(Part 3) Best products from r/AskHistorians

Huge, endlessly fascinating topic. I would love to hear about some reading suggestions on this subject from people here.

I've been reading Christians as the Romans Saw Them. It would seem from what I've read there that paganism was going strong in the first three centuries of Christianity and maybe even beyond.

It's important to not equate paganism with the kind of cartoon image we have of the Olympians from Hollywood. Greco-Roman paganism by the time of Christianity was massive and contained so much, just like modern Hinduism contains so much. It included a strong influence from philosophy—Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics. There were the civic cults, the mystery cults, the imperial cult, oracles, household gods, rural gods, sea gods, daemons, sprites, ancestral spirits. There were the Pythagoreans, Orphists, Jews, Manichaeans, Gnostics, Neoplatonists.

Religion was fused with everyday life to an extraordinary degree. It's hard to even pick them apart. For us, religion is mostly a private matter. For them, it was both private and public, profound and mundane. Everything from games to social gatherings had a religious significance.

Above the local gods, under the influence of Plato, some Greco-Romans believed in a higher, impersonal, henotheistic God, plus to mention the immortality of the human soul. (It went both ways, btw: Philo of Alexandria in an earlier era fused Plato with Judaism; what we know of as Judaism and Islam have a whole lot of Plato in them.)

Christians would claim that they too worshipped this philosophical God--with the caveat that Jesus was his equivalent and that the other local gods known to the world were actually demons and were not to be worshipped. God the Father and Jesus Christ his son, only, were to be worshipped.

Pagan intellectuals were befuddled by this parochialism. The High God does not "do" earthly revelations; he is known through nature and sublime contemplation. Further, Jesus was a man of unremarkable talents; how could he even be a lesser divinity like Heracles? He may have simply been a wise sage who was deified by his misguided followers or he may have been a wily magician who fooled others himself, but certainly he could not be the High God, who is unmoved and beyond change. (Muslims have a similar view, btw!)

Syncretism worked for nearly a millennium in the Greco-Roman world. I don't see why it couldn't have survived, given different circumstances.

The momentum was more in the direction of autocracy and state centralization, from Caesar right up through Diocletian and Constantine and into the Byzantine period. I think that is really the secret of Christian success. The Church and State were fused in a highly effective bureaucracy. To be a good Roman was to be a good Christian. And since Christianity was exclusive, like Judaism, all other religions would have to be extinguished.

Why Christianity and not Mithraism, the Solar cult, or the highly organized Syncretism of the sort that Julian favored? That's the million dollar question. I don't have an answer, except perhaps for the fact that the Christians had better charitable programs and were able to win the support of the masses.

If you only read one book on the subject it should be Robert Grant's Augustus to Constantine. It's a tremendous piece of scholarship, in-depth without being overwhelming or boring, and Grant does an excellent job of situating the rise of Christianity against the background of the larger Roman Empire.

Other suggestions:
Henry Chadwick's The Early Church is a classic survey, but it's a bit dated now. Still a very accessible introduction, cheaper and shorter than the Grant.

Peter Brown is, in my opinion, one of the greatest historians who's ever lived and he has written extensively on Late Antique Christianity. For this specific topic, I'd suggest The World of Late Antiquity or The Rise of Western Christendom: Triumph and Diversity. The advantage of Brown is that he's also a fantastic writer.

Another interesting source is Robert Louis Wilken's *Christians as the Romans Saw Them. While it won't give you a full survey of Christianity's rise, it provides the perspective of pagan thinkers reacting to the strange, barbarous, troubling religion that is Christianity. This one is more of a supplement to the other listed works, but I think it helps really understand Christianity against the religio-cultural background of the Roman Empire.

Finally, the great primary source on the subject is Eusebius's *History of the Church. Obviously Eusebius, the 4th century bishop, doesn't match up to modern standards of historical accuracy, but you still get a comprehensive picture of the rise of Christianity that's pretty darn fun to read. Read with a critical eye, it's a terrific source. Also, it's available for free online. (also Eusebius basically invented documentary history, so that's kinda neat)

If you want more recommendations, or want more specific suggestions, I'd be glad to help out. My strongest recommendation are the Grant and the Brown.

On the Roman side, you have the comedies of the author Plautus, which are actually adapted from Greek New Comedy. Greek New Comedy came around in the Hellenistic World, and was less of the raunchy fart jokes of Aristophanes (and is thus less fun), and more poking fun at social class. Menander is the only extant author we have of this type of comedy, but the Roman authors like Plautus translated some plays, and wrote others in the same tradition. These comedies are based on stock characters...the most popular of these is the "clever slave". My favorite of Plautus is Amphitryon, which mocks the parentage of Hercules...unfortunately, it's hard to find a good translation. Miles Gloriosus is also popular, and a fairly good translation is here.

Laughter in Rome was actually considered good luck in some instances, because it could divert the Evil Eye. For other instances of Roman laughter, check out satire in Juvenal and Martial. If you want to go earlier in the Greek world, there are a few lyric poets who make fun of people, such as Semonides.

I don't know about the eastern side of this, although I do know that tricksters such as those featured in the Chinese text Monkey were meant to be funny. It might at least give you a start for the east...wikipedia link here. It's a really fun read. Come to think of it, trickster tales from all sorts of cultures might help you...the book Trickster Makes This World.

I really enjoyed Vikings! by Magnus Magnusson. It's all English, despite the name he worked in Britain, and he takes you through the archaeology of the Vikings when the book was written (it was published in the early 1980s). This one's a bit longer than the others I'm reccomending, but it's not overly long, it's exceptionally readable, and it gives you a great feel for the sort of things we know about the time period: also, it teaches you what sort of things won't be known, which is equally important.

Another short book I'd reccomend is the Penguin Historical Atlas of the Vikings. This one is much shorter, and it's presented in the form of a group of double pages, with a map on one side and text on the other. I found it useful for getting a sense about where the vikings had been and when: it's also a good starting point for further research.

