Reddit mentions: The best north africa history books

If you're looking for must reads /r/AskHistorians has a great list.

My all time favorite history book is A History of the English Speaking Peoples by Winston Churchill. It's a little dated in all it's facts but it is written beautifully and I love reading his description on America's Revolutionary and Civil Wars. You can find it in a 4 volume unabridged or 1 book abridged set.

My favorite peoples in all of history are the Normans, and I enjoyed The Norman Conquest by Marc Morris. It's not just about the Battle of Hastings, but everything that lead up to that point and the resolutions which followed it. Plus the Normans were just badasses.

You ever learned about the Siege of Malta? One of the greatest stands in history, and a merging of the old world and the new (melee mixing with gunpowder), makes for an amazing story.

Maybe something lighter (sort of...)? I enjoyed German Wars: A Concise History, 1859-1945. Cheap book and gives you a simple understanding of how Germany became a country and it's mindset leading all the way to 1945. It focuses on the battles but gives lots of information on all the participants, their capabilities (and how they were able to reach those capabilities), and lots of the little deciding factors like the weather, roads, logistics, etc.

1700-1800's is an amazing time period to read because it was documented so thoroughly. I would recommend perusing that askhistorians list, going to your local bookstore and giving some of them a read, as some historians will write much different then others, and see which book you can sit through. The French Revolution and the age of Napoleon would be mandatory reading. Another is the subject of how Italy became a state; after the western Roman Empire fell it was one of the few places in Europe that still recorded it's history, and how all the city-states interacted and warred with each other is very interesting.

That comment was supposedly said by Maharbal, one of Hannibal's lieutenants, after Cannae. Cannae was the third and most devastating in a series of victories Hannibal won against Roman legions immediately after arriving in Italy. Rome was genuinely crippled after the battle and the City was almost entirely undefended. Hannibal hesitated to march on Rome though, as he didn't trust his army's ability to maintain a siege against the most heavily fortified city in the world. Because he didn't deliver the coup de grace, Rome gradually recovered and ultimately defeated Hannibal and Carthage after a war of attrition that lasted nearly twenty years. You can read Livy's account here (the exchange with Maharbal is in 22.51).

Even though the hesitancy to march on Rome is sometimes seen as a strategic blunder, the decision wasn't so obviously wrong at the time. Hannibal hoped to strip away Rome's Italian allies after demonstrating his ability to crush Roman armies. He underestimated the nature and durability of those Italian alliances, but he continued in Italy for another sixteen or seventeen years, defeating nearly every army that was sent against him. He only left when Scipio Africanus invaded Africa and Carthage recalled him to defend the homeland. Hannibal's tactical brilliance is absolutely undeniable--he is one of the most imaginative and successful generals of the classical world--and his strategic missteps are I think somewhat over-exaggerated.

If you're interested in Hannibal, the two best classical sources are Livy and Polybius. I would also recommend The Ghosts of Cannae. It's a highly engaging and readable account of Hannibal's invasion written by an historian with a great deal of military expertise, and it goes into some detail about the precise tactics Hannibal employed.

The standard textbook history right now appears to be The Romans: From Village to Empire.

Klaus Bringmann's A History of the Roman Republic also still seems to be the standard introduction to that period (i.e. the time period of Imperator).

If you want to read about the end of the Roman Republic and Caesar/Augustus, it's hard to turn down Caesar: Life of a Colossus which is great for the general reader, alongside his Augustus: First Emperor of Rome.

He also writes pretty solid books on other major Roman figures, such as In the Name of Rome: The Men who won the Roman Empire.

If you want to get a pretty good introduction to Roman History, but more of what life was like for the average citizen, SPQR by Mary Beard is actually a good choice.

Older, but still solid, is Peter Garnsey's The Roman Empire: Economy, Society, and Culture which covers a lot of things Beard doesn't.

For the Roman army, Adrian Goldsworthy's The Complete Roman Army is a solid introduction.

However you'll want to break that down into several books if you want to go deeper:

Roman Military Equipment by MC Bishop and JCN Coulston

The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries AD by Graham Webster

A Companion to the Roman Army by Paul Erdkamp

For the collapse of the Western Roman Empire I'd recommend both Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians combined with the more scholarly Guy Halsall's Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West.

For the forgotten half of Roman History, often mistakenly called the "Byzantine Empire," it's hard to cover with just one book, but Warren Treadgold's A History of the Byzantine State and Society has become the standard reading. John Haldon's The Empire that would not Die covers the critical transition during the Islamic conquests thoroughly.

Of course I have to include books on the two IMO most overrated battles in Roman history on this list since that's what people love:

The Battle of the Teutoberg Wald: Rome's Greatest Defeat by Adrian Murdoch

The Battle of Cannae: Cannae: Hannibal's Greatest Victory is sort of the single book to read if you can only pick one. However, The Ghosts of Cannae is also good. But if you actually want to go really in depth, you need Gregory Daly's dry-as-the-Atacama book Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War. When I say dry as the Atacama, I mean it, but it's also extraordinarily detailed.

I'd complement this with Goldsworthy's The Punic Wars.

For other interesting topics:

The Emergence of the Bubonic Plague: Justinian's Flea and Plague and the End of Antiquity.

