Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 359

Thread: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

  1. #121
    leoni's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    1,517

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    superb...this link will lead you to both...details en masse to read and watch...ancient olympia like never before...http://antikdigital.de/auswahl/auswahl.html

  2. #122
    tomySVK's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    1,633

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    Great links leoni



  3. #123
    leoni's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    1,517

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    yes, you could find really nice things, during researching stuff for your own mod...http://www.erechtheion.co.uk/
    Last edited by leoni; April 07, 2015 at 12:54 AM.

  4. #124
    Genava's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    464

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    In French about the continental celts:
    - Les Gaulois en guerre, Alain Deyber
    - Guerre et armement chez les Gaulois, Jean-Louis Brunaux et Bernard Lambot
    - Le guerrier gaulois, Franck Mathieu
    - Les Celtes - histoire et dictionnaire, Venceslas Kruta
    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

  5. #125
    Basileos Antiokhos Euergetes's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Σελεύκεια
    Posts
    3,265

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    My French is sadly not that good, but I am aware of Alain Deyber's work on Celtic warfare!
    On the subject of Celts here are two volumes I recently used for research, I will not give a review, as one I did not read the entire volumes, and two they are far two detailed for a summation here. If 'Celtic origins theory' is your interest than these volumes are one such theory worth reading.
    Using archaeology, genetic, linguistics, and literature they utilise a multidisciplinary approach to evidence.

    Celtic from the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archaeology, Genetics, Language and Literature
    Cuncliffe, B. and Koch J, T.(eds) 2012

    Celtic from the West 2: Rethinking the Bronze Age and the Arrival of Indo-European in Atlantic Europe Language and Literature
    Cuncliffe, B. and Koch J, T.(eds)2013

    I have attached a peer review for those interested.http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2011/2011-09-57.html
    Last edited by Basileos Antiokhos Euergetes; April 09, 2015 at 01:12 AM.

  6. #126
    tomySVK's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    1,633

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    This two books by Michael DuBois called Auxillae Vol. 1 and Auxillae Vol. 2 looks very promising:

    http://www.lulu.com/shop/michael-dub...-21946244.html
    http://www.lulu.com/shop/michael-dub...-21946221.html



  7. #127

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    @Anubis88:
    Actually, Pyrrhos was a formidable strategos, but he had a) very limited resources and b) very little luck and poor understanding of politics.

    He did not attack Ptolemy Keraunos in Makedonia, as he was his brother-in-law and Pyrrhos lacked an army for that. He conquered Makedonia twice, once before the reign of Keraunos, and once shortly before his death at Argos.
    Pyrrhos got an army from his other brother-in-law Ptolemy II. for conquering Italy, and other than expansionism, one of the reasons he went there was because of the support he had received from Taras earlier.

    He went there and when you look at the description of the battles, it is clear that Pyrrhos did not lack any understanding of tactics and indeed was a "mini-Alexander". But Alexander had the ressources to put out any insubordination without hesitation with relentless action (e.g. Thebes, Tyre).
    Whenever Pyrrhos had too much success, the city states he had come to "liberate" (and to bring under his rule while at it) would turn their backs on him and betray him.
    They knew he couldn't do anything about it.

    When you look at his battles, like Heraclea, you see he did very well there.
    He chose the place of confrontation, where he had the advantages (a plain near a river), and in plains, the greek phalanx was always superior to its foes.
    He then sent an envoy to the Romans, offering them to mediate which he knew they'd reject without him appearing too willing to fight, and thus provoke them to seek the battle on his terms.
    When they tried to cross the river, he intercepted them. His cavalry disrupted the enemy formations, and withdrew without too heavy casualties.
    His phalanx (at that time still of the same design as Alexanders, being flexible and maneuvrable), made 3-7 attacks, keeping the Romans busy and in disorder, and when their line breached, he sent the elephants in.

    It was wise that he turned around when he came close to Rome, as he had two Roman armies in his back and one before him, and would not have been able to siege Rome even if he had won over the one in front of him. So he turned around to not risk his supply lines.