A final book I'm very enthusiastic about is the Penguin Classics version of the Prose Edda. I say Penguin Classics for a reason: different publishers will do their editions differently, the translation varies, how it's presented changes, and so on. This is a great example of a 'source' for the vikings: it's a translation of a 13th century Icelandic nobleman's attempt to record his ancestors' mythology and put it into the context of his own life and beliefs. Contrary to how it might sound, this is really quite short, very easy to read and understand, and highly enjoyable. If you want to know about norse mythology, I can't think of a better place to start (mind you, I'm an enthusiastic amateur, not a professional).

These aren't the world's most comprehensive texts, but hopefully they should be a great place to start, and understand what about the vikings you might want to research further.

The popular image of prostitution in the post-Civil-War West is largely based on folklore - fostered to a significant extent by Hollywood.

First, there is a misconception that prostitutes were the first women in a Western boom town. This is simply not the case. For example, I did a detailed analysis of the 1860 census to understand the society of Virginia City, Nevada, thirteen months after the first strike that led to the community's explosive founding and growth. At that point, there were a few more than 3,000 people there of which 111 were women 15 years or older. Most were married and most of those had children. The few single women had clearly identifiable occupations, and there was nothing to lead me to suspect that any of them were lying about being engaged in sexual commerce. What I found suggested that prostitutes in California waited to make certain that a booming mining town would survive long enough to justify the expense and nuisance of relocation. Most boom towns lasted only a few months, and its first residents didn't bath a lot! Bathhouses came later (and so did the prostitutes!). So the best bet was to wait to make certain that the community would last before moving the "business." I published the results of this research in two 1998 books, "The Roar and the Silence: A History of Virginia City and the Comstock Lode" and the co-edited work, "Comstock Women: The Making of a Mining Community". I then asked Sally Zanjani, the premier authority on Goldfield, Nevada if prostitutes were the first in that early twentieth-century boom town, and she said she had observed the same thing as I had. The same was true of Mary Murphy, the authority on women in Butte, Montana.

Then there is the question about prostitutes in Western towns after they were established. Marion Goldman published her work on Comstock prostitutes in 1981, Silver Miners and Gold Diggers in which she - like many other early historians - fell victim to the cliché of prostitutes being "ubiquitous" (as you say) in the American West. Goldman asserts that it was the most common occupation for women on the Comstock.

In fact, Comstock prostitutes rarely exceeded 200 in a community that peaked over 20,000. It is true that the Comstock like the West in general was dominated by young single men, and young men being who they are, a clear business opportunity existed in the West. Nevertheless, "respectable" women were consistently the clear majority of women in Western communities. On the Comstock, it appears that prostitutes were fewer than 5% of the adult female population. Contrary to what Goldman concluded (she merely "read" the manuscript census rather than having a database for analysis, which I had at my disposal), women working as household servants outnumbered prostitutes. In addition, the vast majority of women in the 1860, 1870, and 1880 censuses during the twenty-year peak of the Comstock mines were listed with some variation of "keeping house". That said, looking at various primary sources, it is clear that these women were engaged in many different money-making enterprises, but unlike men who tended to pursue a single occupation, which they listed, women preferred to think of themselves within the context of the Victorian-era ideal as being home makers. In addition, a women who took in laundry, watched neighborhood children, cooked for a couple of boarders, baked pies for a local restaurant, and did a few other things would have found it difficult to select a single occupation for the Census enumerator. It simply felt better to say "Keeping House". These women outnumbered prostitutes on a scale of more than 20:1.

The fact is, while prostitutes were far less significant in the West than their numbers might indicate, sex and violence always "sells" more to the popular imagination than laundry work and baking. The demography of the West encouraged a few women to pursue sexual commerce, but the nature of the West meant that there were many other economic opportunities that a woman could pursue - and most did!

Also, I'll note that I had the opportunity to discuss all of this with Anne Butler, one of my authors in my book, Comstock Women, and herself an important authority on western prostitution: see her important book, Daughters of Joy, Sisters of Misery: Prostitutes in the American West, 1865-90. Much of what I was able to conclude with census database research confirmed her previous conclusions, and being able to discuss all of this with her was a pleasure and an honor. She was a dear, giving scholar who is missed by the community of Western historians.

edited to clean up the links.

This is a great opportunity (when is it not!) to discuss the holding of territory and the pacifying of locals during conquests from the perspective of the Romans, who did quite the conquering.

> Long-term

>Much more boring (in my opinion), but a lot of Roman generals gave land to their legionaries either after a conquest or once a legion - who had proven its self-worth - had expired it's length of service, which depended on the time period. Augustinian reforms raised the length to sixteen years, with four more in reserve. Depends really on the time period. Besides that, Roman's definitely had colonies in its territories, as often the governship of a far region was given to a particularly prominent man. For instance, before he became the man we know and love, Caesar was the governor of Spain.
>

> Short-term

>Now this is the cool stuff. Plutarch tells of a great quotation by Pyrrhus of Epirus who saw the Roman nightly fort for the first time and said, "The discipline of these barbarians is not barbarous." The Roman army built a nightly fort no matter where it was while on the march. A day of marching would lead to a night of digging and entrenching. Not only did this ensure the safety of the army at night, it also played heavily into the psychological warfare that we often overlook by the Romans. Now, these forts were legit - tall wooden walls, outlook towers, and trenches, and they made a new fort every damn day. With the battle over but the war far from won, the Romans continued to make their forts and block their flanks. This along with a decent idea of army logistics (insert joke about Crassus at Carrhae) allowed for the Romans to pick their battles and progress over unknown territory without fear of a counter-attack. They also used many local scouts (insert joke about Varus at the Teutoburg Forest) to help map the territory and play the locals off of one another. These jokes are sarcasm, Crassus and Varus were dumb.

>Another great tactic by the Romans after a successful campaign was to take hostages! Oh blimy. Imagine you just lost your army and your kingdom, and now the victors are willing to: A. not kill everyone, B. assimilate you into their empire, and C. let you keep most of your power, and all you had to do was send them your sons. This was a great way to keep the newly-conquered in check. In his conquest of Gaul, which was filled with many revolts, Caesar took hostages consistently. Oh, looks like the Helvetti have started a rebellion, let's kill one of their King's sons to send a message. Oh look they stopped rebelling.