Hadrian's Wall: Hadrian's Wall by Adrian Goldsworthy

Roman Architecture: Roman Architecture by Frank Sear (definitely a bit more scholarly but you can probably handle it)

I may post more in addendum to this list with further comments but I think I'm reaching the character count.

I mean, it's an interesting notion. But I think the only way it works is if it's presented as a story.

I recently read a book about the Siege of Malta. It's a nonfiction historical account, and it's completely riveting. And it's riveting because it tells a story. There's a seemingly unwinnable fight looming; the Knights of Malta are outnumbered ten to one by the Moors, who are going to beach their armada on Malta toward the goal of razing it and assuming control. There are characters. There are plot twists. If you want to sell a nonfiction book, you still want to work in some plot twists.

-

---

-

I don't think it would work to simply describe kobold culture in detail. It might be easier if the book was about a seminal moment in their history.

Okay, now suppose your nonfiction kobold book is presented in three or four parts, and each of these parts is a nonfiction essay by a different fictional author. These essays wouldn't need to be structurally equivalent; you could do a mix of more informal extended journal entries and more formal essays. For instance, Professor Forsythe's essay on clan rivalries could be very scholarly and didactic, while cartographer Vinson's journal could be quite loose by comparison, yet still offer solid xenoanthropological value as one of the more well known ethnographies of the time.

You could also include ephemera, including maps, illustrations (normally undesirable in a novel, a handful of quality illustrations could fundamentally affect the impact of this book), even stuff like advertising, ticket stubs, sales receipts, pamphlets, etc. It all lends a feeling of depth, of legitimization. You could make a pretty interesting book if you had an exciting hodgepodge of ephemera.

If you tell a story in 3 or 4 parts, the tone can change as the narrator changes, and you can introduce some new characters, but most characters will stay the same, so you'll have some continuity.

Ideally, there's a problem at stake, some sort of mystery. And at the root of it, all these scholars are trying to get to the heart of that mystery. They are essentially tackling the same problem from different angles, different specializations. Bonus points if the identity and focus of one or more of those scholars involves a plot twist.

So I think for this to work, you'd want to figure out that core mystery.

-

---


-

There might be other options.


It sounds like essentially, you're good at the imaginative, worldbuilding side of writing, but you don't have confidence in your writing mechanics.

Create a whole world, and let people write stories in it.

A lot of modern video games now require writers, for their worldbuilding skills.

If you want to see your kobolds ever become imbued with life, to see them breathing, watching you, measuring you, then the way I see it you've got to either polish up your own storywriting skills, or find someone to write those stories. The tradeoff is that if you learn the craft and write the stories yourself, you have absolute control. If you collaborate with writers by allowing them to write in your world, or by signing up with a game group, you need to be willing to compromise & relinquish control on stuff.

Can we instead have one on the Hashemite monarchy, and Faisal specifically. Lawrence of Arabia is blown out of proportion. You have to start with the Hussein-McMahon correspondence in 1915, but that means he won't cover it until next year.

Also, Arabs are not unified in the slightest, the Hashemites and the Wahabi Saudis' are the main contenders for power in the region.

So I don't know what you mean (or what Indy means) when he says "constant raids by Arabs". Thats like saying there were constant raids by "Slavs" against Austro-Hungary. Technically true, but doesn't say anything, about anything.

I have a great respect for Indiana, but his reporting on events outside of Europe, need a bit more knowledge behind the issues. Eugene Rogan's book "The Arabs: A History", and Cleveland & Bunton's book: "Introduction to the Modern Middle East" both have fantastic sections on WW1 for example. Not to mention wikipedia has a plethora of information on the war in Iraq, Palestine and in the Hejaz.

Also prominent Middle East Columbia professor Richard Buillet has a great podcast on WW1 in the Middle East (only one episode though), that talks about the war from that perspective. Which you can find on iTunes for free from Columbia University.

First time commenting in AskHistorians, and although I'm not a historian, I am a huge Hannibal/Roman Republic fan so maybe I can offer my services.


Hannibal was one of the greatest generals of all time (opinion) for multiple reasons, two of which most apply to your question:


> 1. His battlefield ingenuity

>Hannibal used multiple ingenious tactics to stomp the Romans. From large scale ambushes to the double envelope at Cannae, he was always able to keep the Romans on their toes. Due to this fact, we can safely assume that due to the sheer number of "good" maneuvers, he must have known what he was doing. The Battle of Cannae was his masterpiece - he took a smaller, less cohesive army and triumphed over a Roman army on their home turf. Hannibal had mostly resorted to ambushes before, but he didn't even need one at Cannae. From the initial placing of his troops and their subsequent movements, it is clear that this was a well thought out plan determined to use the Roman advantages and hybris against them. Roman soldiers and generals were consistently the best of the ancient world, but they prefer to fight hand to hand combat, up close and personal with large shields and short shorts, so they would want a close fight. Their war-like culture encouraged daring feats in battle and rewarded accordingly. The Roman army was controlled by two consuls, Gaius Terentius Varro and Lucius Aemilius Paullus. Sources tell us that they had very different styles - Varro, the younger and more ambitious, wanted to make a name for himself and was more aggressive, while Paullus was more reserved. The day of Cannae it was Varro's command and he brought out the troops in battle order against the advice of Paullus. Hannibal knew all of this, and wanted to take advantage of Varro's aggressiveness. Like, they had Roman senators just chillin' at the battle cause they were so convinced their larger army would be victorious. Anddd then 80 of them died. Talk about arrogance, what if George W. Bush and 79 of his bros just decided to go watch the invasion of Iraq... from the frontlines... shooting guns... Insane.