  8. #128

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    @Anubis88:
    Actually, Pyrrhos was a formidable strategos, but he had a) very limited resources and b) very little luck and poor understanding of politics.

    He did not attack Ptolemy Keraunos in Makedonia, as he was his brother-in-law and Pyrrhos lacked an army for that. He conquered Makedonia twice, once before the reign of Keraunos, and once shortly before his death at Argos.
    Pyrrhos got an army from his other brother-in-law Ptolemy II. for conquering Italy, and other than expansionism, one of the reasons he went there was because of the support he had received from Taras earlier.

    He went there and when you look at the description of the battles, it is clear that Pyrrhos did not lack any understanding of tactics and indeed was a "mini-Alexander". But Alexander had the ressources to put out any insubordination without hesitation with relentless action (e.g. Thebes, Tyre).
    Whenever Pyrrhos had too much success, the city states he had come to "liberate" (and to bring under his rule while at it) would turn their backs on him and betray him.
    They knew he couldn't do anything about it.

    When you look at his battles, like Heraclea, you see he did very well there.
    He chose the place of confrontation, where he had the advantages (a plain near a river), and in plains, the greek phalanx was always superior to its foes.
    He then sent an envoy to the Romans, offering them to mediate which he knew they'd reject without him appearing too willing to fight, and thus provoke them to seek the battle on his terms.
    When they tried to cross the river, he intercepted them. His cavalry disrupted the enemy formations, and withdrew without too heavy casualties.
    His phalanx (at that time still of the same design as Alexanders, being flexible and maneuvrable), made 3-7 attacks, keeping the Romans busy and in disorder, and when their line breached, he sent the elephants in.

    It was wise that he turned around when he came close to Rome, as he had two Roman armies in his back and one before him, and would not have been able to siege Rome even if he had won over the one in front of him. So he turned around to not risk his supply lines.
    Yeah i never deny his genius when it comes to battles, it's about the other stuff that i mentioned. Like you say, he didn't had much resources, so him conquering a huge area was unlikely to have happened. That's what i meant mostly, that i just can't see how an Hellenistic Empire could happen with Pyrhus ruling, becasue he didn't have the resoucrces himself, and he didn't understand how to treat his subordinates to guarantee them giving him those resources and support instead.

    Him having success and those states rebelling isn't connected. From what i know they mostly rebeled when he left the area or had a setback; after every victory he gained new allies. But it seems to me he didn't have a clear vision on what he wants to do; he keeps the Romans to regather their strenght and decides to attack Carthaginian cities in Sicily while planning invading Africa itself, without really having his back covered. That's a big problem. The Italian front was never pacified, and even Ptolemy Keraunos couldn't be the most trusted ally while he plans attacking Carthage on it's home soil.

    Alexander made sure his posessions in Europe were 100% safe and left a huge army at home before planning to attack an empire

    But anyyyways. Pyrrhus was definetly a great general, but perhaps mostly because of the resources he is probably too well known for the stuff he did do. For example, i would argue that the resources Lysimachus had were even smaller than those of Pyrhus, yet he managed to create a huge Empire for himself from a province that was richer then Epirus, but it also had a lot of different factions that weren't loyal too him in it. And i bet out of 10 people who know who Pyrhhus was, 1 knows of Lysimachus. That was basically my point, hope i explained it well

