History in Books

[Zorral]

3 minutes ago, Clueless Northman said:

Yeah, the amount of info about past societies and past climatic events, and their consequences, that we've learned over the last 25 years, due to massive research into climate change, is just astounding.

Women of Troy: apart from Euripides, we don't have much from the ancient, indeed. Then, I don't think anyone can have a clue about what Helen would actually be as a real character, specially since the ancient Greeks had several versions of "what really happened", including some who absolve her of any wrongdoing since she didn't even flee with Paris to Troy. And I don't think any ancient writer really came to the point of admitting she was in a bad marriage with a massively dysfunctional in-law family (even more dysfunctional than her own or Troy's royal family).

 Plus, of course, nobody thought in those terms about women and marriage then: women work, bear heirs, provide the scratch for the itch.  Fini.  No matter what class.  And yet, there were always women even in those times if we can believe the poets, who persisted in taking agency, whether Penelope, Clytemnestra, etc.  So this imaginative telling of their vision of these events by Barker is all the more admirable -- or so it feels to me!    Also daring.  I don't think I would have even thought to try something like this, convinced I couldn't begin to do it right, not knowing enough about anything!

[Toth]

Just found this thread and am a little curious given my strange situation where someone should start reading historical fiction who... somehow drastically prefers writing it rather than reading it. At all. As a nit-picky guy with a history Master I'm getting severely irritated when the setting doesn't feel 'right', the speech patterns are too modern and the characters not fitting the era in their belief system. I'm not saying I'm better, not at all, but when I write stories set in the past, I at least have control over how much artistic licence I give to myself... and how much I wander off and try to narrate actual historic events 'on a ground level' with no heed of containing myself within what makes sense thematically (and in terms of scale).

The discussion right now about "Women of Troy" I find intriguing, given how one of my stories is indeed a take on Troy from the perspective of Penthesilea. Makes me think that it would be interesting to track down much more competent writers and see how their take on this is. So either I could get inspired, roll my eyes, or shrink in shame.^^

Looking through the pages here, I guess the other most interesting mentions here are Cornwell's Arthurian books given how myself also default in my Arthur picture to a Romano-British warlord. And given how I'm forever typecast as the Ancient Egypt guy and also wrote extensively about Ramesses, I guess Christian Jacq may be worth a look. But his mention threw me right back to where my thought process started: I did leaf through a Christian Jacq book once in the waiting area of my dentist. And... I found it really weird with extremely anachronistic dialogue that instantly threw me out of the setting. So I'm back to being extremely hesitant about that one.

Anyone know anything worthwhile featuring Richard Lionheart? I have vague memories of having read "The Talisman" at my library as a kid, which I guess has somewhat influenced me in having my fun about making Richard really like having a chivalrous reputation, but is there anything that also portrays him as a politically inept thug?

[Zorral]

51 minutes ago, Toth said:

Anyone know anything worthwhile featuring Richard Lionheart?

Not exactly an inept thug, but someone who makes wrong decisions.  The last published novel in The John Crowner Mysteries, 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowner_John_Mysteries

Crowner Crusade (2012) deals with the events that led to Richard's capture and imprisonment for that horrendous ransom.

The Richard books, Lionheart and A King's Ransom in Sharon Kay Penman Plantagenet series are of real interest too.

Here's a whole list of novels featuring Richard Lionheart:

https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/99342.The_Lionheart_Richard_I_of_England_Fiction_Non_Fiction

In the end, for writing successful historical fiction studying contemporary writings of the period and histories are far more useful than reading other fictions, as Bret Devereaux, military historian specializing in the Ancient World, frequently points out on his blog where he goes into depth for many historical subjects

https://acoup.blog/ 

He discusses why looking to fictions for writing fiction or making movies/tv, whether on the page or on the screen, not only gets everything wrong, but further  perpetuates cliche, stereotype and falsehoods. Which is pernicious because fictions of every kind (right wing social media anyone?) penetrate far more people's minds than does actual historical study, giving us all kinds of false convictions, just for starters, such as women didn't wield any political power in the middle ages.