Basically, the act of invading is a logistical nightmare. One must take into account a supply line, counter-attacks, local demeanor, and about 50 other things that I cannot even fathom from this spot in front of my computer. Unsuccessful invasions lead to the annihilation of armies, and this is why we hold successful invasions as archetype military stratagems. While I am not your high school history teacher, I would suggest reading about Hannibal, Scipio Africanus, and Caesar for a more thorough understanding of military invasions. Personally, Scipio is a boss, but there is more information on the other two.

Sources - Plutarch's Parallel Lives, Caesar's Conquest of Gaul

*edited for grammar and format

The Constitutio Antoniniana which granted Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire was issued in 212 AD and there is quite a lot of Roman history after that. Soon follows the so called “crisis of the 3rd century” between 235 and 284 AD throughout which the empire was shaken by internal as well as external problems. Next comes Late Antiquity, a period which has attracted a lot of scholarly attention in recent decades. It saw some huge changes like Christianity’s rise to dominance or the final partition of the empire into a western and eastern half that you mentioned. And while the western part already disappeared throughout the 5th century the Eastern Roman Empire would survive for a long time further. The rise of the first Islamic caliphate in the 7th century AD cost it much of its territory and caused further transformations. This surviving remnant of the Roman Empire, now centred around Constantinople, is usually called the Byzantine Empire. Its eventful history would continue through the entire Middle Ages until 1453 AD when it was finally conquered by the Ottomans. So all in all there is more than a millennium of further Roman history to cover.

• Michael Kulikowski, The Triumph of Empire. The Roman World from Hadrian to Constantine (2016) might be a good point to start as it begins right in the period you’re already familiar with and leads you through the 3rd century crisis to the beginning of Late Antiquity.
  
  
• Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity. AD 150-750 (1989) is pretty much the foundational text for the modern scholarship on the named period. Its short, richly illustrated and just all around fantastic.
  
  
• Peter Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire. A new history of Rome and the Barbarians (2007) covers the developments that would lead to the end of the Western Roman Empire.
  
  
• Peter Sarris, Empires of Faith. The Fall of Rome to the Rise of Islam. 500-700 (2011) has a larger focus than just Roman history and also concerns itself with the post Roman kingdoms in the west as well as (like the title says) the rise of Islam.
  
  
• Judith Herrin, Byzantium. The surprising life of a Medieval Empire (2009) is probably one of the best ways to first familiarise yourself with the huge timespan that is Byzantine history.
  
  
• Averil Cameron, The Byzantines (2006) is another excellent introduction to the entirety of Byzantine history.
  
  There are quite a lot of books that go into further detail about the different periods of Byzantine history but for the start those two general introductions should probably suffice. Of course you can always ask for more. I hope this helps!

>Beyond the incorrect premise of the question, it is notable to me that in reading hundreds of works on wine and beer history, Im not sure Ive ever found a primary source reference to people using alcoholic beverages in this manner.

Are you sure about this? Because in Spice: The History of Temptation, the author talks about how:

"It (ale) was certainly better than the available water, an observation traditionally credited to Saint Arnulphus... an acknowledgement of his realization that heavy ale drinkers were less afflicted by epidemics than were the rest of the population."

And I noticed on the Wiki article about Saint Arnold of Soissons:

At the abbey, he began to brew beer, as essential in medieval life as water. He encouraged local peasants to drink beer, instead of water, due to its "gift of health."

EDIT NOTE: There are two Saint Arnolds regarding beer, and it might be Arnold of Metz who said this, according to BeerHistory.com (I know, it's not exactly authoritative, but it does parrot what the author of Spice said separately):

"Don't drink the water, drink beer" warned Saint Arnold of Metz (b. 580 AD, d. 640), concerned about the dangers of drinking impure water. He believed that the polluted water caused illness, while the boiled and processed water used for beer was a safer alternative. According to legend he ended a plague when he submerged his crucifix into a brew kettle and persuaded people to drink only beer from that "blessed" kettle. He is reported to have said "From man's sweat and God's love, beer came into the world".

The author of Spice separately and similarly talked about how "the medical theory of the day added intellectual respectability to the wariness of water, classing it as wet and cooling and therefore potentially inimical to the body's natural balance of moderate warmth and moisture. Given that the ale drinker was exposed to fewer microbiological nasties, Arnulphus's bias against water made perfect sense."

He also made a distinction between Ale (which has a short shelf life) and Beer, which being made with hops contains natural preservatives. Was wondering if this might be the reason behind differing shelf life perceptions over beer/ale, being that they're separate processes?

I'm just a hobbyist passing through, but the go-to introductory books would be James Kugels' How to Read the Bible and Richard Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible?.

An important concept that you'll hear a lot about, and may thus want to research independently, is the Documentary Hypothesis, which is the prevailing explanation of theTorah having been compiled from 4+ original sources. This suggestion is more of a reference book, but Oxford's The Pentateuch might also be a good resource.

If you are up for watching videos, this Yale Intro to the Hebrew Bible class is an excellent introduction.

If this isn't what you had in mind, I'm happy to brainstorm some other ideas.

An area that I am interested in (as a hobbyist) is the origin story of Yahweh and Yahweh worship that precedes, and leads to, the Torah. If you are interested some references on the growth of monotheistic Yahwehism from a historical polytheistic foundation of holy scripture to the development of the henotheism and then monotheism of early Biblical Israelites:

• [The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel](http://www.amazon.com/The-Early-History-God-Biblical/dp/080283972X) by Mark Smith<br />

• The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts by Mark S. Smith
  
• A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam by Karen Armstrong
  
• The Religion of Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel) by Patrick D. Miller
  
• Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches by Ziony Zevit
  
• Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (Library Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies) by John Day
  
• God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World by Mark S. Smith
  
  While limited to starting with the Hebrew Bible as a basis, and not addressing much pre-Torah scripture related to Yahweh, the following takes a look at:
  
  
• Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible, by Michael S. Heiser, PhD
  
  While a College Senior Thesis (and the perception therefore of a less credible scholarly/appeal to authority level), the following is a good source of other reference material:
  
  
• The Ascension of Yahweh: The Origins and Development of Israelite Monotheism from the Afrasan to Josiah by Andrew Halladay
  
  Some of the on-line summaries/arguments which related to the above argument/position are:
  
  
• Are Yahweh and El the same god OR different gods?
  