  9. #129
    Cohors_Evocata's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    On the crossroads
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    Quote Originally Posted by Anubis88 View Post
    But anyyyways. Pyrrhus was definetly a great general, but perhaps mostly because of the resources he is probably too well known for the stuff he did do. For example, i would argue that the resources Lysimachus had were even smaller than those of Pyrhus, yet he managed to create a huge Empire for himself from a province that was richer then Epirus, but it also had a lot of different factions that weren't loyal too him in it. And i bet out of 10 people who know who Pyrhhus was, 1 knows of Lysimachus. That was basically my point, hope i explained it well
    Then again Lysimachus didn't fight the inhabitants of a certain pesky Italian city-state. I even remember seeing a painting involving Pyrrhus in (IIRC) the old city hall of Amsterdam. Pyrrhus wasn't the focus of said painting however. Again IIRC, the inspiration was a story from the Ab Urbe Condita of Livy, where Pyrrhus reportedly tried to intimidate a Roman consul during negotiations using the sight of one of his war elephants. The focus of said story however was on the consul, who refused to be intimidated by the king and his beast (and which forms the moral background for putting the painting in the old city hall, such values were to be espoused). I think this is why Pyrrhus is beter known than historical figures like Lysimachus: he is one of the side characters in the tale that is the rise of Rome, rather than a main character in his own right. Since the rediscovery of the classics, many people came to know of him for his role in Roman history, whereas events in other areas such as the wider hellenistic world are outside that spotlight and therefore less well known.

    I should mention I'm not really well qualified to make observations or conclusions such as these and that is mainly fanciful theorizing on my part.

    EDIT: Apparently the story can be found in the works of Plutarch, rather than in those of Livy.
    Last edited by Cohors_Evocata; April 11, 2015 at 07:44 AM.
    I tend to edit my posts once or several times after writing and uploading them. Please keep this in mind when reading a recent post of mine. Also, should someone, for some unimaginable reason, wish to rep me, please add your username in the process, so I can at least know whom to be grateful towards.

    My thanks in advance.

  10. #130

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    Yeah the amount of anecdotes you can read about the romans is as long as their history. Jeff Champion shows quite a few of them including the one you mentioned when it comes to the romans dealing with Pyrrhus. It's mostly propaganda though. The uncorruptable Romans favoured by the gods against Greeks that betray each other at the first chance they get. Especially Livy overemphasized everything he could so that he could "bring back" the Roman values in the times he wrote. IIRC he ponders what would happen if Alexander lived and attacked Italy like he planned to. He comes to the conclusion Romans would win of course

    Honestly the strenght and manpower of Rome has been severly ignored in my opinion by many historians and history buffs. It's insane how fast they could raise large armies even at the time of Pyrhuses invasion. Remember Italy is a pretty big place that was also relatively densly populated compared to a lot of other areas; not to mention the fact it's hard to find years where Romans didn't campaing here or there therefore adding experience to the soldiers and commanders.

    And yeah, Lysimachus didn't have to fight the Romans, but he fought vs a lot of strong princes with big armies, good getic chieftains (he lost really bad once but still ), and still managed to carve out a big empire, crushed only by dynastical intrigue like a spanish soap opera.

    So my main point is that Pyrrhus is too well known compared for what he did. A huge reason for that of course is the fact that he was one of the chief enemies of Rome, which later came to rule much of the world. Again i'm not denying he was one of the better generals, but he was not one of the strongest kings of that era. The Roman victory would be much more impressive if any other Diadoch would come to Tarentum's aid. Like Ptomely Keraunos wasn't too popular after killing Seleucus, nor had he complete hold over Macedonia yet Pyrrhus didn't think he could win against him so decided to leave for Italy instead. So by that logic, even Ptolemies hypothetical chance of win against the Romans would be bigger than Pyrrhuses. And that's not considering the other diadochs of the period, not to mention what could happen if guys like Antigonus or Demetrius invaded Italy at their peak. And again, nobody knows of these guys while everyone knows who pyrhus is

  11. #131

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    Anubis & Cohors Evocata,
    You both made excellent points, take my upvotes

    Thing is, this is one of the turbulent timeframes that had a whole lot of illustrous and capable strategoi with interesting lives and many talents, and most of them failed.
    Does anyone of you remember/know Eumenes of Kardia?
    The secretary-turned-general? The only civilian and the only nonmakedonian to become a diadoch?
    Still he was one of the most capable generals.

    I don't see success as the only criteria that does, or should make certain persons famous.
    I aggree with you that the others would be worth remembering as well, but Pyrrhos legacy too doesn't give him the credit he deserved, and reducing him to a side character like Evocata said: The fighter of Romans.
    He had an interesting life, part of it as a refugee, part of it as a hostage, fighting in various parts of the world, and, as he was the diadochos who went the farthest west, one of the more exotic ones.