Edited November 7, 2021 by Zorral

[Toth]

57 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Not exactly an inept thug, but someone who makes wrong decisions.  The last published novel in The John Crowner Mysteries, 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowner_John_Mysteries

Crowner Crusade (2012) deals with the events that led to Richard's capture and imprisonment for that horrendous ransom.

Fine, maybe thug is the wrong word, but in my interpretation I chalked most of his problematic decisions up to sheer impatience with political intrigues and bull-headed insistence to get whatever he wants or needs at the moment, everyone else be damned.

But thanks, I keep that one in mind!

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

He discusses why looking to fictions for writing fiction or making movies/tv, whether on the page or on the screen, not only gets everything wrong, but further  perpetuates cliche, stereotype and falsehoods. Which is pernicious because fictions of every kind (right wing social media anyone?) penetrate far more people's minds than does actual historical study, giving us all kinds of false convictions, just for starters, such as women didn't wield any political power in the middle ages.

I knooow. That's actually why I asked for recommendations not for topics I intend to write, but in which I already have written. To just see how others may have handled the same issues that I had. I do find it highly problematic myself to let myself influence by anything other than my own research. And yes, the role of women in these histories is also something peculiar. Like with Richard growing up at his mother's court alongside his sisters makes not having them as characters silly, what with his mother being the motherfucking Eleanor of Aquitaine, crashing the party on Sicily with Berengaria, also his sister Joan being dragged along for the crusading ride and there being the whole issue about Isabella of Jerusalem and all the plots about who gets to marry her (with several conspirators being female themselves...).
Or simply having to give not just Nefertari (who everyone knows anyway) a role in a Ramesses story, but also Queen Tuya and the endlessly sarcastic Hittite Queen Puduhepa, what with the copious amounts of correspondence of them that underlines their importance here. Heck, that very same correspondence shows Ramesses being surprisingly blunt and self-aware about being a total slave to PR in what should be considered diplomatic correspondence.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Toth said:

I do find it highly problematic myself to let myself influence by anything other than my own research.

Is there anything problematical about that?  Because, when it comes down to it, and these sorts of figures, even their contemporaries had conflicting views as to who and what they were, what they did right, what they did wrong.  Of course this is true about every historical figure you can think of, because whomever they were, they would have enemies, who took to writing chronicles and accounts -- even poetry -- to put out their side of things, exaggerating, playing down, leaving out, inventing out of whole cloth.  So being influenced only by what you have learned for yourself, makes sense.  Though it is also sensible to see how others handled these matters. Especially as there real stinkers out there as historical fiction -- I'm thinking about a series about Chenghis Khan, for one.

 

2 hours ago, Toth said:

... simply having to give not just Nefertari (who everyone knows anyway) a role in a Ramesses story, but also Queen Tuya and the endlessly sarcastic Hittite Queen Puduhepa ....

This is in Jacq's novels -- and very interesting too.

Sharon Penman gives big shrift to all these women over the course of all the novels, beginning with When Christ and His Saints Slept, featuring Henry II's mother, Empress Matilda and her female relatives, as much as her very important brothers, all the way through the series, until the concluding novel with Richard, A King's Ransom.  Penman's series is the best I've encountered.  I re-read it fairly recently, a terrific magic carpet to take me away from the pandemic and other contemporary troubles and horrors.

 

[Ormond]

I just posted a short review of Hild by Nicola Griffith in the Fouth Quarter reading thread. Thought I would also mention it here because I found it to be an excellent historical novel, and very interesting as it focuses on a period of British history (the 7th century) which I haven't read much about before. I found the treatment of the relationships betweens Angles, Jutes, and Celts (usually called by the term "wealh") at that point in history before a united England was created, as well as its treatment of the conversion of the English to Christianity, to be quite interesting, and would recommend it to fans of historical fiction. 

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Ormond said:

I just posted a short review of Hild by Nicola Griffith

I loved this novel so much!  It was so good in all the ways my favorite fiction is -- plus the period!

