World War II and everything leading up to it ( Holocaust, Pearl Harbor, Atomic Bombs). It's actually probably my "least favorite" historical period, but the one that most interests me...if that makes any sense.
Ancient Greece and Rome. American Revolution. Euro kings and courts kinda bores me. Never got into it. More of a social/cultural history guy.
I can't seem to get enough of the old Greek Myths...that and Ancient Egypt. Both have some fantastically interesting stories and history connected to them.
MacB, Do you consider yourself an historian or are you an historian? You have said both but they are two separate things. My field (well, most related to my field): France 1750-1914 with the most emphasis on the early development of the Third Republic - Franco-Prussian War, Paris Commune, etc. - and even more specifically the development of "modern" mass culture. I am also strongly interested in the intellectual history of all of Europe in the 19th century, with an emphasis on radical political thought (it ties into my work) and also of the 20th century (but not as focused on politics, more with theory and criticism in general). Peripherally, I am interested in 17th century France and Spain. That is about it. Other areas interest me, but I don't have the time to spend outside of my discipline to really explore them in detail...although I did learn a little hieroglyphics last year, but it is pretty useless for me so most of it has gone away. So, yeah, I generally stick to what will go well with my own research.
I feel that ancient egypt is the most appealing to me I didnt know much about it until my dad got stationed there for two years and seeing a lot of the stuff first hand. Kings tuts tomb ,for example, is really small but the colors in it were so vivid and looked almost freshly painted and that was over 3000 years ago. That civilization was leaps and bound ahead of thier time and i am glad i had the oppurtunity to live there.
Franklin, from my reading, advocated using Mastiffs to hunt Indians. I have only been in the presence of a Matiff one time, and I don't think I have ever seen a more menacing dog. btw, it is just me, or does MacBeth's opening post sound like another version of a "how much do you bench" thread.
I was a history major and specialized in mostly Soviet history. I wrote my paper on Gorbachev. I guess my strength is in the Soviets, the Cold War, 19th and 20th century politics in Europe and, to a lesser extent, Mexico, China and socialism in France and the rest of Europe. Unfortunately, I don't have much opportunity to indulge in these things any longer. I was always most interested in history with the most upheaval. Thus, my interest in the Bolsheviks and the like. English history always seemed to me to be just about the most boring thing ever, with American history close behind. Their governments are too stable. I discovered that knowing something about Christianity and the history of the Church makes English history a lot more exciting. And, I've also discovered that the antebellum South is interesting too. I'm always attracted to offbeat things as well that never got much attention in school: Africa, India, Korea, and the like though I don't put forth much effort in educating myself in these things. Much of the reason I studied the Soviets in college was because I didn't feel like they ever properly explained what communism was really about when I was in high school.
1. American Revolution and the early beginnings of this country as an idea 2. Ancient Irish history 3. Roman empire history
240?? BC? 240 BC -First production of Achilles, the first Latin tragedy, by Livius Andronicus. -Revolt of Carthaginian mercenaries begins. -Writing of Papyrus of Ani (The Egyptian Book of the Dead) (just trying to stay on topic)
Yes and no, IMO. This is one of those historical backlashes...Something is presented too far to one side for so long that, when it is corrected, people often go too far the other way. No, the American troops weren't exclusively what we would now call guerilla...but there was a large element of unconventional and 'underhanded' fighting done by our boys at the time. It wasn't always snickering Minutemen sniping from trees at perfectly ordered rows of marching Redcoats...but that element did exist. On the other hand, standard 'set piece' field battles were not all that common either after the vastly superior British firing rate ( approx 4 shots/minute) proved too much for the American troops who largely couldn't fire more than 2 organized deliveries a minute. What the US troops did so was a lot of ambush style fighting...indirect attacks as opposed to frontal ones. Things which are now considered fairly pragmatic, but at the time were considered below the belt. Remember that the greatest US contribution of the French and Indian War was with Ranger type companies of what we would now call guerilla or hit and run troops. Most of the conventionally trained troops/leadership in America were on the side of the Loyalists...It wasn't until the French joined, and the US had payed dearly in set battles that we could stand toe to toe with the Brits..and much of that was due to their ordinance problems with artillery, if memory serves...and the fact that they had developed a naval based campaign which was completely undermined when the French navy evened that scale. In tactical and strategic terms, we cannot underestimate the effect of the French. We tend to suggest that they just showed up to help mop up...not true. In fact, had the war persisted without decision, as was likely without French help, the British were about to be in a position to reroute significantly more troops to the "American problem'... I love this stuff.