• Ugarit and the Bible
  
• Israelite Religion to Judaism: the Evolution of the Religion of Israel By David Steinberg
  
• The evolution of God

For American History I recommend The Oxford History of The United States, which includes Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause, Wood's Empire of Liberty and about ten others. I would also recommend select biographies of the founding fathers:

• The First American by H.W. Brands
  
• Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie
  
• John Adams by David McCullough
  
• 1776 by David McCullough
  
• His Excellency: George Washington by Joseph J. Ellis
  
• American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph J. Ellis
  
• Lafayette by Harlow G. Unger
  
• Lion of Liberty: Patrick Henry and the Call to a New Nation by Harlow G. Unger
  
• Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation by Joseph J. Ellis
  
  For Science History refer to my WIP History of Science Reading List

Thank you so much! I am pretty envious that you get to take an entire course on this period. I just get so excited learning about it.

There is the parish library right across the street from my house, but I never use it for some reason. I have three short books I want to read, and then I am going to read all of the books you listed. I can't wait to read about Theodore Roosevelt. Regardless of if you agree with his politics, he is just a fascinating guy.

I had never heard of settlement houses during the era, but I will definitely be researching that.

Here are the links to the Theodore Roosevelt biographical trilogy, just so everyone can find them easily:

Volume 1
Volume 2
Volume 3

This may be a little more specific of a book question, but are there any books that explain the Progressive Era's impact on the rest of the world? Can youalso give me the definitive beginning and end of the Progressive Era (according to your course)? I seem to get a lot of differing years. There may not be an exact beginning and end but I might as well ask; it is AskHistorians anyway. Does it include or exclude WWI?

To bayesmarkobgauss:

Almost all pre-modern philosophy blurred the line between religion and philosophy.

And there are many philosophers from Africa. Probably the most famous African philosopher (especially in the West) is Augustine. The most famous 20th century African philosopher (and one of the most famous post-colonialism thinkers in general) is Frantz Fanon. One of the more famous pre-modern African philosophers is the Ethiopian Zera Yaqob (not to be confused with the emperor of the same name).

There was also a large tradition of wisdom literature in Ancient Egypt. The Book of Proverbs was influenced by it. The Eloquent Peasant could also be considered philosophy.

Also, the Inca definitely had philosophers, who were called amawtakuna.

_____

To OP: there have been philosophers from all places. In addition to what the places I said, there are the Muslim Averroes, Avicenna, Ibn Arabi, Al-Farabi, Al-Ghazali; the Jewish Maimonidies, Ibn Ezra (Abraham), Qoheleth, Halevi, Philo; the Chinese Mozi, Zhuangzi, [Mencius]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mencius), Zhu Xi, Huineng; the Indian Shankara, Nagarjuna, Kautilya, Abhinavagupta, Ramanuja; the Japanese Dogen, Ito Jinsai, Nichiren, Honen, Kukai. There are many more modern Eastern philosophers, I just tried to list mostly pre-modern. These people have also influenced Western philosophers. Schopenhauer and the transcendentalists liked Indian philosophy, Averroes and Avicenna were well-known in Medieval Europe, and Pythagoras is said to have traveled to Egypt.

Philosophy is not limited to Eurasia though. The Aztec tlamatinime had a rich tradition of philosophy, as you can read in Miguel Leon-Portilla's great book or here (EDIT: I just remembered, Nezahualcoyotl is one of the people mentioned many times in the book). Vine Deloria Jr. was a great 20th century Native American philosopher. There are also many books written on Native American philosophy that you can find, or I can suggest.

As for why you thought that, most non-Western philosophers have been ignored. This is the case for most non-Western artists and thinkers. The history behind this is modern European conceptions of European superiority (though this wasn't completely clear-cut, as Russians, Irish people, and Turks are European). And while it could be argued this superiority is still embedded in the consciousness, this legacy has left a tradition that makes it easy to stick with. Because of the language similarities, the numerous manuscripts, and the cultural familiarity, it's just easier for Westerners to stick with the same philosophers. It's creates a simple narrative, and its easy to digest, especially for younger students.

Thank you so much for writing this! I'll be coming back to this comment for a long time.

I'm specially grateful as many of the books you've listed have Kindle versions. I'm Ecuadorian and I've been very saddened by the fact that a lot of the books that I want to read are only available on paper... that's troublesome for me! I actually have to import them which is hard and expensive.

After a quick look I saw that your recommendation on the 4th crusade is actually listed as a penny book! That's just so nice as I'm actually on a tight budged and can't afford everything I want. It's actually an insane deal as somehow it's a 400 page book and yet it only weights 10 ounces! I'm limited to 4 Kg max per import so that's why I'm specially exited.

I actually have a few more questions right now. Sorry to pester you even more, but these are really the final ones.

Are you familiar with the northern crusades? One of the things that kick-started this whole thing was my interest in the Teutonic Order which led me to buy "Teutonic Knights" by William Urban (conveniently available on Kindle).

I've found the book to be good but I feel a bit lost as I'm missing the big scope of things: the author—focusing mostly on the POV of the order and its enemies—sometimes refers to events related to the area that I just don't understand (me being very unfamiliar with eastern Europe). For instance, he mentions the Wendish crusade and other conflicts several times but does not explain, which I imagine is because he assumes that reader is acquaintance with these events.

Anyhow I'm asking if you've heard good things about The Northern Crusades by Eric Christiansen. I was hoping it would help me better understand the big picture.

And lastly, there seem to be a lot of books from Osprey which cover an insane range of topic (a lot of which I'm interested). Would you recommend them?

I'm very cautious as it seems that most of the are exactly 64 pages long, which seems not that of a good deal are most of them are around $12, which to me is a lot as most of them are paperback only, which means I have to import them. Plus some like the one on mounted archers are very critiqued are the books were called "too superficial". Maybe the others that are not as broad won't have the problem but I'm still wary.