> 2. His ability to bring all types of people together

>He had no baggage train like Alexander, yet he was deep into enemy territory with an army mixed of Gauls, Iberian, Libyan, and Numidians. Keep in mind, at this point in time the Roman army was primarily consistent of Romans, with some allied Italians. This is a huge disadvantage for Hannibal - his army speaks a variety of languages and the majority have no personal ties to him whatsoever and mostly fighting for money. I guess one can make the argument that the Gaulish soldiers probably had some vendetta against Rome, but thats beside the point. Any type of army cohesion would be incredibly hard to create, and as such the morale of Hannibal's army from the get-go was weaker than the Romans. This needs to be highly emphasized when looking at Cannae especially.


So where does this leave us? Let's look at the initial army placements - Romans in their typical 3 line arrangement, and Hannibal with his front forward and his wings slightly back. The Carthaginian center was made up of Gauls and Iberians, and both of his wings consisted of his hardened veteran Punic infantry, who most likely fought in phalanx formation. The Gauls and Iberians did not; the Iberians used a large shield and short sword and the Gauls were probably using some Roman equipment from the previous battles. And his cavalry was placed on both flanks. They deserve less focus than the infantry because there is nothing special to say about them besides the fact that they basically always beat the Roman cavalry, as we shall see, but note how they reacted to their victory.

Hannibal's center is more maneuverable due to the differing in fighting styles of his troops, for in order for his plan to work, he must put his Iberian and Gaulish, who are not Carthaginian, in his middle. Typically, the center of an army is the strongest point, but Hannibal threw that out the window. And where did Hannibal reside? It is mostly overlooked and sometimes given attention, but he was directly behind his center, encouraging and yelling out orders.

As the battle goes, the Roman attack the front, and Hannibal feints a retreat - feints as a decision. Varrus assumed that his larger, superior army could smash Hannibal's center... and look at that! They are backing up! It is only time before they fall and the Carthaginian army will be fall and run back to the Alps!

And then Hannibal gives the halt command, his Gauls and Iberians hold their ground. His veteran infantry on his flanks make a pincer move and double envelope the romans. While a smaller army and less deep, the Carthaginians have effectively completely surrounded the Roman army. Excuse me if that doesn't make you giddier than a schoolgirl because I have the biggest smile on my face right now.

Oh yeah, and those cavalry units? Of course they beat their Roman counterpart for the 50th time, and they return and effectively charge into the back of the Romans. Why is this important? Sometimes in these battles, if one cavalry triumphed over another, they would not necessarily turn and help out their infantry. Sometimes they would leave and plunder the enemy's camp, which is more rewarding for them, but thank goodness Hannibal's brother leads the cavalry and turned immediately after defeating the Romans. A full surround, 50,000 men around 85,000 men. And then they were slaughtered mercilessly.


Back to your question:
> 1. Did Hannibal tell his center to fall back?

>Yes, 100% due to the layout of his army, the maneuvers of his center and the lack of movement from his flanks, his personal placement of himself, the recalling of his cavalry, and the fact that he was just an all-around badass are all reasons why we know without a doubt this was all planned.

> 2. Did he assume it would happen?

>Probably, as well. Keep in mind he had his weakest and least trustworthy troops in his center, and so had to place himself there to personally watch over them. His plan would have been completely foiled if his center fell, and took all measures to assure that it would not. In fact, if his center had fallen, modern historians would probably think much less highly of him because - assuming it collapsed and the invasion was over - it would have been an awful decision. Why would spread his smaller army out, so it's less deep, and put his worst troops in the center, the seemingly most important part of an army. Oh because he's a genius, that's why.


Hope that helps!

Sources - The Ghosts of Cannae by Robert L. O'Connel, Hannibal by Robert Garland

*edited for grammmmar and format

You asked for everything really, but here is a selection I personally like that is more focused on the biography of Muhammad.

For Muslim books on the biography of the Prophet, I highly recommend:

A Biography of the Prophet of Islam: In the Light of the Original Sources, an Analytical Study

In the Footsteps of the Prophet: Lessons from the Life of Muhammad

Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources

On the more academic side of his life and following centuries, I recommend:

Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction

Hadith: Muhammad's Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World

In God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire

The Death of a Prophet: The End of Muhammad's Life and the Beginnings of Islam

For the four best primary sources of his biography translated into English:

The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi's Kitab al-Maghazi

The Life of the Prophet Muhammad: Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya

The Life of Muhammad

The Expeditions: An Early Biography of Muhammad

I think one of the best things you can do is seek out Palestinian perspectives (I say that and then immediately recommend non-Palestinian sources, but they still contain a lot of Palestinian voices). One of the first things that shook my understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict out of the default Zionism common among American liberals was reading a book by an American woman who ended up spending a lot of time in some rural Palestinian towns that have been severely impacted by the fence and later got involved in reformist PA politics and journalism.

