0306811014/ref=la_B001ITYGCU_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1410828585&sr=1-1

EDITED TO ADD AGAIN: So, when the German's "kicked in the door" in the east they were surprised to find the KV1 and T-34 tanks, and their tanks and anti-tank guns couldn't do much about it. They finally developed the 75mm gun. However the standard tank at the time (the Mark 3) could not fit it into its turret. The last of the mark 3's had a 60mm gun. Anyway, they could, however, fit the 75mm gun into the Stug 3, so that is where it all started.

I used Alexander O. Esquemelins book Buccaneers in America

Bennerson Little's The Sea Rover's Practice

And The Sack of Panama

edit: sorry about that last post, I should have cited, but I was quite ill the past two days.

Great book on that story:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Battle-German-Soldiers/dp/0306822083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376104111&sr=8-1&keywords=last+battle+of+ww2

But, to be fair, Schloss Itter was more of a resort than a castle, but it still had medieval style walls and gates. Basic story goes: French POWs were being held in the castle. End of war seems close, camp guards leave the prisoners alone in the castle. Diehard SS and Wehrmacht are under orders to kill the POWs. Hodgepodge collection of US tankers, infantry, and anti-Nazi German and Austrian troops rush to the castle to protect them. Battle ensues. Read the book, it's a great read.

It's an interesting question and one I would like to see answered by better minds than my own since, for the most part, I have been unable to locate any reliable form of record either way.

(apologies in advance btw, a half assed browser hijack just killed my better post)

Where as in field rewards for gallantry etc were common I cannot find many 'rewards or punishments' expliticly stated for killing a noble during open conflict or even under tournament conditions. (Gabriel the count of Montgomery accidentally killed Henry II of France in 1559 by a lance wound to the face, Gabriel requested execution for his act, but the dying king forbade it ~ The Queen of Pubes bore a grudge though so don't discount the people, social norm and exceptions abound).

Within The Law of War and Peace by Grotius 1625 there is no mention of punishment for killing under war conditions but only percieved legal or illegal killing. (poison is illegal for example)

During the Hundred Years War ransom taking was the go to get rich quick method even going so far as to be formalised and taxable. Prisoners of War in the Hundred Years War: Ransom Culture in the Late Middle Ages. Actually Remy Ambuhl has made a fascinating study of it.

For other information i would suggest Juliet Barker. (Conquest & Agincourt)