The Anarchy period is covered off in a recent narrative history, The White Ship by Charles Spencer, which deals with the drowning of the Prince Regent in 1120.

You might like The Last Duel by Eric Jager. It's not quite courtly intrigue but more chivalric politics. Its quite zoomed in to a particular event and the consequences thereof.

It was recently turner into a film by Rodley Scott. I prefer the book, especially if you get to read it without knowing what happens in the end.

They don't cover the same era really. The Creation of the American Republic is pre Constitution and Empire of Liberty is post Constitution.

That's a big shift. The first book focuses on the problems of fighting the Revolutionary War and the development of a national government, and that failure. It deals with the rural uprisings, the depression, paper money issues, and ratification.

The second book deals with the development of the federal government and the associated institutions, the Barbary Wars, and the War of 1812.

Personally, I'd recommend Pauline Maier's books over Wood's, but that's my opinion.

Any books about the Sicani tribe of Sicily?

I think another Japanese minister tried to broker peace talks with the USA, but none of them had the backing of Tojo and the Japanese cabinet, so it was meaningless.

I haven't read them, but I was curious if it was an academic vs casual deal as that's fairly common and you can usually tell with the publishers.

However, just looking them up quickly to check that I see one is subtitled "1776-1787" and the other "1789-1815" so while close in area, one seems to be a continuation of the other chronologically.

An American Historian might have to fact check me here, but 1776 to 87 would cover the American Revolution and the Articles of Confederation (the first US Constitution) up until around the Constitutional Convention in 1787 which set to revise the Articles (but in reality started writing the new Constitution) while the second book would begin in 1789 when the US Constitution (the one presently used) was put in effect up until the end of the war of 1812, a period which saw a lot of early ideas of US Government get tested and altered with experience -- such as the creation of a standing military. So both, in my mind, would show the reasons for how both constitutions were created, and how they evolved and discussions around them continued in each one's early years.

So unless those subtitles are very misleading, I imagine that's what Wood is doing there.

Hessen-Kassel provided the British fifteen regiments of infantry, each with five companies of men, four grenadier battalions and two companies of Jäger (known as chasseurs or sharpshooters in English).[8] The Jäger in particular were in high demand.[9] Jäger, a German word that translates to “hunter” and can be used as both a singular and plural word, were recruited from huntsmen and foresters who were skilled in the use of rifled weapons normally used to hunt boar.[10] They were skilled shots, self-sufficient in battle, and swift, able to efficiently load and fire a rifle, a skill which took greater dexterity than firing the muskets of the day. Most importantly, they were valiant.

https://allthingsliberty.com/2015/05/the-hessian-jagerkorps-in-new-york-and-pennsylvania-1776-1777/

What makes the jaeger corps stand apart from regular hessians?

I'm designing a character and I want to give him a green coat but I wanna know what that would mean for him.

For those who've read both, what's the difference between Empire of Liberty and The Creation of the American Republic? Both are by Gordon Wood, and both seem to cover roughly the same era.

For those who've read both, what's the difference between Empire of Liberty and The Creation of the American Republic? Both are by Gordon Wood, and both seem to cover roughly the same era.

The term was coined by the late medieval/early Renaissance scholar and poet, Francesco Petrarca, better known to Anglophones as Petrarch.

He viewed 14th century Italy as a corrupt and ignorant time and place in comparison to his (a bit overly rosy) view of Classical Antiquity. To be fair to him, 14th century Italy was not a particularly fun place to be, as it was wracked with internal political divisions, economic decline, and the threat of foreign invasion and it was about to get even worse when plague hit in the 1340s.

A way of sawing lumber (diagonally, towards the center of a log, instead of just sawing flat) that crosses the grain in a way that gives you stronger, perhaps more dimensionally stable boards and often beautiful fleck and ray patterns. If you look closely at the Viking ships on display in Oslo at the Vikingskipshuset you can see patterns in the wood that are indicative of quarter-sawn lumber.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9EPZm2S5P2I/Rvmm7AD8GJI/AAAAAAAAAAk/4avY9mpznK0/s1600/medullarylrg.jpg

​

http://www.hardwooddistributors.org/postings/what-is-the-difference-between-quarter-sawn-rift-sawn-and-plain-sawn-lumber

I wonder why it wasn't written in Aramaic.

I was going to say kurds. Jews also have a very long history. The Egyptians do too, still using shadufs in the early twentieth century (probably still today).

People say Frederick II might have converted to Islam, I am not one but it's muddy, but he did know Arabic and the leaders he engaged to hand over Jerusalem without a fight were impressed by his knowledge of both Islam and Arab ways that he gained from his childhood in Sicily. There was some issue when later crusaders arrived in the crusader states that they had "gone native", adopting the clothing and manners of the very hot near east rather than dying of heat stroke in traditional Frankish clothing.

Regular hessian mercenaries wore blue uniform coats, Jaeger rifle units wore green coats.

In the American Revolution, the British also hired mercenaries from Brunswick and other German states. Some other uniform differences could have come that way too.

I think the worst colonies were purely economic in focus.

There have been attempts at starting benevolent societies on the lands of other people, tmk it hasn't worked out. The closest thing I am aware of in American history is Pennsylvania, but even they annoyed ended up cross with the native people despite their efforts. The mindset of colonization is not productive to benevolent relationships.

Muhammad. Marx may be a close second, if he hasn't already overtaken first.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Iirc, it's because of Petrarch, who was frustrated with the lack of written sources from the period. The term was also used by Voltaire for the same reason. It wasn't that dark, at least the people living during it didn't seem to think so. It's important to remember that all of those "invasions" tended to be more incremental, but by putting hard bounds on it, in our minds it comes across as German apocalypse. If you look at the sources, you find that it was even more a case of migration and attempted assimilation, hence why Germans were commanding Roman armies against other Teutonic forces. Not to stir up shit, but you can look at the current migrant issue around the world and see how people describe a rather prosaic event, with headlines like "Invasion" being popular a popular way to frame the scenario, it wasn't that different back then. No, it wasn't some collective trauma that is being referred to by "Dark Ages", just a current lack of sources. Those sources are being discovered and analyzed now and an interesting picture of an ingenious adaptation to circumstance is being developed.

[removed]

[removed]