    And you are right, he made a whole lot of mistakes, made no longterm commitments (although making his sons kings of italy and sicily), never really tried to consolidate his power in the territories he conquered.
    Instead, he acted on spontaneous offers, (various Greek city states asking him to drive out 1. Rome from Magna Graecia and 2. Carthage from Sicily and 3. Kleonymos of Sparta for conquering Sparte), and never finished any job off.

    Still, Hannibal recordingly ranked him the best or secondbest commander the world had ever seen.


    I'm probably not objective about him. I have always been intrigued by his role as an underdog.
    I once tried to make an AAR about Epeiros that never managed to leave the first round, as I wanted to tell the background story, and inadvertedly did it by portraying Pyrrhos as a disgruntled alcoholic and madman in the year 272 BC, telling his story in flashbacks while he's haunted by the demons of his past, arguing in a drunken state with his reflection on his goblet, which he believes to be the ghost of Alexander (as they both are said to have looked similar), Alexander taunting Pyrrhos in his imagination for his failure to equal Alexanders accomplishments...
    Last edited by Cookiegod; April 11, 2015 at 12:34 PM.

  12. #132

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    Yeah i agree with most of what you said, even though Hannibal saying he loved Pyrrhus is just probably some more propaganda; that talk between him and Scipio probably never took place.

    But what my point was, that in most history overviews i've read Pyrhus was never seen as the underdog, even though we can deduce that he was vs the vast manpower of rome. It's always like : look this great king invaded Rome, and the story is usually written like david and goliath, with Romans being David, even though i would argue the chances of winning were like 66/33 in Rome's favour, not 90/10 in Pyrhuses like most historical overviews seem to write.

    And i believed that too till reading the book, that's why i was "critising" Pyrrhus so much; it's just a completly different picture that what was in my mind till now. He was an amazing character though, and after reading the book it made me really sad that EB doesn't start when he lands at Tarentum... I started the first Epeiros campaing after reading the book, so it did me a lot of good. Ironically i rebuilt an Empire that looks much like the one Lysimachus had at the time of his death

    Thanks for the rep btw

  13. #133

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    Has anybody read Augustus by Adrian Goldsworthy? I quite enjoyed his previous books(Caesar and Antony & Cleopatra) and was thinking about getting it.

  14. #134
    Basileos Antiokhos Euergetes's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Σελεύκεια
    Posts
    3,265

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    Quote Originally Posted by Poppis View Post
    Has anybody read Augustus by Adrian Goldsworthy? I quite enjoyed his previous books(Caesar and Antony & Cleopatra) and was thinking about getting it.
    I have not, but a friend at the Institute of Classical Studies has read and she recommended I read it. She might of been star struck, as he'd been in that day

  15. #135
    Cohors_Evocata's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    On the crossroads
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Anubis & Cohors Evocata,
    You both made excellent points, take my upvotes

    Thank you for the compliment and the rep.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    Thing is, this is one of the turbulent timeframes that had a whole lot of illustrous and capable strategoi with interesting lives and many talents, and most of them failed.
    Does anyone of you remember/know Eumenes of Kardia?
    The secretary-turned-general? The only civilian and the only nonmakedonian to become a diadoch?
    Still he was one of the most capable generals.
    As a matter of fact, I do know him, though probably not in the most orthodox of ways. The life of Eumenes is the subject of a manga I've rather enjoyed reading so far ('Historie by Hitoshi Iwaaki). The story takes quite a few historical liberties (somewhat excusable, since we don't know much about Eumenes' early life), but I think it does a decent job at creating a believable athmosphere for its setting. If you're interested in that kind of thing, I'd recommend checking it out. In the same vein, I'd like to recommend 'Augustus' by John Williams. Again, I'm not sure about the level of historical accuracy, but I enjoyed reading it and I thought it gave an immersive and believable account of the twilight of the republic and the rise of the principate, written from the perspective of several important actors of that time. Both of these can be added to the 'historical fiction' section, I presume.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod;[FONT=UICTFontTextStyleBody
    14464356[/FONT]]I don't see success as the only criteria that does, or should make certain persons famous.
    I aggree with you that the others would be worth remembering as well, but Pyrrhos legacy too doesn't give him the credit he deserved, and reducing him to a side character like Evocata said: The fighter of Romans.
    He had an interesting life, part of it as a refugee, part of it as a hostage, fighting in various parts of the world, and, as he was the diadochos who went the farthest west, one of the more exotic ones.

