[removed]

This is kinda stupid. When Zeus comes down as a swan or a bull, does anyone change pronouns to it?

This is a problem with the priorities of ancient historians, there aren't a lot of texts dealing with anyone other than men in historical texts, and personal traits are almost never mentioned outside of attacks in court speeches or debates, which are not always the most reliable.

But things like plays often mocked characters, sometimes outright, sometimes a bit more subtitle, and characters outside the Great Men Theory scope would appear in them as well. Therefore, it's necessary to look at cases of fiction to get a better sense of how these things were treated in antiquity.

We do get some letters, outside of my scope though, but I know there's some great Byzantine, and some Egyptian stuff, that colleagues have worked on.

Regarding historic texts, the only thing that comes to mind is the case of Teuta in Polybius who still is referred to with the masculine title of Basileus (βασιλεύς) . I don't know if anyone outside of mythology was referred to as Basileia while being the leader of a place before Teuta, but it did become common later, but Polybius uses the term while still making it very clear that she's a woman, and modern translators typically go for "Queen Teuta" when translating this, giving it a feminine spin that isn't actually present in the text. It's something we all have to grapple with when doing translations, how much should we stick to the original text, how much should we add in for our modern understandings of gender both in the literal and grammatical sense, and so on.

Am I the only one that noticed all the examples are fiction. Not historical documents of actual people.

Thanks for this, I have always wondered how cameras worked, especially the chemicals involved!

Just below the "Subscribe" button is a "Continue Reading" button, kinda hidden but it should allow you to read it without creating an account.

Can anyone recommend me any books/podcasts/docs about Taiwanese history? I’ve read Forbidden Nation by Manthorpe and I’m looking for more.

Additionally, any good bios or histories on Sun Yat Sen? Thx!

Seems like it might be interesting (I am an amateur photographer and history buff), but it won't let me scroll and read without creating an account and I dont really want to do that.

[removed]

Kind of strangely, I had the Friedrich Katz bio of Pancho Villa in mind when I said this one was short and didn't get overly involved. That Villa bio was like 700ish pages before the notes and was comprehensive, but I didn't actually care that much and didn't really have the background to understand a lot of the more intricate political in fighting.

The camps in the US where Japanese Americans were interned or the Japanese camps where they interned people in places like Shanghai and Manila?

Ah, I read too quickly my bad. I still stand by my original, now irrelevant, comment

This is the 1810 rebellion, not the 1910 revolution.

Pancho Villa was a badass! Not the best person but a badass nonetheless haha

I recently read Facing the Mountain:An Inspiring Story of Japanese American Patriots in World War 2 by Daniel James Brown ,it tells of both Interned and Soldiers of Japanese American decent who fought in World War 2

Anyone have good sources on Japanese internment camps

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

The Portuguese Empire 1415-1808 by A.J.R. Russell-Wood

[removed]

[removed]

Going to be quite a long comment as I managed to get through a few books (but mostly copied and pasted). All First World War.

Finished On a Knife Edge: How Germany Lost the First World War by Holger Afflerbach

>4.75/5 very good about Germany's failure in World War One. Would recommend if you are interested in WWI and have an ok knowledge of it.

>Despite the book being translated into English I felt it was quite readable, not dry. The arguments suggested by the author, although I'm not sure I entirely agree with them, are well presented in a clear way. I've read quite a few books on the First World War by now and the author's takes feel fresh and new to me, I haven't really seen them in other things I've read. The bulk of the book is focussed on the decision making of the German political and military leadership - what decisions they made, why they made them, the factors that influenced the decisions made (public opinion, ideology, fear etc) and the consequences. Additionally there is also a lot on the disputes between the different factions and indivdiuals within the German political and military elite. There is a lot of information on the German peace efforts at the end of 1916 and also the role of the Reichstag compared to pretty much every other WWI book I've read.

>In terms of arguments presented the main ones are that 1 - The result of World War One was a lot closer than traditionally argued and that if Germany had made better decisions it could've been a draw (hence the focus of the book on decision making). 2 - Germany didn't set out at the beginning of WWI to have massive territorial conquests and that this goal came later as a consequence of the war rather than as a cause. so if Germany eventually had to return these territories as part of a compromise peace then it wouldn't represent a major defeat (although this would've been very hard to get the German public to agree to). 3 - Compared to other historians he takes the German requests for peace at the end of 1916 as legitimate attempts, rather than cynical propaganda for domestic audiences. 4 - The biggest mistakes Germany made was the invasion of Belgium (making it very easy for the British government to justify entry into the war) and the continuation of unrestricted submarine warfare, based on misjudging the attitudes of the Americans. 5 - The Central Powers made various 'moral mistakes' (my words) that gave the Entente motivation not to agree to a compromise peace, The Rape of Belgium, the Armenian Genocide, the harshness of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that justified to the continued fighting. 6 - That the Entente's refusal to agree to consider a compromise peace was the main reason for the continuation of the war and in the long-term was a major mistake, as the radicalisation and outcome of the war caused the future catastrophes of European history like the Nazis and the Second World War (this is one of the ones I'm iffy about, I'm not sure I agree with the view that the Entente's decision to fight to a full military victory was a mistake) . There are the main arguments but there are some shorter ones focused on military outcomes such as alternative outcomes of the Schlieffen Plan or what Germany could've done instead of the 1918 Spring Offensive.

Finished The Last Great War: British Society and the First World War by Adrian Gregory

>4.5/5 rounding down for Goodreads. If you want an academic book about the WWI British home front I'd say it is worth a go (if you want a lighter read with more personal accounts then All Quiet on the Home Front by Richard Van Emden and Steve Humphries is a good alternative)

>The writing is on the academic side but still readable, very little jargon or using dense language. The book is mainly about what motivated British people through the war as well as living standards and economics. The highlights of the book for me were the earlier chapters on beginning of the war and on atrocity propaganda. The chapter on the beginning of the war argues very persuasively IMO that the image of huge enthusiasm for the war is mostly untrue, that nobody believed that it would be a easy war "that'll be over by Christmas", that people recognised how bloody it would be and that the surge of recruitment was less from jingoism and more from unemployment, the sense of danger after the retreat from Mons and the confirmation of separation allowances so men knew their families would have some financial security. The main feeling the author suggests was a mix of sorrow and anger over the war which turned to hatred of Germany for causing it. The atrocity chapter argues that the government and the media (the Daily Mail mainly) didn't set out to deliberately make up atrocity stories and instead genuinely believed what they were reporting, and that the more bizarre stories (German corpse being used in factories for example) were started by the public as urban myths from a lack of info rather than being made up by the press.

>The other chapters focus on religion (the only chapter I didn't really like), recruitment and conscription, economics, living standards and working conditions and disputes. These chapters tend to be bit more numbers heavy with lots of percentages and some tables with info on them. The idea of sacrifice is mentioned quite a lot as well, with people on the home front being well aware of what was going on militarily and being willing to make sacrifices on behalf of the soldiers. There is some historiographical discussion and critiques of historians.

>The notes section is better than most as instead of just being a list of sources there is also a lot of extra information, debates, caveats etc.

Also managed to finish The Chief: Douglas Haig and the British Army by Gary D. Sheffield

>4/5 Not much to say about it. Solid, fair biography of Douglas Haig. Defends him against unfair criticism but also criticises hims when he deserved it. Overall quite positive about Haig. Worth a read if interested in the WWI British Army.

Now reading Shots from the Front: The British Soldier 1914-1918 by Richard Holmes. Short book with lots of photos. Decent so far.

[removed]