Best historical books categorized

[antares24]

hello all,
has anyone read Colleen McCullough's series about the late roman republic?
the first book is "First Man In Rome", there are 5 or 6 books in the series...it's actually a historical novel, but it's quite good.

yes i have read the first and was captured by it, and then i readed all of them, they're really good novels imho with a lot of historical accuracy, McCullough make a wonderful work with his characters.

Another really good historical novel i raccomend (don't know if it has already been mentioned here, this topic is too big) is Alexandros, by Valerio Massimo Manfredi, a trilogy about the life of Alexander.
Also by the same author, the Tyrant, about Dionisus of Siracusa, and the Shield of Thalos, a really beautiful novel settled in Sparta during the Persian invasion.

[Osceola]

Can anyone suggest me some good books on Ancient India (Mauryan empire to be precise).

Prince

I used to share the same interest, but I found out while theres quite a bit written in Sanskrit, virtually nothing in English. Strange, you'd think Osprey would be all over it.

[Lord LeRey]

I`m looking currently a good biography book about Napoleon Bonaparte y Mahatmma Ghandi. Could be focusssed on specific events (the campaings for napoleon, the independence movement for mahatmma, etc). But my main interest is that the book is acurate and from a thrustful writer.

[Iustinianos]

For Napoleon i'd recommend 1812, by Adam Zamoyski. It's a wonderfully detailed book about Napoleons campaign to Russia in 1812. It's a rather big book, but a wonderful source about Napoleon.

[Legio XII]

I will add "The Decline and fall of the Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbon I haven't actually read it yet, but it's pretty thick (6 cm, and I should add that this is an abridged version), so it must be good.

Also, the copyright appears to be 1960, but because of the nature of the topic, I can't imagine it's too outdated, if at all.

It was written in the 18th century by Edward Gibbon. The whole series is seven parts long, and each volume is some 5-6 cm thick each. Quite an in depth research project actually, and not outdated in the least. An extremely good read.

As for myself, I will add "The Civil War: A Narrative" by Shelby Foote in the Wars section. It is the most in depth look at the American Civil War ever written. It is nine parts long and each part averages 3 cm in thickness each, about 300 pages each on average.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

May I recommend my comprehensive thread on this subject:

Best novels on Greco-Roman history

[Faridus]

Alexandros, by Valerio Massimo Manfredi, a trilogy about the life of Alexander.

i actually read the trilogy years ago, in french!!! that was good, so much stuff i didn't know about Alexander.

[Jingles]

I don't know If it's already been said, but for World war II and I

-Nemesis
-Armageddon
-Overlord - D-Day and the Battle for Normandy
-Das Reich
All by Max Hastings

- Convoy: The Battle for Convoys SC.122 and HX.229
- The Battle of Hamburg: Allied Bomber Forces Against a German City in 1943
- The First day on the Somme
All by Martin Middlebrook

[El_Saracen]

Well I just read Persian Fire by Tom Holland and all I can say is WOW. Really good read, i've only just started reading up on classical history for the first time since I dropped history as a subject at age 14.
It does read like a novel almost, I was actually gutted when it ended.

Do you think there would have been world peace if Xerxes actually conquered Europe? I'm not a Persian sympathizer or anything but its an interesting thought. Would Alexander have become great if the Persian Empire had taken Europe? Its a crazy time in history. If the Greeks were beaten then the rest of Continental Europe would have surely fallen.

I'm dying to get a new book now. The next logical period is Alexander the Great. Would anyone recommend "Alexander The Great And The Hellenistic Age: A Short History " by Peter Green?

I saw it in my local book shop, is there a definitive Alexander book you would suggest instead?

Cheers people

[spartan117]

Now I dont know where to exactly post this but.....

I have stumbled upon a historical lecture (audio file) which I downloaded. It is very interesting. I did not know such downloads were available online. I have then googled to see what free lectures I could find pertaining to history and political science. Now I am not exactly picky in what the lectures might discuss as long as it is relevant to history and/or political science.

I was wondering if anyone can post any links to websites that offer free lectures. Although I would prefer specific lectures that you may have found interesting and informative. Upon visiting the link I will then determine whether or not I would like to hear that lecture. (doesnt have to be a video lecture)

Thanks for any links that may be posted......

(Please no "dirty" links)

[Guderian's Duck]

Ancient
Scipio Africanus: Greater than Napoleon
B.H. Liddell Hart

The Twelve Caesars
Suetonius

Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic
Tom Holland

Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic and Civil War
Gaius Julius Caesar

Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor
Anthony Everitt

Middle Ages-Industrial Age

Ghenghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World
Jack Weatherford

The Teutonic Knights: A Military History
William Urban

Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947
Christopher Clark

Modern History

Russia

Orlando Figes:
Natasha's Dance: A Cultural History of Russia

The People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891-1924

The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia

Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar
Simon Sebag Montefiore

Interwar Years
The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939
Antony Beevor

The Coming of the Third Reich

The Third Reich in Power
Richard Evans

World War Two

Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives
Alan Bullock

Barbarossa
Alan Clark

A Writer at War: A Soviet Journalist with the Red Army, 1941-1945
Vassily Grossman

Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege: 1942-1943
Antony Beevor

The Fall of Berlin 1945
Antony Beevor

Panzer Leader
Heinz Guderian

Post war/Cold war

Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945
Tony Judt

The Cold War: A New History
John Lewis Gaddis

I have some others, but they've either been already mentioned or I am too lazy to find them.

