What History book are you reading now?

[Krazy Kat]

Having really enjoyed reading the above books I needed to take a closer look. In the Cleopatra book, for instance there was this:

The architect Dionochares had begun to use loadstone for constructing the vaulting in the temple of Arsinoe at Alexandria, [sorry, no date] so that the iron statue contained in it might have the appearance of being suspended in mid-air; but the project was interrupted by his own death and that of King Ptomely who had ordered the work to be done in honour of his sister.

The magnetic floating statue would not have appeared out of place in a city filled with modern miracles: automated statues, steam-powered models, automatic doors and the world's first coin-operated press.

...a floating statue

The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt:
the history of a civilisation from 3000BC to Cleopatra
by Toby Wilkinson

[Krazy Kat]

I wanted to read about the lives of the ancient Egyptains other than the Royalty and the Super-Elite. So when I saw the title
The Life and Times of Akhenaten - Arthur Weigall, I thought this might be what I was looking for. Although this book is exclusively about the Royal goings-on it nevertheless makes fascinating reading.

Arthur Weigall paints a very colourful picture of this very unusual ruler. His hero worship and romanticism of perhaps the world's first idealist and internationalist is constantly being compared with Jesus Christ and Christianity. As Weigall says, you have to compare him to this in order to see it's failings.

Akhenaten just might be the world's first flower-power hippy.

The Search for Nefertiti by Dr. Joann Fletcher. Half way through this one and really enjoying this book.
It has some descriptions of the life of the more ordinary Egyptian society.
Oddly enough, I didn't realise Queen Nefertiti was Akhenaten's wife, when I pulled these two books from the library book shelf.
It's made it much better to read both sides of the same coin.

The 18th Dynasty the Amarna Period is said to be one of the most fascinating of the entire ancient world of the Egyptians. It's easy to see how easy people can let their imaginations run riot and read things into Ancient Egypt that are not there. And on this note I can't wait to read about Seti I and the sequel Seti II.

Edit: deleted the lol moticon

[Avatar]

Sounds interesting. I did a lot of reading on Egyptology at one time, but rather than the historical, I concentrated on the mythology.

--A

[Damelon]

I've been reading the final book in the William Manchester/Paul Reid The Last Lion biography of Churchill, which was published last month. The first of the three books came out around 25 years ago with the second being published, I believe in the late '80's. Manchester became too ill to finish, but before he died about ten years ago he told Reid he should finish the biography.

The last book starts at the point where Churchill became PM in 1940. I'm now a little more than half way through the book, early 1943, where the battle for Stalingrad has just finished and the Allies are closing in on Tunis. Reid has done a good job of staying close to the tone of Manchester, though he repeats quotes of Churchill that were used in the last book.

He does do a good job of highlighting the differences in the motivations between the British and Americans, which Churchill largely glossed over in his own memoirs. One thing I had never known was Roosevelt's extreme dislike of DeGaulle. I'd assumed that he'd thought of him the same way as Churchill had, as a prickly pain in the ass, but in the end essential. Roosevelt has not, at least to early 1943, come around to that way of thinking. Cordell Hull, Roosevelt's Secretary of State went so far as to call the Free French "polecats".

So if you are interested in the history of the period, it's a good read.

[Iolanthe]

Took a little time off the Charlemagne book to read the Mordant's Need books again but now back to Charlemagne - almost finished it. Expecting a new book about William I (the Conquerer alias William the Bastard) for Christmas.

[aliantha]

Iolanthe, family legend had us traced back to the right side of the blanket from William the Conqueror. Alas, I think the legend has now been debunked.

[Cybrweez]

Finished "Jerusalem" by Sebag-Montefiore. Basically a what history, what happened to the city throughout its crazy long history. So interesting, but doesn't leave you much to think about (didn't leave me much anyway).

Started Ken Follett's "Pillars of the Earth", which is kinda history...

[Iolanthe]

Iolanthe, family legend had us traced back to the right side of the blanket from William the Conqueror. Alas, I think the legend has now been debunked.

Hmm, there are not many people who can trace back that far unfortuntely, unless you happen to latch on to one of the baronial families, like the rower Matthew Pincent did on "Who do you think you are" - he was descended through the Dukes of Norfolk who go back to William the Marshall via one of his daughters. W the M was Earl of Pembroke but all his sons died before he did so his daughters married into posh families including the one that became Norfolk.