TeleSur also has a ton of videos on the subject, but their presentation can be a little overbearing. They're arguably a Venezuelan propaganda network, so they won't necessarily have the most well-balanced perspective or political analysis, but their interviews with people are generally worthwhile.

Eugene Rogan's The Arabs also dedicates a lot of ink to detailing the event leading up to and following the Nakba, though it does so as part of a 500-year history of the Arab world, so it might be hard to find the specific spots that talk about the Sykes-Picot agreement and Balfour Declaration, Zionist lobbying in the UK, and the on-the-ground events that happened in Palestine/Israel. I recommend the entire book - it's a pretty engaging read (and Audible picked a great narrator for it) and the context it provides has helped me to understand the Arab-Israeli conflict better - but I can also look through my copy and give you the relevant page ranges.

Hi nofapforreal! Some suggestions for general reading on al-Andalus from me would be Watt's A History of Islamic Spain and Fletcher's Moorish Spain, although I'd really suggest you look at Watt's slightly older take on it, because he was a major figure in Islamic scholarship in the West rather than a take from a Medieval European scholar. Both are worth the look, though!

If you get a bit more interested in things - especially just how Islam came to al-Andalus and how Muslim Arabs and Berbers settled into the preexisting communities there, I'd suggest taking a look at Collins' The Arab Conquest of Spain for an OK general overview, and Clarke's brand new book on The Muslim Conquest of Iberia if you find yourself quite interested.

I hope this is helpful for you! Islamic Spain is only a side interest of mine, but if there is anything else I can help you answer or provide suggestions for, please don't hesitate to ask.

No you're right the majority did settle in the west (ie. the Maghrebi countries + Libya), because it was viewed almost as a frontier by the soldiers in the Islamic armies who wanted to settle there. There were also later migrations that occurred for political reasons the most famous being the Banu Hilal and Banu Sulaym in the Middle Ages.

With the Levant it was largely the same as in other countries. When the Arab Muslims arrived they established themselves as the local elite and to this day many of the old notable Palestinian families like the Nusaybah are descended from Arabs who did settle in the country during the Islamic conquests. The armies and administrators were all Arab (in the early years) but like I said mass population displacement didn't really occur and Palestinians at large are generally believed to be descended from a mix of the numerous peoples who have inhabited and moved to the land over the centuries, everyone from Greeks and Crusaders to Turks and ancient Jews. Over the centuries after conquest more and more of these people adopted Islam as a faith in order to obtain more social privileges, something that initially caught the invading Arabs by surprise. Since you'll probably ask I'm getting most of this info from the books In God's Path by Hoyland and The Great Caliphs by Bennison.

Thanks for the kind words, I have an intense love-hate relationship with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (I'm literally always either the most "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" person in whatever room I'm in, not that I care for those dichotomous and ill defined terms) and nothing to do today so I've just been popping in to comment periodically.

In addition to many of the other books that others have listed (namely Kissinger and Mearsheimer) I have listed a few other books that I would highly recommend reading.

And because you are interested in learning more about the Middle East, be prepared to read. A lot. The Middle East is a far more complex place than most people imagine and understanding the region requires a great deal of knowledge. I have been studying the Middle East for nearly a decade and I still feel like there is so much that I do not know. I would start by reading reputable news sources every day. Places like The Economist, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, Financial Times, are the Los Angeles Times are good English language news sources that you should look at. Additionally, I have written up a suggested reading list for learning about the Middle East, though it is a bit more security-related since that's my area of expertise. I hope it helps. And feel free to ask any questions if you have them.

Books - International Relations, Theory and Beyond

• Daniel Drezner - Theories of International Politics and Zombies. A creative and humorous book that seeks to explain the major IR theories in a manner that is easy to understand. Good for establishing a base understanding of international relations.
  
• Bruce Hoffman - Inside Terrorism. Quite possibly the book on terrorism. Written by one of the field's best scholars, this books provides the best introduction and overview on what terrorism is and its history over the past century. Just be sure to purchase the 2006 edition.
  
• Graham Allison - Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. An examination of the different levels of how decisions are made, using the Cuban Missile Crisis as a case study. Another essential book for understanding how different states, agencies within a government, and even individuals, can have major impacts on foreign affairs.
  
• Carl von Clausewitz - On War. One of the most significant books on understanding war in world; its frequently listed alongside Sun Tzu's Art of War. It is essential reading for anyone interested in military affairs and how it plays into politics. Though you only need to read the 1st ,2nd, and maybe 8th chapter, everything else is unnecessary.
  
  

  Books - General History of the Middle East
  

  
  

• Albert Hourani - A History of the Arab Peoples. This is widely considered to be the definitive book on history in the Arab World.
  
• Eugene Rogan - The Arabs: A History. Another essential and critically acclaimed book on Arab history.
  