[dwellordream]

I recently read A Bloodsmoor Romance, and while it certainly doesn't try to be accurate historical fiction and is full of steampunk elements and ghosts, I do think it's a pretty spectacularly incisive take on antebellum/Victorian American culture, especially the commentary on class and gender. It reads like a dark and fucked up Little Women and I would recommend it for anyone who enjoys gothic literature.

[Zorral]

Runner-up for Best History / Book I've read in 2021 has shown up at the close of the year, just as the Best Book I've read in 2021 showed up early in the year, though this one was published in 2018.  I just didn't get around to it until this past winter.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/04/02/a-scholar-and-his-times/

So Best Book of 2021 for me was Ibn Khaldun: An Intellectual Biography by Robert Irwin. Having read this book I felt thoroughly at home during the Freeman/Dothraki/Barbarian Invincible Warriors discussion in Bret Devereaux's Unmitigated Pedantry -- and that ancient trope of history as a cycle of invincible barbarian invasion and conquest, settling down and going soft, becoming prey for the next cycle of invincible barbarian invaders.

Runner up is God’s Shadow: The Ottoman Sultan Who Shaped the Modern World (2020) by Alan Mikhail

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/books/review/gods-shadow-alan-mikhail.html

First among what I appreciate about this 'revisionist' history of Selim and the Ottoman empire, is the author's determination to put what is going on in Europe and in the Americas and Asia of the 15th and 16th century within the context of the Ottomans.  This is an empire like the Holy Roman Empire, and until recently, seemingly even the Mongolian Empire, the empires of Venice, etc.  being forgotten or neglected by European and western historians.  It's lovely to read about the early years of Columbus within this context, whether in Genoa or sailing everywhere from the Canaries to Galway.

Second among what I'm most appreciative in God's Shadow is how much time is given to Selim's father, Bayezid II, and his influence in shaping Selim.  For some reason, coming between Mehmed, who conquered Constantinople, and Suleiman the Magnificent, both Bayezid and Selim often don't get the treatment they deserve from histories, particularly those written by Europeans / USians.

Third is the detailed examination of the mothers of the heirs to the Sultans.  How much real work they did administratively as the heirs grow up waiting to learn which one will become sultan -- and kill his brothers then.  None of the women are wives -- Suleiman broke a long tradition by marrying his concubine, Hürrem Sultan, and also by having more than one son by her.  This is only one among the elements discussed within the text of how effectively a different way from Europe of organizing an empire could be.

 

[HoodedCrow]

Thanks Zorral ) I didn’t know about the book titled “Unmitigated Pedantry”. Intriguing. I thought one of the Byzantine workaround so that one’s soul would be free of murder, was to blind someone. In that way they were not whole enough to lead an army.

[Zorral]

O no -- Unmitigated Pedantry, which, since discovering it this year, I have mentioned several times on this forum, is a blog. 

It belongs to Bret Devereaux, an academic at University- North Carolina, whose specialty is military history, specifically that of the Ancient World, most particularly the Roman Empire. 

Like all historians, he keeps learning not only about his subject but others too, to keep doing a better job with specialty -- and everything else.

So Bret ranges, and he like to bring in popular culture references and subjects to illustrate his arguments, not only because he's learned this communicates well with students, but because he likes these things himself.  What I really like about Bret Devereaux is knowing something like the Dothraki and Freemen are bs, he can tell you exactly why, and does, but that doesn't interfere with appreciating such entertainments where and how they work.  More than that though, it's such a relief to see somebody who has ALL the history credentials show why the Dothraki are not only bs, but seriously racist, and why this actually matters, since so many readers and show viewers took GRRM at his word, that what he writes is really accurate history, with a dash of fantasy, of how things really were.  And people believe it, and it's all bs. But you can't get rid of the BS once people swallow it. Sigh.

https://acoup.blog/category/collections/the-fremen-mirage/

https://acoup.blog/category/collections/that-dothraki-horde/

There are four sections in the Dothraki Collection, each of them admirable.