    And you are right, he made a whole lot of mistakes, made no longterm commitments (although making his sons kings of italy and sicily), never really tried to consolidate his power in the territories he conquered.
    Instead, he acted on spontaneous offers, (various Greek city states asking him to drive out 1. Rome from Magna Graecia and 2. Carthage from Sicily and 3. Kleonymos of Sparta for conquering Sparte), and never finished any job off.

    Still, Hannibal recordingly ranked him the best or secondbest commander the world had ever seen.
    As Anubis said, that meeting between Hannibal and Scipio is likely fictional, but I can agree that it says something about Pyrrhus' reputation. I personally wouldn't rank him that high in my list of 'best commanders of Antiquity' (I think he lacked the strategic vision for such a rank), but I like to think of him as an adventurer and a charismatic leader in his own right. Probably a little too romantic, but there's nothing wrong with that from time to time, right?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cookiegod View Post
    I'm probably not objective about him. I have always been intrigued by his role as an underdog.
    I once tried to make an AAR about Epeiros that never managed to leave the first round, as I wanted to tell the background story, and inadvertedly did it by portraying Pyrrhos as a disgruntled alcoholic and madman in the year 272 BC, telling his story in flashbacks while he's haunted by the demons of his past, arguing in a drunken state with his reflection on his goblet, which he believes to be the ghost of Alexander (as they both are said to have looked similar), Alexander taunting Pyrrhos in his imagination for his failure to equal Alexanders accomplishments...
    Ah yes, the stories we create when roleplaying in games like these... I still remember my game of CK II in which I tried to rule over Scandinavia as a first among equals, whilst spreading my dynasty all over the region. Unfortunately, that plan failed miserably, due to the rest of my family not agreeing with my views and backstabbing me all the time. Did you post your AAR in the here on TWC? You kinda got me interested.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anubis88 View Post
    Yeah the amount of anecdotes you can read about the romans is as long as their history. Jeff Champion shows quite a few of them including the one you mentioned when it comes to the romans dealing with Pyrrhus. It's mostly propaganda though. The uncorruptable Romans favoured by the gods against Greeks that betray each other at the first chance they get. Especially Livy overemphasized everything he could so that he could p"bring back" the Roman values in the times he wrote. IIRC he ponders what would happen if Alexander lived and attacked Italy like he planned to. He comes to the conclusion Romans would win of course
    Yeah, I'm aware the anecdote I provided was most likely fictional, but I believe my point still stands: Pyrrhus is mostly known for his fight against the Romans, not for his other exploits across the Mediterranean. By comparison, you don't often hear about Arsaces I (the founder of the Parthian empire), whereas the Parthian general Surena is much more famous for his role in the Roman defeat at Carrhae.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anubis88 View Post
    Honestly the strenght and manpower of Rome has been severly ignored in my opinion by many historians and history buffs. It's insane how fast they could raise large armies even at the time of Pyrhuses invasion. Remember Italy is a pretty big place that was also relatively densly populated compared to a lot of other areas; not to mention the fact it's hard to find years where Romans didn't campaing here or there therefore adding experience to the soldiers and commanders.
    With this I concur, although I do wonder how the Romans (and other ancient peoples for that matter) went about in mobilizing that manpower. Any thoughts on this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anubis88 View Post
    And yeah, Lysimachus didn't have to fight the Romans, but he fought vs a lot of strong princes with big armies, good getic chieftains (he lost really bad once but still ), and still managed to carve out a big empire, crushed only by dynastical intrigue like a spanish soap opera.
    Dromichaetes sends his regards. . Although I just came across a book about Lysimachus which theorises that Lysimachus' dominion over the native Thracian tribes was rather loose, as evidenced by his conflicts with the Odrysian king Seuthes III and the fact that the latter apperantly issued his own coinage. At least that's what I gathered before the damned Google books took away my access to the rest of the text. If you'd like I could try to find out what book it was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anubis88 View Post
    So my main point is that Pyrrhus is too well known compared for what he did. A huge reason for that of course is the fact that he was one of the chief enemies of Rome, which later came to rule much of the world. Again i'm not denying he was one of the better generals, but he was not one of the strongest kings of that era. The Roman victory would be much more impressive if any other Diadoch would come to Tarentum's aid. Like Ptomely Keraunos wasn't too popular after killing Seleucus, nor had he complete hold over Macedonia yet Pyrrhus didn't think he could win against him so decided to leave for Italy instead. So by that logic, even Ptolemies hypothetical chance of win against the Romans would be bigger than Pyrrhuses. And that's not considering the other diadochs of the period, not to mention what could happen if guys like Antigonus or Demetrius invaded Italy at their peak. And again, nobody knows of these guys while everyone knows who pyrhus is