• Roy Mottahedeh - The Mantle of the Prophet. Role of religion and religious figures in Iran before and during the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
  
• Mark Lynch - The Arab Uprising: The Unfinished Revolutions of the New Middle East. An outline of the causes, reactions, and consequences of the Arab Spring.
  
• Thomas Barfield - Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History. Afghanistan is usually not considered a part of the Middle East in academic research, so I am including this one. It's probably one of the best overviews of Afghan History.
  
  

  Books - Middle East Military History
  

  
  

• Kenneth Pollack - Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991. Probably the best book on Arab militaries culture and effectiveness and warfare in the Middle East between 1945-1991. Very extensive and informative.
  
• Steven Ward - Immortal: A Military History of Iran and Its Armed Forces. A well-written history of Iran's military, from the Safavid Empire to the 21st century.
  
• Ahron Bregman - Israel's Wars: A History since 1947. A terrific book outlining Israel's strategic decision making for its military operations since its founding as a country.
  
• Bruce Hoffman - Anonymous Soldiers: The Struggle for Israel, 1917-1947. A look at the establishment of Israel and the development of the current Arab-Israeli conflict.
  
  

  Books - Middle East Terrorism and Substate Violence
  

  
  

• Daniel Byman - Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Global Jihadist Movement: What Everyone Needs to Know. A terrific primer on al-Qaida, ISIL, and jihadism.
  
• Lawrence Wright - The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. Probably the best book for outlining the history of al-Qaida and why 9/11 happened.
  
• Michael Wiess and Hassan Hassan - ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror. One of several recent books on ISIL, this one provides an overview on the history and organization of ISIL.
  
• Barry Rubin - Revolution Until Victory?: The Politics and History of the PLO. Although a little old (published in 1996), this books does a great job chronicling the history of the PLO and its role in the Palestinian struggle.
  
• Ahmed Rashid - Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. One of the best books on the rise and fall of the Taliban.
  
  

  Books - U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East
  

  
  

• Bob Woodward - Obama's Wars. Outline of the U.S. foreign policy decision making towards Iraq and Afghanistan in the early years of the Obama administration.
  
• Kenneth Pollack - The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America. A good overview of tensions between the United States and Iran.
  
• Michael R. Gordon - The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama. Follows U.S. strategic and political decision making process during the Iraq War and the U.S. occupation.
  
• Peter R. Mansoor - Surge: My Journey with General David Petraeus and the Remaking of the Iraq War. An extensive outline of the development and outcome of the Surge during the U.S. Occupation of Iraq.
  
• Steve Coll - Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001. A widely popular and acclaimed book on U.S. covert operations from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan until 2001.
  
• Mark Mazzetti - The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth. An overview of the CIA's targeted killing program against terrorist organizations.
  
• Michael Morrell - The Great War of Our Time: The CIA's Fight Against Terrorism--From al Qa'ida to ISIS. Written by the former acting director of the CIA, this book examines U.S. counterterrorism successes and failures of the past two decades.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004IYJEB0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

I thought this was a pretty awesome book on a little known topic. Like OP says Carthage is usually talked about in contrast to Roman expansion and we tend to still view* them through this lens. This book tries to look at the history of a really interesting culture on its own merits.

Edit: thanks autocorrect

One of the best and most dramatic works I can recommend is The Ghosts of Cannae: Hannibal and the Darkest Hour of the Roman Republic, by Robert L. O'Connell. The battle of Cannae was a turning point for Rome, and O'Connell captures the horror and drama of the battle and surrounding events excellently. I HIGHLY recommend it.

In terms of Roman historians... It really depends on what period you're looking at. Want an awesome insight into the military? Go with Caesar's Commentaries of the Conquest of Gaul. Punic Wars? Check out Livy. Definitely check out Plutarch's Parallel Lives as well.

Of course, the quintessential book on the Roman Empire is Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. One can hardly consider themselves a Roman scholar without reading it, and nearly every historian will refer to it at some point.

Oh! And there's an interesting one I came across, for a bit more of a lower-look. By a Roman no less! Cookery and Dining in Imperial Rome*, by Apicius is very interesting. Might not be worth it to put on your list, but definitely check it out.

TL;DR: If I have to pick two to add, take the Ghosts of Cannae and Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. By a Roman, pick from what's relevant.

I think you're making a joke, but there's actually a really interesting book with that title that goes over Carthage's history and Phoenician origins.

​

If anyone has even a passing curiosity about Carthage beyond the surface level you learn reading about Hellenistic history, that book is probably one of the best.

​

Title of the book is Carthage Must Be Destroyed in case the previous post goes away.

There is just so much out there. Reading about Carthage is really interesting. I can suggest:

https://www.amazon.it/Carthage-Must-Be-Destroyed-Civilization/dp/0143121294

Was a really good read. I find reading about my favorites empires' enemies is pretty useful.

Post-Crusades, but might still be of interest. The Great Siege: Malta, 1565, by Ernle Bradford. On the defender's side, the Knights Hospitaller & allies, 6000. On the attacker's side, an Ottoman armada of 48,000.

Hi, new to the sub. It just so happens that I'm reading a book on the history of Carthage. I'm only a hundred pages in and have been busy with school-work, but it did touch briefly on the Phoenician "colonization" of southern Spain and there is a chapter on Barcid rule in Spain that I haven't gotten to. This book looks more like a comprehensive primer on ancient Carthage but it might be useful if you find a copy in your local library.