I can only trace back to 1590s but I'm trying to latch onto a family with the same surname that goes back to the 1200s.

I'm back onto "The Making of Europe" now, much easier to understand now I've read Charlemagne.

[aliantha]

The supposition was based on our original Norman family name, which was de Conteville. William supposedly had some connection to the de Contevilles -- I forget what, exactly. It's been some years since I read up on it. Anyway, we went to Ireland with Strongbow and settled there. But some of 'em must have moved back to England, because the first Cantwell of our line in America, Capt. Edmund Cantwell, was an English chap.

Supposedly the family owned Kentwell Hall in Suffolk at one point -- long before Tudor times, obviously. But somebody dug up a reference to a Cantwell in Ireland paying some sort of bill -- tax or rent or something -- for Kentwell.... Aha! Here we go:

After Hugh (1170) came Gilbert (1190-1245) who had large holdings of lands from Geoffrey de Turville, Bishop of Ossory, in the Kilfane (Kilkenny) districts. In the Calendar of Documents there is an interesting entry. it states that on November 20th, 1244, King Henry III Of England "commanded" Bishop Geoffrey,, Treasurer of Ireland and Maurice Fitzgerald, Justiciary, to pay from the Irish treasury the sum of #50 for the Manor of Kentwell, Suffolk, sold to the King. (The thirteenth-century pound is reckoned to be worth #40 to #50 present currency.
Kentwell Hall, near Long Melford in Suffolk, is a large red brick "H" shaped Elizabethan manor. Although no Cantwell has resided in the district for over 700 years it is interesting to see the name being perpetuated. A nearby range of sand hills are known as 'Kentwell downs" and not far from the house is a small wood called "Norman's Grove"."
genforum.genealogy.com/cantwell/messages/410.html

[Iolanthe]

There are a few here (I refined to 1400-1699) discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/Searc ... +dates.y=9

This is a good one!

To the bishops of Lismore, Limerick and Emly. Mandate, as below. The recent petition of the archbishop of Cashel and Ellen Cantwell, mulier, wife of Richard Bottillier, layman, of the diocese of Cashel, contained that formerly, upon the said Ellen relating to the said archbishop that although the said Richard had contracted marriage with her per verba legitima de presenti, had consummated it, and had had offspring by her, he put her away and ceased to treat her with conjugal affection, the said archbishop monished and ordered him to return to her, and treat her with conjugal affection, under pain of excommunication etc.; that inasmuch as Richard did not obey, (fn. 3) the said archbishop excommunicated him, and caused and ordered him to be publicly proclaimed excommunicate, repeatedly aggravated the processes made against him, and laid the places to which he should go and in which he should reside under and interdict (fn. 4) ; that Richard, falsely alleging himself to be wrongfully aggrieved by the said archbishop, appealed to the apostolic see, and obtained papal letters to the bishop of Leighlin, and under pretext thereof brought the said archbishop and Ellen before Miles, (fn. 5) bishop of Leighlin; that the said bishop, wrongfully proceeding, although he had no jurisdiction against the said archbishop in the matter, promulgated an unjust sentence by which he declared the said marriage between Richard and Ellen to be null, pronounced a divorce between them, (fn. 6) and condemned the said archbishop to pay a certain sum of money to Richard; that Ellen had recourse to the said see, and obtained papal letters to the bishops of Killaloe (Laonien.) and Limerick, and in virtue thereof caused Richard to be summoned before Matthew, bishop of Killaloe, who promulgated a definitive sentence by which he revoked the sentence of the said bishop of Leighlin, declared the said marriage to be lawful, and ordered Richard to cohabit with Ellen. (fn. 7) The said archbishop and Ellen alleging that the said last sentence has been suspended by no appeal, and that the process of the said bishop of Leighlin is null, and petitioning the pope to order the said last sentence to have due force, and the said process to be declared null by some upright man in those parts, etc., (fn. the pope hereby orders the above three to summon Richard and others concerned, hear both sides, and decide what is just, without appeal, causing their decision to be observed by ecclesiastical censure. Humilibus etc. [1½ pp.]

Here www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?c ... y=Cantwell

I'm thinking of subscribing to the British History Online website - it's only £30 a year.

[Iolanthe]

I don't know where the little man in the sunglasses came from - it is an "8" in the text!