 

Edited November 17, 2021 by Zorral

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, HoodedCrow said:

I thought one of the Byzantine workaround so that one’s soul would be free of murder, was to blind someone. In that way they were not whole enough to lead an army.

Another way was that of the Merovingians, who so valued long hair.  Tonsure a fellow and he no longer could be leader or heir.

Mongols had a work around to 'not spilling blood' by wrapping someone in a blanket or carpet and sending a cohort of horsemen riding over it.

Lots of work arounds.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

O no -- Unmitigated Pedantry, which, since discovering it this year, I have mentioned several times on this forum, is a blog. 

It belongs to Bret Devereaux, an academic at University- North Carolina, whose specialty is military history, specifically that of the Ancient World, most particularly the Roman Empire. 

Like all historians, he keeps learning not only about his subject but others too, to keep doing a better job with specialty -- and everything else.

So Bret ranges, and he like to bring in popular culture references and subjects to illustrate his arguments, not only because he's learned this communicates well with students, but because he likes these things himself.  What I really like about Bret Devereaux is knowing something like the Dothraki and Freemen are bs, he can tell you exactly why, and does, but that doesn't interfere with appreciating such entertainments where and how they work.  More than that though, it's such a relief to see somebody who has ALL the history credentials show why the Dothraki are not only bs, but seriously racist, and why this actually matters, since so many readers and show viewers took GRRM at his word, that what he writes is really accurate history, with a dash of fantasy, of how things really were.  And people believe it, and it's all bs. But you can't get rid of the BS once people swallow it. Sigh.

https://acoup.blog/category/collections/the-fremen-mirage/

https://acoup.blog/category/collections/that-dothraki-horde/

There are four sections in the Dothraki Collection, each of them admirable.

 

Brett Devereaux demonstrates what a good military writer Tolkien was.  Tolkien paid *a ton* of attention to making Sauron’s military campaigns work, despite the huge numbers involved, in a way that most fantasy writers ignore.

[SeanF]

While I disagree with Devereaux, in some respects, about the nature of medieval warfare, it's hard to disagreed with his essays on The Fremen Mirage.

In summary, "soft", "decadent", urbanised, civilised peoples are in general much more successful at waging war than simple, tough, hardy desert/steppe/jungle peoples, because the successful delivery of violence depends hugely upon good organisation and logistics. Over the course of 5,000 years , relatively small (relative to overall population size) highly trained, professional armies have proved by far the most effective war machines

Edited November 18, 2021 by SeanF

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

 it's hard to disagreed with his essays on The Fremen Mirage.

Or about the truly ridiculous Dothraki stuff, when it comes to GRRM's supposedly true to history modeling on North American Plains warriors and Mongolians.  He got nothing right about any of it.  It's all bs.  Which, of course, the bs just leaped off the page for any reader who knew the least modicum about either of horse warrior cultures. Or trade.  Or language.  Or slavery. Or military craft.  Or horses. Or-or-or-or on to infinity.

~~~~~~~~

Someone finally did it -- an historical novel of the War of Jenkins Ear!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/if-you-like-action-packed-historical-novels-the-war-of-jenkins-ear-is-just-the-book-for-you/2021/11/08/ced0e894-40b9-11ec-a3aa-0255edc02eb7_story.html

Quote

.... No doubt the memory of that strangely titled book sparked me to pick up Robert Gaudi’s “The War of Jenkins’ Ear.” But that wasn’t the only reason. I had been utterly enthralled by this lively writer’s previous work of military history, “African Kaiser,” an account of German operations in Africa during World War I. For his latest, Gaudi goes further back in time to what his subtitle calls “The Forgotten Struggle for North and South America, 1739-1742,” a conflict between Spain and Britain fought largely in the West Indies, Panama, Florida and Georgia. Fans of Rafael Sabatini’s “Captain Blood” or Patrick O’Brian’s slightly later Aubrey-Maturin nautical adventures should take special note. ....

After reading that paragraph, the book went immediately on order.  Was there any doubt?  Ha!

[Zorral]

Ooooo -- I learned a delicious new term from the review of The War of Jenkins Ear!  Why did I not encounter it before, in all these years of reading?  I guess ... coz, it is French?  And I'm woefully ill-educated in things French, despite my life-long devotion to ballet and dressage?

Quote

…  “The War of Jenkins’ Ear” is a superb example of what the French call haute vulgarisation, that is, a serious nonfiction work designed to be read for pleasure. ....

 

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Or about the truly ridiculous Dothraki stuff, when it comes to GRRM's supposedly true to history modeling on North American Plains warriors and Mongolians.  He got nothing right about any of it.  It's all bs.  Which, of course, the bs just leaped off the page for any reader who knew the least modicum about either of horse warrior cultures. Or trade.  Or language.  Or slavery. Or military craft.  Or horses. Or-or-or-or on to infinity.