Carthage Must be Destroyed

Here's a free book that talks about Egyptian mythology, if you need a dose of Maat into your diet. I haven't read it, but it may be a useful tool. Traverse carefully, and make sure to use other sources to back up each other's claims.

Here are all the local Amazon links I could find:


amazon.co.uk

amazon.ca

amazon.com.au

amazon.in

amazon.com.mx

amazon.de

amazon.it

amazon.es

amazon.com.br

amazon.nl

amazon.co.jp

amazon.fr

Beep bloop. I'm a bot to convert Amazon ebook links to local Amazon sites.
I currently look here: amazon.com, amazon.co.uk, amazon.ca, amazon.com.au, amazon.in, amazon.com.mx, amazon.de, amazon.it, amazon.es, amazon.com.br, amazon.nl, amazon.co.jp, amazon.fr, if you would like your local version of Amazon adding please contact my creator.

Hey, I'm glad to be of service! :D And again, if you need any more, please don't hesitate to ask. On to the points!

• Carthaginian history is awesome - and I'm counting down those days to Rome II, myself! My preferred go-to when it comes to Carthaginian history (and the Punic Wars, for that matter!) is Richard Miles' Carthage Must Be Destroyed: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Civilization. However! I pride myself on being open-minded, and a user I really admire (/u/ScipioAsina) has suggested Dexter Hoyos' The Carthaginians. I personally (unfortunately!) haven't had a chance to read it quite yet, but I'll put it out there! :D Next, as I said before, I'm a big fan of Adrian Goldsworthy, so I'll go ahead and recommend a couple of his books - The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars 265-146 BC and, more simply titled, The Punic Wars. Finally, it's not a book specifically about the Punic Wars, per se...but Barry Strauss' Masters of Command: Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, and the Genius of Leadership is EXTREMELY good.
  
  
• First off, remember that the civil wars in Rome had started a long time before Caesar's Civil War ;) But yep, you're correct! Probably the best book on the time period is Tom Holland's Rubicon. For a second suggestion, I'll add in Goldsworthy's (SHUSH) Caesar: Life of a Colossus. I'm drawing blanks on more books, but the books that are just as important as Rubicon, in my opinion, are Caius (Gaius) Julius Caesar's own works.
  
  
• Teutoburg, I'm hesitent to advise too much on - I haven't done extensive research into it, myself. Sorry!

I would recommend Richard Miles' Carthage Mvst be Destroyed. It may focus too much on Carthage for your liking, but much of the beginning sections are focused on a summary of Phoenician civilization. In particular there is some good information on their religion, how they interacted with their neighbors and the establishment of various colonies.

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0143121294

Just finished reading Tumbuktu: The Sahara's Fabled City of Gold and yes, salt was a serious source of wealth in North Africa. Gold also came from the south (which is actually why Tumbuktu was invaded a few times - because people thought that the city was the SOURCE of the gold).

So to answer your question, yes.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Ghosts-Cannae-Hannibal-Republic/dp/0812978676/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1341592497&sr=8-10&keywords=hannibal+barca

This one's not too dry, actually. Might be a good place for you to start. Easily readable while still going into a good amount of depth

So I did an episode on my podcast about the Carthaginians, and while I didn't talk a lot about their government, I read a fair bit about it in the book Carthage Must Be Destroyed.

As far as their government goes, the Roman authors called it a "Senate" though it wasn't really "Senate" in the Roman sense. The Carthaginians themselves called it a Council of Elders, and while money was a factor, I believe having a pedigreed family name was also key. I suspect they didn't just let in any old Joe whose net worth was above a certain line.

It's also important to note that Carthage also had a Popular Assembly too. Before the Second Punic War, it was the Popular Assembly that supported the Hannibal's shenanigans in Spain.

Ditto on Dan Carlin. Probably the most comprehensive thing you'll find since he sources so much and does such a thorough job.

I'm currently listening to the Ghosts of Cannae audio book off of Dan Carlin's recommendation. Great stuff: http://www.amazon.com/The-Ghosts-Cannae-Hannibal-Republic/dp/0812978676

It's time once again for the AskHistorians Book Giveaway! This month we picked two winners: Eric Hacke and Alec Barnaby! The selection of books we have available this month are:

• Eugene Rogan's The Arabs: A History, recommended by /u/cptbuck.
  
  
• Vine Deloria's Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto, recommended by /u/snapshot52.
  
  
• Terry Bouton's Taming Democracy: "The People," the Founders, and the Troubled Ending of the American Revolution, recommended by /u/uncovered-history.
  
  
• Eugene Crosby's Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900, my recommendation
  
  Want a chance to get a free book? Help support the podcast via Patreon!

http://www.amazon.com/Carthage-Must-Be-Destroyed-Civilization/dp/0670022667

You're welcome. Very informative book if you are interested. And P.S. we know plenty.

I would highly recommend:

• The Arabs: A History by Eugene Rogan,
  
  or
  
  
• A History of the Arab Peoples by Albert Hourani.
  