Personally, I'd argue that the archetype of the trickster is one of the oldest there are. One book you might be curious to read is Trickster makes the World by Lewis Hyde. Hyde goes through the more elements of trickster characters, such as Hermes, Coyote, or Raven very well and outlines their common patterns.

Essentially, the reason I expect trickster archetype to be very old (might not always have been a coyote) is that it is a very common archetype worldwide and due to something else, a hypothesis I'm sort of working on.

Now, that hypothesis hinges on one interesting motif: If you want to get a trickster to reveal itself when it is cloaked, is to spread some filth around and it is forced to roll in it. (See African Mbulu stories as one example)

If I were to take my own dog, who is a sweet lab mix. He has no cunning or trickery in him. He is straightforward, predictable and extremely well mannered. The only time he ever ever does anything to "trick" is when he finds filth to roll in, to hide his scent. That is truly the only trick he knows.

So my theory is, that if evolutionarily this is the first trick, or the origin of the archetypal pattern which later in our bigger brains became the idea of the trickster, then this 'character' must be very old because it is common in lots of animals as a form of disguising themselves. That's just my hunch but I hope it helps, and I'd love feedback on what you all think as well.

Edit:

Since we're dealing with the topic of Tricksters and tricks, I felt the need to hide one in this post. Have fun!

TL;DR Saudi Arabia and its allies among Islamist monarchies came out on top after the Arab Cold War, and subsequently were able to export Islamist ideology with the help of oil rents and "crowd out" secular and leftist ideologies in the region.

The fall of secular and left-leaning pan-Arabism and Arab Nationalism, and the rise of Political Islam and similarly religious and theological movements, is heavily rooted in how the Arab Cold War played out. The Arab Cold War was a regional struggle for hegemony and influence between newly ascendant republics run by military officials that were formed in the aftermath of overthrown monarchies in the Middle East (notably, Nasser's Egypt), and the surviving monarchies (notably King Faisal's Saudi Arabia). An important thing to recognize here is that Saudi Arabia relied heavily on backing conservative Islamic movements and organizations as a way to counter Arab Nationalism (as well as Marxist and Communist groups that were in tension with both Arab Nationalist and pro-Monarchy movements), even when certain groups--like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt--advocated a kind of Islamism that was anathema to Saudi elites.

Like some others have already pointed out, the failure of Nasser to lead an Arab victory over Israel in the 1967 war was a huge blow to both Nasser's image and the continuing appeal of Arab Nationalism, but also to the general economic stability of Egypt (Nasser had also become trapped in a quagmire during his intervention in Yemen). He subsequently had to mend ties with Saudi Arabia to get access to much-needed financial aid, and died shortly after; his successor, Anwar Sadat, had much closer ties with the Saudi Arabian regime and increasingly Islamized Egyptian society and allied with Islamist groups. Another important event would be the survival of the Jordanian Hashemite monarchy against Palestinian rebels during Black September, which was another critical blow to secular/leftist Arab Nationalist movements.

Thus, going into the 1970s, Arab Nationalist movements were starting to recede. But what really clinched the ascendance of political Islam was the enormous profits from oil sales that accrued to the Gulf States after the 1973 oil embargo and the spike in oil prices during the next ten years or so. The budgets of the monarchy, especially that of Saudi Arabia, boomed, and the Saudis were subsequently able to export their own particular brand of fundamentalist and ultra-conservative Islamic theology like never before--and support Islamist organizations in influencing society and politics. This was also encouraged by certain Western policies geared toward fighting Marxist and Soviet influence in the Middle East and larger Muslim world; the CIA's director in the '80s, for example, thought that religious education was an important weapon against Soviet atheism.

A great example of this is the rise of fundamentalism in Pakistan--Saudi funding was instrumental in the rise of Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan during the '70s, which supported the dictatorship of General Zia after he seized power in 1977. Saudi funding (along with CIA funding) was also instrumental in the rise of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) as a kind of Islamist deep state within Pakistan, with deep ties to regional Islamic militant and terrorist networks, and which would become embedded into Pakistani political economy and play a key role in regulating Pakistani politics. And similarly, in neighboring Afghanistan, Saudi funding would prove critical in supporting the victory of Islamist groups over rival Marxist and communist groups.

Now, there are some complexities here that need to be addressed, because there are important theological and socio-political differences between the official Wahhabi ideology of Saudi Arabia, and properly "political" Islamist movements like the Muslim Brotherhood, and especially when compared with the revolutionary Islam of Khomeinism that was brought to the world stage after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. But despite the 1979 Iranian Revolution being a Shia-based revolution, it was still inspiring to many fundamentalist and radical Sunni groups because it was a solid example of an Islamic state being established, and inspireda and funded Shia groups like Hezbollah. And it was at this time that it seems that Saudi's religious exports became more sectarian in nature, as a way to counterbalance revolutionary Shiism with a pro-Saudi religious ideology (but lets save that for another time).

Sources:

• Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 (2004)
  
• Capitalism and Class in the Gulf Arab States (2011)
  
• Carbon Democracy: Political Power in the Age of Oil (2011)
  
• The Battle for Saudi Arabia: Royalty, Fundamentalism, and Global Power (2004)
  
• Hezbollah: The Changing Face of Terrorism (2005)
  

The increasing separation and isolation of the Western from the Eastern Empire up until the Justinian revival/Gothic War in Italy really complicates this question. Because at a certain point in the West being Catholic as opposed to Gothic-aligned Arian is going to be a bigger issue than being "pagan," but those dimensions of the Roman Civic institutions in which a traditional aristocratic career would happen is dynamic throughout those centuries. So it's possible that in the West it would have been easier to remain "pagan" than it would in the East because of a more primary antagonism between Arian and Catholic groups. In the East, I imagine that by the early 6th century, Christian groups (broadly speaking) had taken over––but that is MUCH easier in the context of Constantinople/Eastern Empire than it is in Rome. For the Eastern Empire, you might check into the older work of JJ Norwich, whose History of Byzantium is very readable and kind of summarizing. You might also check out the older study by G. Ostrogorsky (https://www.amazon.com/History-Byzantine-State-George-Ostrogorsky/dp/0813511984). For Western contexts, the best stuff I know about comes from Papal historians; Kristina Sessa's recent study (https://www.amazon.com/Formation-Papal-Authority-Antique-Italy/dp/1107423481/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1475172320&sr=1-1&keywords=Sessa+Rome) would probably be quite illuminating.