O'Brien is always in my reading rotation...Love historical fiction, even while I chaffe at it's inaccuracies. One of the best in O'Brien is how he sidesteps the whole issue that it was in fact the British who broke every peace agreement. He has Maturin and Aubrey scrambling into Catelonia and makes much mention of a pending acknowledgment of resumed hostilities...and then insinuates that the British only struck first based on intelligence that Boneparte was about to be sneaky and do likewise...and this is patently untrue. While many people considered Amiens to be temporary, it was a completely unprovoked Britain which struck first...and not because Napoleon was about to do so...he wasn't, was working on domestic matters and rebuilding French naval and cavalry troops...but because of pressure from French Royalists in the English court and a growing sense that it was now or never; that Napoleon was cementing the new regime and building an anrmy to make it invulnerable. Still...excellent reads, and in this regard O'Brien is no different than Cornwell or even Forester's Anglo-centric revisionist history, and the less nationalistic aspects are very accurate, as I understand them.
Was supposed to be going on a trip to Egypt a year back...Sail the Nile on a felluca rented for a couple of weeks, do the Oasis tupr through the desert on camels, with a few of the girls I live with...Fell through because of the whole ME situation. If ever there was a land blessed by the Gods, it was Egypt.
Yeah, the french connection part of the story is great! Thank God for Franklin! That moron Adams almost completely screwed it up. Shows what happens when you mix politics and morality. The Franklin biopic was a hoot. Anyone else catch that?
You want a great read? Try The Struggle For Europe by Wilmot. Excellent analysis based largely on 1st hand record from participants of significance...Speer's journals, Nuremberg testimony, Churchill's own and secretary's notes, FDR's journals, etc. Excellent stuff.
We have almost completely concurrent interests...If I lived in Houston I'd suggest a beer. Not so much post WWII Japan, Teddy etc., but pretty damn close.
More and more I am convinced that if Manny isn't my long lost brother, he ought to be. My favorite Roman period is the Late Republic...probably my favorite single historical interest, period. Sulla, Marius, Cinna, Cicero, Jugartha, Mithriadites, Cato(s), Cattalus, Ceaser, Pompey, Brutus, Cassius, Antony, Crassus, the Gracci...it doesn't get any better, in my book.
Lol! I wouldn't call them mutually exclusive, but I am at least the latter, according to my credentials. Your area of interest is probably my second or third favorite...after Late Roman Republic and possibly Greek/Persian/Macedonian interaction. Napoleon is my single favorite historical figure...endlessly fascinating. Bismark is also a study worth a lifetime...I consider this the last Age of Individuals, for better or worse. A lot of my interests ( as mentioned ) center around periods where individuals made historical imprints...as you can imagine, I am not entirely enamoured with the standard Socialist History school so prevelent these days in academics. The 19th century, especially from an intellectual standpoint, is an amazing period, and the greatest in terms of philosophical breadth in history, IMO. Political polarization which came to a boiling point with Spain and WWII all starter here. I love reading about Metternech, among others, and the struggle to sustain an idealogical and political house of very big cards... I know virtually nothing about 17th century Spain...All my focus on that penninsula is with regards to Allhomad expansiaon, Castille/Aragon, its Gothic period,and back when it played a significant role in the eyes of Rome...What are the primary areas of interest?
I am a huge fan of Rome in the days of Julius, Augustus, Cleopatra, Antony, etc... Movements for independence/Revolutions : American, French, Indian Renaissance + Reformation
Post Stalin USSR is an area of curiosity, but largely ignorance for me...Especially to people who take relative political stability for granted, this period is, I think, an amazing study for North Americans. Part of the reason i have shied away is the fact that my mother emphasized the Russians among others in my early independant education, and had me reading all of Solzeneitsyn at 9 and 10...which, while incredibly well written, is stodgy and depressing enough to effect a lifelong dampening of the intellectual ardour for this period...Have you read much of him? I suspect I have misspelled his name, although I deny Freud's probably conclusions...