  Hourani's is a bit more thorough and is available in audiobook format, whereas Rogan's is an easier read and gives more attention to the modern day Middle East. Both offer insight into the cultural, colonial, and political histories of the peoples living within the Middle East, which is really the only way to understand how and why the states operate the way they do today.

It's pretty metal. By "fire whirl" they mean "gigantic city burning fire tornado."

EDIT: btw, if cannae is something you're into, I quite liked this. Not as easy to read as Tuchman or Beevor, but still good.

The Ghosts of Cannae does a great job of describing Hannibal's methods.

I read and enjoyed this one:

https://www.amazon.com/Carthage-Must-Be-Destroyed-Civilization/dp/0143121294/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474766447&sr=1-1&keywords=carthage+must+be+destroyed

Take a look at the subreddit's reading list for a start, there are two sections which could be of interest

1. The Middle East Throughout the Ages
   
   Particularly The Arabs: A History by Eugene Rogan, which will be on fast forward till the time between WWI and WWII and then you'll spend most of the book moving forward from there.
   
   
2. The Middle East: Ottoman to Modern Era
   
   

Yes, this! After reading The Ghosts of Cannae I had many daydreams of seeing the book made into a movie.

Since you mentioned Roman history, you might like The Ghosts of Cannae.

Two history books I've read recently that really knocked my socks off:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Plantagenets-Warrior-Queens-England/dp/0670026654

The Plantagenets: The Warrior Kings and Queens Who Made England by Dan Jones

http://www.amazon.com/Carthage-Must-Be-Destroyed-Civilization-ebook/dp/B004IYJEB0/

Carthage Must Be Destroyed: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Civilization by Richard Miles

A recent history book I'm dying to read is this:

http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Bridge-Fall-Nixon-Reagan-ebook/dp/B00HXGD5CE/

The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan by Rick Perlstein

He wrote the book Nixonland which I absolutely loved. If you want to understand modern American politics you need to understand that Nixon defined it in many ways.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Arabs-History-Eugene-Rogan/dp/0465025048

We read that guy in my intro to the middle East course. Great book, bad class. Starts in the 1600s and covers major events until it was published around the time of the Arab spring. It's focused on the Arabs as a people, rather than just the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I know the whole second Punic war's first history was written 70 years after... Second some 120-130 years after. the only actual physical evidence that Hannibal existed? a passing reference on a piece of tablet that was a dedication.

Source: Ghosts of Cannae

No, these regions would not be described as peaceful decades ago. Places that have large amounts of terrorism/ fighting may have not had those elements a few decades ago, but they were ticking time bombs. Regions just don't erupt into war and destruction over night, there are deeply rooted historical reasons for the current state of affairs in the Middle East and most are rooted in the European colonialism of the region during the 1800s and 1900s.

i would recommend this book if you want to learn more about the history of the arab people and the middle east in general.

i picked up his one on the fall of rome and couldn't finish it. it was terrible.

i highly [recommend] (http://www.amazon.com/Carthage-Must-Be-Destroyed-Civilization/dp/0143121294) that. i highly recommend that.

Interesting tidbit of history: a lot of the violent religious fundamentalism has to do with the Wahhabi movement out of Saudi Arabia late in the 18th century. At the time, the Ottomans ruled over the entire Arab world, but the founder of the Wahhabi movement was a religious scholar, and believed that the Sufi religious practices of the Turks at the time were weak and an affront to god. He advocated an open rebellion against the Sufi practices of the Ottoman empire, and the thousand year old practice and reverence of the Islamic equivalents to Christian saints, calling it polytheism and justifying a jihad against the Turks and all moderate muslims.

The movement's founder was not very popular in his own village, but soon found a political ally in Muhammad ibn Saud, ancestor of the Saudi Arabian rulers. Ibn Saud used the al-Wahhab's radical reinterpretations to justify war and subjugation of other arab tribes in the peninsula and against their Ottoman rulers.

Fast forward to the modern day, and you have several groups including al-Qaeda, the Tailban, ISIS and many others who follow this movement and use it as religious justification for destroying other muslims and westerners. The Wahhabis look to the King of Saudi Arabia as a religious leader, and much of the oil wealth of the Saudis goes straight into funding these radical religious groups. Their intention is to change the Islamic world back to the way it was in the first few generations after Islam's founding, because they fully believe that other groups do not practice true faith and profane their god.

TL;DR: A highly conservative religious movement around the time of the American Revolutionary war declared all other sects as polytheists and thus deserving of extermination according to Islamic law.

Note: I am an American and much of my understanding on the topic comes from this wonderful book. I'm just passionately fascinated by the history of the region.

So I recently came across this awesome book:

https://www.amazon.com/Carthage-Must-Be-Destroyed-Civilization/dp/0143121294

It's basically about how Carthage got a bad rep in Ancient times amd by scholars today. Good read!

Please Richard Miles book, Carthage Must Be Destroyed.

You'll find that most of your statements were incorrect. References make up about 1/3 of the book, so have at it.

To be clear, the Roman and Greek historians account for large swaths of history still, but their automatic authenticity is largely discredited in this book with more local and timely sources that weren't available until somewhat recently.