Ahhuatl's suggestions are great, and the Florentine Codex (especially Book 1) is pretty much your authoritative source. Leon-Portilla is another great resource and you may want to check out his Aztec Thought and Culture if you ever want a scholarly look at the philosophy of Aztec religion.

If you're looking for the myths themselves though, you may want to check out Taube and Miller's Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya. It is a dictionary/encyclopedia though, so it may be kind of dry. Carrasco's Daily Life of the Aztecs doesn't directly tell the myths but does feature large passages on important rituals (and is just a good book overall).

Byzantium by Judith Herrin is extensive yet accessible. She is a professional archaeologist and an academic. The book is a rung on the ladder above pure popular history but is still readable if you have little background info on Byzantium. It is also a broad overview encompassing the entire span of the Empire.

I also recommend Lars Brownworth's 12 Byzantine Rulers podcast for a first contact with Byzantium. This is less academic and more popular history than Herrin's book, but is very well researched and also covers the entire span of Byzantine history from its Roman roots to its fall.

One of the best books I ever read on Sassanian, Parthian and Achaemenid Persia was Shadows in the Desert, by Kaveh Farrokh. The text is about the military capabilities of each of the three civilizations, and can be found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Desert-Ancient-General-Military/dp/1846031087

Another good book is Sasanian Iran (224-651 CE): Portrait of a Late Antique Empire, by Touraj Daryaee. It offers a good, detailed examination of Sassanian legal, military, political, religious and social organization. It is also available on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Sasanian-Iran-224-651-CE-Portrait/dp/1568591691/ref=pd_sim_b_8?ie=UTF8&refRID=0B6GYQMW5D85Z5QNNSJS

One of the latest books is by Daryaee, and is called Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire:

http://www.amazon.com/Sasanian-Persia-Rise-Fall-Empire/dp/1780763786/ref=la_B001JRYQWQ_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415541718&sr=1-1

Adding to what the other have said I'll link to the /r/askhistorians books and resources list. I think what you are looking for can be found in the general category

From this I read McKay so I'll copy the description from that one:

> A History of Western Society by McKay, Hill and others, 2008: A good overview, picks up where The Human Past left off (with an overlap in antiquity) and provides the historical, rather than archaeological, perspective. Very readable, and though it's a textbook and thus most suitable for students (with plenty of 'summaries' and lists of important key words), I'd still recommend it to people who are interested in history without having access to the formal education (and to archaeologists who only study prehistory!).

It's a big book (more than a thousand page) and because it was meant for students it has many summaries and even some onine multiple choice tests. I'll link to an image of the index page so you get an idea of the contents:
1 and 2

Edit: I will say that this book has a bit of the classic western bias (kind of obvious with the name) and it follows the classic line of Mesopotamia > Egyptians > Greeks > Romans > Middle Ages > Renaissance and Enlightenment. And it's more focussed on recent history so if you are more interested in ancient history then you might want to look more towards one of the other books on that list.

This book list may interest you.

Since you seem more interested in the Eastern Front, here are a few more books not on the list which focus on it:
[Stalingrad](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_(book), and Berlin: The Downfall by Antony Beevor are must reads. Russia's War: A History of the Soviet Effort: 1941-1945 by Richard Overy is also a great summary of the entire Russian war from start to finish. Finally, for a good account from the perspective of Soviet tank crews, might I suggest T-34 in Action, from the Stackpole military history series. It’s a short read, but quite interesting. Hope this helps.

If you want to read a truly excellent book on the subject of Prohibition, you will immediately buy Last Call by Daniel Okrent.
He goes into detail about this issue and a lot of others. I don't have it in front of me or I would find a citation. One thing I liked about the book was that he goes all the way back to the first stirrings of the prohibition movement way back in the mid to late 1800s. I can't recommend this book enough if you're interested in the subject.

The best account of the US's involvement is in Afghanistan that I've read is the Pulitzer Prize winning Ghost Wars by Steve Coll.

The Lithuanians didn't convert, their leader did. Paganism was still everywhere in the Lithuanian holdings and the leaders also joined in on pagan rituals. This was part of the reason why the Order kept fighting the Lithuanians. The biggest reason they fought them was that the Lithuanians kept fighting them as well. There are a few easy to read books on the subject, but The Northern Crusade by E. Christiansen should give you a good overview of the Baltic situation.


Feel free to ask if you got more questions. I don't know everything, but know a fair bit about the TO in the Baltic.

Argh! I came too late for this!

Anyway, the reason for worshipping other gods so frequently is that the Israelites really never believed in only one God, until the exile in Babylon.

Rather, it was the OTHER way around: In brief periods of time before the exile, the Israelites (or should I say Judahites?) were forbidden from worshipping various gods - or even worshipping Yahweh outside the "official way" - due to the religious reforms of Hezekiah (around 715 BCE) and later, Josiah (around 622 BCE).

Archaeologist William G. Dever explains in his book "Did God have a wife?" how evidence of polytheistic cult have been found in various Iron Age sites, e.g. statues of Asherah, 8th century BCE pieces of pottery with written texts saying "Yahweh and his Asherah", the one from Kuntillet Ajrud being the most famous.

Your interpretation of Israel falling in sin over and over because they were "very stubborn" is the consequence of a clever retcon done by the writers of Deuteronomy and the books of Judges, Samuel and Kings. In other words, they rewrote the past. You can notice this when you read the second book of Kings, the parts where some king "did do what was wrong in the Eyes of the Lord" simply meant "allowed worship of other gods". With a little wit, you'll understand that these passages were written by a prophet of Yahweh and obviously had a bias to them.

If you wish to know a more detailed account on how Israel went monotheistic, you can read "The Early History of God" by Mark S. Smith (warning: Very difficult read), where he details how the various gods of Canaan merged and differentiated until Yahweh became the dominant deity.