[Lefdmae Deemalr Effaeldm]

That's what happens when the forum recognizes what it thinks is an emoticon code text - if you have a ":" and then a ")" - . If you have an "8" and than a ")" - To avoid this, you can place extra spaces, other symbols, code, etc.

To be on topic a slight bit, the most recent thing I can remember I've read that had to do with history - not exactly a serious history book, but written by a historian and well-packed with facts, was "Assault On Theseus" by Kir Bulychev, a pity I can't recommend it due to the apparent lack of a translation. Curiously, it was more accurate in some things than what's usually given at schools about the myths of that period, much due to the dark or sexual content, of course, but I find that a no good excuse, those polished things give less of an idea than some of the recent cartoons on the topic.

Edit: printed "of curse" at first

[Avatar]

Started Ken Follett's "Pillars of the Earth", which is kinda history...

I really like that book. (I know not everybody here does.) The sequel was a bit disappointing, but the original was a great read.

--A

[aliantha]

Iolanthe, thanks! I'll have to check those out a little more thoroughly later.

[Damelon]

After going out to see Lincoln a couple of weeks ago I'm on an American Civil War era kick. I've begun reading a new biography on Lincoln's Secretary of State, William Seward. Seward: Lincoln's Indispensible Man. And I have also bought to read Team of Rivals, on Lincoln's cabinet members. A book that influenced President Obama.

[Iolanthe]

The Norman Conquest by Marc Morris. Hefty hardback tome daughter bought me for Christmas (at my request). Only just started the introduction last night. I see that he has also written a book on Edward I which I must get - perhaps for kindle!

[Cybrweez]

The Great Upheaval, Jay Winik.

[Orlion]

Currently reading (among other things) A Short History of England by a Simon Jenkins. It was nice to get a little more information about William Rufus aside from "he got shot hunting". Turns out he was a flamboyant drain on the English economy who weaseled his way into the monarchy seat. Who knew?

[Iolanthe]

I remember reading about Robert Curthose and William Rufus in my Norman Conquest book (which I've now lent to someone else so can't look it up). I seem to remember that they both quarrelled with Dad and were over in Normandy being naughty at some point. Rather remeniscent of Henry II's problems with his sons. The popular tale is that he was accidentlly shot with an arrow while out hunting.

I'm still reading Britain Begins which stops at 1000 AD. It would seem that my ancestry is a mixture of any european (including the Baltic regions) from when Britain was joined up to Europe, Portuguese (Beaker people) and German/French/Danish/Swedish/Norweigan/Flemish (Angles/Saxons/Jutes/ though not in that order) so we are probably all related to everyone! Mind you, my direct male line is from Cheshire, west coast, so perhaps the Angles, Saxons and Jutes don't come into it, but then of course the vikings do which is more or less the same thing.

Edit: Whoops, forgot the Romans (Italian)!

[Orlion]

I remember reading about Robert Curthose and William Rufus in my Norman Conquest book (which I've now lent to someone else so can't look it up). I seem to remember that they both quarrelled with Dad and were over in Normandy being naughty at some point. Rather remeniscent of Henry II's problems with his sons. The popular tale is that he was accidentlly shot with an arrow while out hunting.

Heh. By traditional means, Robert Curthose should have been king of England after the Conqueror, but through some trick of inheritance, he ended up with Normandy and William Rufus got England. Robert was going to re-conqueror England when the First Crusades was called. William bribed his brother to go instead of him, and while Robert was busy in Palistine, Rufus just so happened to get killed and Henry I went ahead and claimed the throne before William was cold in the ground.

Fun stuff, this English history

I'm still reading Britain Begins which stops at 1000 AD. It would seem that my ancestry is a mixture of any european (including the Baltic regions) from when Britain was joined up to Europe, Portuguese (Beaker people) and German/French/Danish/Swedish/Norweigan/Flemish (Angles/Saxons/Jutes/ though not in that order) so we are probably all related to everyone! Mind you, my direct male line is from Cheshire, west coast, so perhaps the Angles, Saxons and Jutes don't come into it, but then of course the vikings do which is more or less the same thing.

Edit: Whoops, forgot the Romans (Italian)!

Jeez, that whole area seems to be the original melting pot. The Vikings really did a number by either taking over everything... will mostly, but Mercia and Kent (I think they were called) would eventually be conquered by their descendants: the Normans. There's no escaping the Viking heritage!