Carthage Must Be Destroyed: The Rise and Fall of an Ancient Civilization - Richard Miles

Good book to check out about the Second Punic War with a heavy focus on the Battle of Cannae.

https://www.amazon.com/Ghosts-Cannae-Hannibal-Darkest-Republic/dp/0812978676

Great Britian, 1922.

When the Ottoman Empire fell after the First World War, the French, British, and the Russians (to a lesser extent) divided up the territory that was formerly owned by the ottomans into administrative districts between them. When doing so all considerations of ethnic, linguistic, and historical division were ignored, except to intentionally separate common people to weaken their resistance. The Sykes-Picot Agreement is the foundation of all subsequent conflict in the region, from ISIS, al-Qaeda, Israeli-Palistein conflict, you name it. Another take on Sykes-Picot
There is an problem reoccurring throughout history that if you take over a people, kill there leaders and trash their cultural institutions and way of life, it's no simple matter to undo that. Anyways, countries began to get their independence back but then were forced to either aline with the US or the USSR to survive the Cold War.

The modern Iran is the fault of the US and Britian. Iran was one of the most modern and liberal places in the world during the 50's, had a brilliant film industry, was really a modern wonder. But when Iran decided to nationalize their oil industry so the profits could go to bettering the country rather than into the pockets of the Brits that owned the contracts the CIA and MI6 staged a coup of the Iranian government. They installed a puppet, he was wildly unpopular and the resulting unrest and instability gave rise to the modem Islamic nationalism currently in charge of Iran. It's really a shame, Iran could have been absolutely on par with France or Germany right now, had this not happened to them.

If there is one thing I know about politics, it's that the more unstable a place is the more extreme politics will come out of it. This is probably just intuitively obvious, but when a place starts to lose its stability people will abandon the 'standard' set of political solutions and start reaching for more and more politically extreme ones. The particular character of the ideology developed just takes the flavour of whatever already exists there and really takes it off the chart. See the rise of the Nazis following a crippling war and economic downturn, the communists came to power in Russia after years of political turmoil and the massive causalities of the war as well. Look at Greece in the last few years, huge economic strife and now their parliaments has both Neo-Nazis and Communists.
So take a region like the Middle East, and subject it to 100 years of political turmoil, consistently have western powers come in and knock governments down ever once in a while, finally demolish a long standing strong man in the region and something like ISIS springs up to fill the power vacuum. The imminent cause of ISIS was removing Saddam followed by failing to create a political situation that respected the actually ethnic topography of the country, but the root is early 20thC interference by the British and French. ISIS themselves recognize this as the root cause, and some section of ISIS see their mission as undoing that original agreement.

Also:
[Afganistans woes date back all the way to 1813, where Great Britain and Russia completely screwed the place when both were trying to build empires.] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game)

If you really want to get into understanding this Id recommend The Arabs: A History by Eugene Scott. It starts in around 1500 and goes right up to W. Bush, and really gets into the deep roots of why the Middle East looks like it does today.

I would argue they were treated much more similarly than many would think, with Roman slavery being horrible and somewhat comparable to the Atlantic Slave Trade (even if I think its healthy to be more uncomfortable with the race based slavery that has an ongoing legacy)

This is a bit of a pet issue of mine since I feel that there are quite a few reasons why the horrors of ancient slavery (in particular Greece/Rome) are ignored. I (or we) don't know enough to entirely answer the question but I do think its important to inform that we do know that Roman slavery was pretty nasty.

The overwhelming majority of Roman slaves were not household or city slaves but field slaves and other labour intense occupations who worked in horrible conditions. Mining in particular was a death sentence, if I recall correctly from Carthage Must Be Destroyed for a 500+ year stretch at any one point there were over 40,000 mining slaves in Spain alone. That's with a mining life expectancy of 3-5 years. If you read some of the descriptions of Roman field slaves it is reminiscent of the conditions of plantation slaves in the America's.

There was also the lack of rights for slaves throughout much of Roman history. Owners could essentially do whatever they wanted to their slaves, sex could not be refused and it was a fact of life that slaves could be raped. There is a range of sentimentality of these house slaves that we see on things like grave stones but again these slaves are a small minority of slaves.

Now a lot of this (the horrible conditions, rape, ect) is similar to the slavery in the America's but without the racial/religious aspects of the Atlantic slave trade (at least in America, the racial aspect gets more complicated in other places). I don't think we have the hard numbers to properly compare and contrast to my satisfaction but my perception of the issue is that they really are similar. People generally don't think of mining slaves when they think of black slaves but Brazil in particular had hundreds of thousands of slaves die in the mines with an even lower life expectancy than the Roman slaves in Spain. I do think that this is an example of one trend which is that as horrible as Roman slavery was from what I've read the comparable hard labour job would often be even worse in the America's (because of things like tropical diseases/conditions, racism, profit margins, ect) .

Tldr: Surprisingly similar in many horrible ways but on average slaves in the America's would be treated worse.

***

Of course there should also be the usual disclaimer about Rome being a very long lived empire so even "ancient Rome" arguably spans over a 1000 years and especially post Christianity there are some changes.


Sources: Carthage must be Destroyed, Slavery in Brazil (not the best source), and Roman Slavery