EDIT: For example, the passages where Yahweh is depicted as standing on a cloud are adaptations (perhaps we should say plagiarisms) of Baal as "rider of clouds". Take a look at Psalm 29, where the imagery to describe God is of storms and thunder. Canaanite Baal was always known as the god of storms. And God speaking on the top of a mountain also parallels with Baal.

His memoirs, The Gallic Wars and The Civil Wars are great places to start, and they are rather short. And its all written by Caesar, so who better to tell you about how great Caesar is!

http://www.amazon.com/The-Conquest-Gaul-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140444335/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374613113&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Gallic+Wars+Penguin+Classics

http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Caesar-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140441875/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374613143&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Civil+War+Julius+Caesar

You might like My Khyber Marriage and Valley of the Giant Buddahs. They are autobiographical reports by a Scotswoman who married a Pashtun and moved to Afghanistan in the 1920s. My Life: From Brigand to King--Autobiography of Amir Habibullah may also be of interest. It is an as-told-to autobiography of an Afghan brigand who briefly overthrew the King about ten years after the first two books were written. The Road to Oxiana is a bit clunky but offers a Western perspective on Afghanistan in the 1930s.

The more general Afghanistan of the Afghans, written by the husband of the woman mentioned above, focuses a lot of culture and cultural history, Afghanistan is a more general history and this Afghanistan claims to be more about the military history but I haven't read it myself to judge.

If you want something more contemporary, The Places In Between is a decent travelogue by an adventurer/preservationist/mercenary who walked through parts of the country. It didn't blow me away but it is interesting and most contemporary Afghan books from the West are such trash that this one shines in comparison. The author really did go to areas of Afghanistan about which most people know very little.

Ghost Wars is a popular book that focuses on the US involvement in the area during the Soviet Afghan war. Taliban is another popular book, and focuses on the Taliban in the 1990s and early 2000s. The link is to the second edition which I believe is updated.

If you are interested in the political views of the founders, founding brothers does a really excellent job of summing them up. Interesting to see what almost did and did not get into the constitution.

The following books are taken from the General section of our books and resources list:

• Why the west rules - for now, it's an overview of both eastern and western history.
  
  
• A History of Western Society, it looks at the history of western civilization.
  
  
• A Little History of the World, it does what it says and tells the history of world up until the 1930's.
  
  I'm sure more books can be found in the book list.
  
  Happy reading :)

Daniel Okrent's Last Call is a delightful and readable history of Prohibition which spends a great deal of time discussing this very issue. In addition to the manufacture of 'sacramental wine' as others have discussed, many vintners, having torn up their precious vintages, were forced to replant quickly as soon as they realized that Prohibition wasn't reeeeally going to be enforced. This resulted in the extraordinary spread of alicante bouschet, a very hardy type of wine grape that could survive export to the East Coast, where the grapes would be bin on at auction houses (where it was sold as "table grapes"). Alicante grows fast and furious, so vintners could replenish their harvest quickly. After Prohibition ended, they were left with essentially an entire state of Two Buck Chuck quality grapes and were forced to buy graftings from the few vineyards which had maintained their original vines for sacramental wine production.

What do you mean sources? Primary or secondary? Most stuff on the Vandals comes from the Roman perspective. As for secondary sources, a lot of the really good stuff is in German but if you want a survey on this subject in English, I suggest AHM Jone's The Later Roman Empire, 284-602:
A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey and George Ostrogorsky's History of the Byzantine State. Peter Heather's The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians also has some obscure tidbits that most people would not normally know. Also, who could forget the The Cambridge Ancient History series? They actually have a chapter dedicated to the Vandals.

Goodluck! Here's the book I was referring too: http://www.amazon.com/Theodore-Roosevelt-Modern-Library-Paperbacks/dp/0375756787

Hope it helps!

If you want to go more in the direction of looking at different historians' interpretations of events leading up to the war, the following three will be very good:

Kristin L. Hoganson (1998). Fighting for American Manhood: How Gender Politics Provoked the Spanish-American and Philippine-American Wars. New Haven: Yale University Press.

James L. Offner (1992). An Unwanted War: The Diplomacy of the United States and Spain over Cuba, 1895-1898. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Thomas Schoonover (2003). Uncle Sam’s War of 1898 and the Origins of Globalization. Lexington: The University of Kentucky Press.

If you wanted to do something specifically on TR, then look into Edmund Morris' biographies. They're broken down chronologically, beginning with The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt

It also might be interesting to study some of the books that TR wrote himself, as primary sources. Particularly The Rough Riders, his Autobiography, or, if you're really ambitious, The Winning of the West.

Please read [Richard Overy's book, Russia's War] (http://www.amazon.com/Russias-War-History-Soviet-1941-1945/dp/0140271694/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331587671&sr=8-1) A gripping analysis based on recent evidence on both the catastrophes and heroic efforts of the Soviets on the eastern front.

Can't be of much help when it comes to Eastern/ Central Europe. This book is quite good though, so perhaps start there. Sorry!

I love Miguel León-Portilla! You might consider reading his:

• Aztec Thought and Culture: A Study of the Ancient Nahuatl Mind
  
  
• In the Language of Kings: An Anthology of Mesoamerican Literature, Pre-Columbian to the Present.
  
  For visual art, the show catalog, Courtly Art of the Ancient Maya is amazing.

My religion class used Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Friedman. This is not an annotated text like some of the other suggestions (i.e.- it won't go line by line and give you notes on what the context of the verse is) but rather, it's a look at the question of authorship and the context of authorship. It might be a good entry point into a study of an annotated bible.

This is a good read if you're interested mate:

www.amazon.co.uk/Conquest-Gaul-Classics-Julius-Caesar/dp/0140444335

This is a different issue. You are referring to the documentary hypothesis. The Torha seems to come from several different sources with different religious ideas. So there are different names for God depending on the source material. In addition early Judaism seems to have been polytheist and later transforms to monotheism. So there is acceptance of other gods at times.