[Carl von Döbeln]

Major Battle/wars



"The Thirty Years war Europe In Fire" By Lars Ericson Wolke,Göran Larsson and Nils Erik Villstrand(All of them swedish historians]
It's a book about the first European Great War.A war when armies from all the corners of europe met on the battlefield.
The war affected all parts of europe ,So big armies had never been essembled.
never before had so many humans died on the battlefields.

The People behind the war,Emperors and kings,politicians and Generals, are all presented in personal portraits.
common soldiers and their families faith is also described in the book.
More then 350 ilustrations and maps showing diffrent aspects of the war that burned Euorope in over 30 years.
The autors are all Leading historians that have The thirty years war as their main area
My friendly regards/Carl VD

[gsoxx]

Major Battle/wars
"The Thirty Years war Europe In Fire" By Lars Ericson Wolke,Göran Larsson and Nils Erik Villstrand

Nice of you to mention the Thirty Years War because I recently finished "Wallenstein, His Life Narrated" by Golo Mann.
It is truly a magnificent book and very well written. It requires also not too much prior knowledge about the war.

Heres an Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Wallenstein-Li...5096282&sr=1-2

[Carl von Döbeln]

Nice of you to mention the Thirty Years War because I recently finished "Wallenstein, His Life Narrated" by Golo Mann.
It is truly a magnificent book and very well written. It requires also not too much prior knowledge about the war.

Heres an Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Wallenstein-Li...5096282&sr=1-2

wAllenstein was a good general but a poor politician
In my opinion The Count of Tilly was better..

[gsoxx]

wAllenstein was a good general but a poor politician
In my opinion The Count of Tilly was better..

Noooooo way.

Wallenstein killed Gustav Adolph at Lützen with his bare hands!!11! Take that!

[Carl von Döbeln]

Noooooo way.

Wallenstein killed Gustav Adolph at Lützen with his bare hands!!11! Take that!

Actually,WALLENSTEIN Was defeated By Gustavus Even after his death
And It was Count Picolomini's curassiers That killed Gustavus At the main road on the battlefield.
Gustavus "Killed off" pappenheims Cavalry with HIS right hand(Johan Baner)

[gsoxx]

Actually,WALLENSTEIN Was defeated By Gustavus Even after his death
And It was Count Picolomini's curassiers That killed Gustavus At the main road on the battlefield.
Gustavus "Killed off" pappenheims Cavalry with HIS right hand(Johan Baner)

Defeated by him after his death... now thats a good one.

Imagine what would have happend if W. didn't sent half his army away the day before...
But seriously, in the end I would call this battle a draw, but thats not the right place to discuss it.

[Carl von Döbeln]

Well to end the discussion...
Gustavus was a far more greater General Then wallenstein.
And if wallenstein's spies wouldn't have detected the incoming swedish army ,Gustavus Would have chrushed Wallenstein.
But in the end ,With help from Pappenheim , the imperial side inflicted heavy cassuaties on the swedes.
And the battle would be considered tacticly to be a swedish victory,but the death of gustavus adolphus made the battle To an imperial strategicly-speaking victory.

So all-around the battle Shall be considered to a a Draw

My honest regards/Carl VD

[gsoxx]

Well to end the discussion...
Gustavus was a far more greater General Then wallenstein.
And if wallenstein's spies wouldn't have detected the incoming swedish army ,Gustavus Would have chrushed Wallenstein.
But in the end ,With help from Pappenheim , the imperial side inflicted heavy cassuaties on the swedes.
And the battle would be considered tacticly to be a swedish victory,but the death of gustavus adolphus made the battle To an imperial strategicly-speaking victory.

So all-around the battle Shall be considered to a a Draw

My honest regards/Carl VD

I can surely live with that.

Sincerly yours
gsoxx

[The Friend]

Well to end the discussion...
Gustavus was a far more greater General Then wallenstein.
And if wallenstein's spies wouldn't have detected the incoming swedish army ,Gustavus Would have chrushed Wallenstein.
But in the end ,With help from Pappenheim , the imperial side inflicted heavy cassuaties on the swedes.
And the battle would be considered tacticly to be a swedish victory,but the death of gustavus adolphus made the battle To an imperial strategicly-speaking victory.

So all-around the battle Shall be considered to a a Draw

My honest regards/Carl VD

Actually thats debatable.Wallenstein was a cautious general, definitely much different from his more illustrious opponent.Battle of the Alte Veste was a significant victory for the Empire.
Also that he learnt in advance of the Swedish advance (Battle of Lützen) cannot be a judgement against him. That was fortunate for him, but lady luck is known to favor many a great general in their dire needs ( and desert many as well )