~~~~~~~~

Someone finally did it -- an historical novel of the War of Jenkins Ear!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/if-you-like-action-packed-historical-novels-the-war-of-jenkins-ear-is-just-the-book-for-you/2021/11/08/ced0e894-40b9-11ec-a3aa-0255edc02eb7_story.html

After reading that paragraph, the book went immediately on order.  Was there any doubt?  Ha!

Martin’s army sizes are sometimes far too large.  100,000 soldiers of the Reach would starve to death on the march.  

Westeros is far too large to be governed in such a loose fashion.  It ought be an empire, with an imperial bureaucracy.  The absence of groups like burgesses and lawyers makes no sense for a society with its level of economic development.  Kings Landing ought have an equivalent of the Corporation of London and Lord Mayor.  

The low status of women is hard to reconcile with their importance in The Faith (where they can be the equivalent of Cardinals).  A religion, which is followed by the vast majority, and which treats women as almost equal to men, ought to have an impact on wider social attitudes.

I once thought the cruelty of slavery in the books was exaggerated.  Having read up more about slavery, I realise it is not (we agreed upthread that novelists tend to downplay such cruelty).  The huge imbalance of slave to free is unusual but not unheard of (it was similar in Sparta if one accepts Devereaux’s view that helots were slaves, and in the West Indies).  The more that free people are outnumbered, the greater the degree of terror that they must subject the slaves to (Sparta and the West Indies again).   But, there ought to have been slave revolts before Daenerys (again, Sparta and the West Indies).

Also slave soldiers ought to have seized power, like Janissaries and Mamelukes.  Soldiers’ primary loyalty is to their comrades, which is why it’s stupid for masters to give up their monopoly of violence.

[Jaenara Belarys]

21 hours ago, Zorral said:

O no -- Unmitigated Pedantry, which, since discovering it this year, I have mentioned several times on this forum, is a blog. 

 

What were your favorite parts of the blog? (Mine was the Siege of Gondor and the Helm's Deep series, the kit reviews are also pretty good. I enjoyed watching him rip GRRM's so-called "amalgam of cultures" statement to shreds)

[SeanF]

19 minutes ago, Jaenara Belarys said:

What were your favorite parts of the blog? (Mine was the Siege of Gondor and the Helm's Deep series, the kit reviews are also pretty good. I enjoyed watching him rip GRRM's so-called "amalgam of cultures" statement to shreds)

I enjoyed how he rips apart the show’s logistical flaws (even if a soft target) and “This is Sparta!”

[Jaenara Belarys]

1 minute ago, SeanF said:

I enjoyed how he rips apart the show’s logistical flaws (even if a soft target) and “This is Sparta!”

Indeed. Though, I do think there's a way you could logically pull it off and you would only need wagons for a section of the trip. You would need barges and other methods of water transportation, but you might be able to transport it up the Mander and then along the Gold Road to the Blackwater. Also, it could be food for the garrison and Lannister armies primarily, but starving peasants and wars don't mix (they don't mix in peacetime, but you get the point). 

 

And frankly, the Spartan legends are idiotic, since the hoplite phalanx is vulnerable in places.