Yes there are numerous sources and I think you would be intrigued by just how much both of their public perceptions have changed over time. Hamilton was originally castigated, almost demonized, by many upon his death due to the harsh political lines that existed between him and his opponents (Jefferson, Burr, and really any anti-Federalist), and his extraordinary/imperfect personal life. Jefferson on the other hand was pretty ubiquitously lauded for a long time and it wasn't until historians began viewing his life later on that his legacy began to be questioned, when it has been revealed just how much Jefferson was a man of great contradiction.

Both were undoubtedly great men with perhaps even greater character flaws.

Really any book written during the Revolutionary period would expand on this in great detail, but specifically biographies of the two men or any of the Founding Fathers. You cannot research the men who typically are associated as the Founding Fathers or Framers without talking about the political discord that developed between the two sides.

Some of my favorites are below:

https://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Hamilton-Rivalry-Forged-Nation/dp/1608195430/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480308951&sr=8-1&keywords=jefferson+hamilton

https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Ron-Chernow/dp/0143034758/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1480309330&sr=8-2&keywords=jefferson+hamilton

https://www.amazon.com/Founding-Brothers-Revolutionary-Joseph-Ellis/dp/0375705244/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480309352&sr=8-1&keywords=founding+brothers

But this is by no means limiting and I didn't even link any Jefferson-centric biographies.

This is an entirely appropriate subreddit! Let nobody discourage you from asking for sources here.

There are AskHistorians book lists. The Europe mentions Byzantine books in two sections, so you might be best served by doing a search for "Byz" (Well, three sections, except that one section mentions only Herrin, J. Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire, which I assume is the Herrin book you were referring to.)

AskHistorians has a podcast. Episodes 20 and 21 are "Byzantines: Macedonian and Komnenian Dynasties".

As documented in the journalistic novel Ghost Wars (fantastic book on the history of Afghanistan, I highly recommend it), Saudi Arabia gave a lot of funds for various Islamic militias in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. After the Soviets left and militias started fighting each other, funding also increased to the Taliban.

I can't say conclusively about other regions. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if many Sunni extremist groups have ties with Saudi Arabian reactionaries.

You'll want to read "Spice, The History of Temptation"

It's a pretty in-depth look at the spice trade all the way back to antiquity. I highly recommend it. It doesn't necessarily focus on drugs, but it will give you a LOT of information, including famous people, places, and all the major events tied to the spice trade.

I understand this. Some relevant links in Norwegian:
University of Oslo on how Christianity came to Norway

Here an article on the first Christian inscriptions in Norway from University of Technology and Science in Trondheim

Both the above articles refer to the fundamental academic book on early Christian influence in Norway: Fritjof Birekli Tolv vintre hadde kristendommen vært i Norge = Christianity had been 12 winters in the country

Snorri Sturlassons books on Norse mythology as well as on king Haakon the Good and other early Norwegian kings are available in English. His books are fundamental sources for an understanding of the Norse universe of thoughts for the twelfth century when they were written - and is what OP is looking for

A really great, accessible book of Roman criticism of early Christianity is here: The Christians as the Romans Saw Them http://www.amazon.com/The-Christians-Romans-Saw-Them/dp/0300098391

I'd also suggest A History of the Byzantine State by the Yugoslavian Byzantinist George Ostrogorsky. While older than Treadgold's work(which is also very good), it's cheaper and shorter yet is still considered a definitive history--I read Ostrogorsky's during multiple Byzantine history courses and found the writing style very accessible and not overly concerned with minutae while still providing lots of detail.

I'm not a historian but afaik the historical records of Jesus are slim to none.

Edit: as for your main question this is a bit of a side to your question but does deal with some of the issues
http://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0060630353

Relations between the US and Afghanistan prior to 1979 were rather limited. The US was much closer with Pakistan, which had very sour relations with the Kabul government. The Afghan Durrani Monarchy had a number of Pashtun nationalists, including the Prime Minister Daoud (who eventually overthrew his cousin Zahir Shah and became president), and these nationalists were very unhappy that the Durand line, the 1894 border between British India and Afghanistan, was to remain in effect after the partition of India, effectively splitting the Pashtun population. Since the US wanted close ties with Pakistan, and since Afghanistan didn't really seem all that important, the US was never close with the Afghans.

That said though, the US did participate in a number of aid projects in Afghanistan, including things like sending teachers, building dams, digging canals, and various other things of this sort. For more information on this, I highly recommend 'Little America' by Rajiv Chandrekeshan.

Something else that's worth noting about that: In 1979, it was blatantly obvious that the Soviet Union was heavily manipulating events in Afghanistan. Daoud overthrew his cousin in 1973 with some level of Soviet support, and a communist named Taraki overthrew Daoud in 1978. Russian military advisers and helicopter pilots were working with Afghan communist troops to squash the many tribal rebellions that were springing up across the country, and the KGB was heavily involved in manipulating the Afghan press and the political process. As the situation in Afghanistan devolved, President Carter authorized about half a million dollars in non-lethal aid to the Afghan insurgents in June, 1979. This aid was only a drop in the bucket compared to what the Soviets were spending though, and nothing compared to what the US and allies would later supply the mujihadeen.

>What reasons personally would you give for the US invasion in 2001?

In 1998, al Qaeda successfully bombed the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In 2000, they successfully bombed the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen. In 2001, they successfully attacked airliners flying out of Boston, Virginia, and Newark, and used them in successful attacks on the Pentagon and New York City, killing about three thousand Americans.

We knew that bin Laden was behind the previous attacks - he had taken credit, and his fingerprints were all over them. The CIA had spent the last three years working to kill or capture bin Laden, but the Taliban, which had controlled most of Afghanistan since about 1996, continued to harbor him and prevent the US from apprehending him. Our previous attacks on al Qaeda infrastructure, most notably the 1998 cruise missile strikes, had effectively amounted to nothing, and after 9/11, there was an understanding in the United States that the situation was not acceptable. The Taliban continued to refuse to hand over bin Laden and his associates, and the rest is history. I don't happen to agree with much of the way that the war has been fought, but I think that the claims that the article present are blatantly false and reflect a disconnect from reality. Like many things at globalresearch.ca, that article is mediocre written fiction.

For more information on this type of thing, I highly recommend Ghost Wars, by Steve Coll.