    I know of them, although I will confess that this is mostly due to mods like EB and RTR kickstarting my interest in the time-frame. In the end we can only speculate on which Successor was the strongest, but I think it's worth mentioning that Pyrrhus wasn't the first Epirote king to campaign in Italy. IIRC one of his predecessors went there before him as well and this may have influenced his decision to sail to the Italian peninsula

    On a side note, I've just applied to write the province description for the Odrysai province over at the ORG and I'd like some recommendations for works on the Thracians in the hellenistic period. I've got some ideas about where to begin, but some additions are always welcome (preferably ones I can find online).
    Last edited by Cohors_Evocata; April 17, 2015 at 09:00 AM.
    I tend to edit my posts once or several times after writing and uploading them. Please keep this in mind when reading a recent post of mine. Also, should someone, for some unimaginable reason, wish to rep me, please add your username in the process, so I can at least know whom to be grateful towards.

    My thanks in advance.

  16. #136
    leoni's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    1,517

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography


  17. #137

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    updated the library, thanks all. and discussion on Phyrrus was interesting to read. I read Champion's book but that was a while ago. regrettably, it is the only recent dedicated source on Phyrrus, it seems.

  18. #138

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    I read the 2nd Seleucid book by Grangier... I have to say it's pretty much the same as the first one. Quite a good read. Really interesting stuff that can't be found on the internet. I really like how he tells what are the sources in which spots, especially when it comes to the eastern campaings.

    I have now started to read Antigonus by Champion, and it looks great as well. What i really like in his book, and don't like in the Grangier's ones about seleucids, it's the fact that the battles have their own chapters. Champion has some great maps showing battle positioning and formations, while grangier often just mentions the battle basically mid paragraph. If you are not really 100% concentrated it's hard to see where and when it ended.

  19. #139
    tomySVK's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    1,633

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    My copy arrived few weeks ago

    Grainger is making history of Seleukid kingdom, he is not focusing on military history of Seleukids. In my view he is not military historian (at least for Hellenistic period - I didnīt read his books about other periods). He is excellent for Hellenistic history, history of Hellenistic dynasties, Hellenistic politics, Hellenistic diplomacy. In his books he describes battles very shortly. His books are not like The Seleucid army and Judas Maccabaeus by Bar-Kochva - this are still the best books about Seleukid military history.

    But it will be great to read some new specialized book about Seleukid military and campaigns with great illustrations



  20. #140
    leoni's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    1,517

    Default Re: Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

    in this military forum, you can find some nice illustrations for nearly all time periods...http://www.militar.org.ua/foro/la-pi...8709-7305.html

Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •