Europa Barbarorum Bibliography

[Ludens]

"The Poison King" received a positive review from my newspaper, but it was the subtitle that withheld me from buying it. Rome's deadliest enemy? Hannibal got almost at the gates. Mithradates barely reached Athens.

[vartan]

"The Poison King" received a positive review from my newspaper, but it was the subtitle that withheld me from buying it. Rome's deadliest enemy? Hannibal got almost at the gates. Mithradates barely reached Athens.

Catchy.

[Mediolanicus]

"The Poison King" received a positive review from my newspaper, but it was the subtitle that withheld me from buying it. Rome's deadliest enemy? Hannibal got almost at the gates. Mithradates barely reached Athens.

Yes, well I think that subtitle is chosen because of two reasons:

1. I think Mithridates did kill the most non-combatant Romans, no?

2. History books, or at least history books that want to be popular history books and are meant to be bought by the broad public, need an eye-catching, spectacular title to sell well enough. Perhaps they would, but I think the publishers woundn't allow it.

[Moros]

Yes, well I think that subtitle is chosen because of two reasons:

1. I think Mithridates did kill the most non-combatant Romans, no?

2. History books, or at least history books that want to be popular history books and are meant to be bought by the broad public, need an eye-catching, spectacular title to sell well enough. Perhaps they would, but I think the publishers woundn't allow it.

He also killed his mother, some of his sons, 80.000 to 150.000 civilian italians living in minor Asia, killed more on his campaigns (not just romans). He did however leave his other enemies a live and was noted to even provide money, food... to the defeated to get back home. Though that is often suggested to have been done merely to win their sympaties. Either way he killed quite a lot people, probably less romans in battle than hannibal, but in other ways Mithridates does make some claim to the title.

[abou]

They're crap. I suppose you could consider them easy entry material, but if it gives you any indication one of their books mentions something about Seleukos fighting some other successor one-on-one, which originally showed up on Wikipedia and remains unsourced in the bibliography.

I should follow-up on this statement of the Pen-and-Sword books. In another book, not by Pen-and-Sword, I have found the same statement, but this time sourced. I have tracked down the cited article, but it's almost a century old, written in Latin, and describes a Greek inscription. As soon as I read it I'll let you guys know what it actuallys says.

Still though, bad on Pen-and-Sword editors for not making sure it was cited.

[Apázlinemjó]

"The Poison King" received a positive review from my newspaper, but it was the subtitle that withheld me from buying it. Rome's deadliest enemy? Hannibal got almost at the gates. Mithradates barely reached Athens.

Mithridates was not in the same water as Hannibal. First of all he wasn't a tactical genius, but an excellent politican. The Pontic Empire was smaller at the beginning of the Mithridatic Wars than the Carthagian Empire at the Second Punic War. Mithridates had to face a much larger Roman Republic than Hannibal. The Romans already knew how to deal with the phalanx based armies by 88 BC. Also Mithridates' Hellen generals were "lame" compared to Sulla's, Lucullus' and Pompeius' commanding ability.

[anubis88]

Mithridates was not in the same water as Hannibal. First of all he wasn't a tactical genius, but an excellent politican. The Pontic Empire was smaller at the beginning of the Mithridatic Wars than the Carthagian Empire at the Second Punic War. Mithridates had to face a much larger Roman Republic than Hannibal. The Romans already knew how to deal with the phalanx based armies by 88 BC. Also Mithridates' Hellen generals were "lame" compared to Sulla's, Lucullus' and Pompeius' commanding ability.

The situation was very different in Rome at the time of the Mithridatic Wars. Roma was definetly more compact during Hannibal's assault, Rome was very rich with huge supplies of men, and a decent army. Hannibal was a military genius leading a versatile army, where he found men for every need. Until Scipio Africanus, Rome didn't have a general who was even near Hannibal's tactical ability.

On the other hand, as you've mentioned, Sulla, Lucullus and Pompey were one of the Greatest Roman generals of all time, and Mithridates had a huge misfortune of attacking the Republic when so many able generals lived. Also, the Roman army was a much stronger force imho during that time, hardened by the strife against the Germanic tribes and Social war. I just want to say it's kinda unfair to say the Pontic Generals were lame, since they won pretty much every battle before the 1st Mithridatic war.

The Mithridatic war was a huge war, and haven't it been the genius of Sulla, and if Marius stayed alive, Rome could lose Greece for a long time. It's also interesting to think what would happen, if Mithridates didn't meddle in Greece, and kept his Empire in Asia Minor as it is for a decade or so... Having the Romans fight near his power base...

[Apázlinemjó]

I just want to say it's kinda unfair to say the Pontic Generals were lame, since they won pretty much every battle before the 1st Mithridatic war.

I said they were "lame" [<-between inverted commas] COMPARED TO the Roman generals. And you said exactly what I did.

The Roman Senate had interests in Asia Minor's politics (as Pergamon was theirs already), so Mithridates had two choices, cooperates with Rome's policy and gets probably the same fate as Pergamon, or continues the expansionist behaviour and faces Rome sooner or later. The Pontic ruler chose the latter.

[Fluvius Camillus]

Mapping Human History Steve Olson

Which one is meant here? Discovering the Past Through Our Genes or Unravelling The Mystery Of Adam And Eve I guess the first, but just to be sure.

~Fluvius

[oudysseos]

The first.

[Fluvius Camillus]

The first.

Thank you, oudysseos.

~Fluvius

[Fluvius Camillus]

Although not listed, is the book: Persian Fire by Tom Holland any good?

~Fluvius

[oudysseos]

Meh. It's alright.

[Ludens]

Although not listed, is the book: Persian Fire by Tom Holland any good?

It's alright as far as popular history goes, but my impression is that Holland is quite willing to play fast and loose with the facts in order to write a compelling story. His interpretation is not the only, nor often the most plausible, explanantion of the events. Read it for entertainment, not for research.

[Fluvius Camillus]

It's alright as far as popular history goes, but my impression is that Holland is quite willing to play fast and loose with the facts in order to write a compelling story. His interpretation is not the only, nor often the most plausible, explanantion of the events. Read it for entertainment, not for research.

Thank you.

~Fluvius

[anubis88]

Did anyone read
Quintus Sertorius and the Legacy of Sulla by Phillip O. Spann?

Is it any good? And where can i get it? thanx

[Seyavash]

For Persia I would suggest

The Heritage of Persia Richard Frye

This is more relevant to EB period than Golden Age of Persia which is mentioned in one of the earlier posts.

[SlickNicaG69]

It seems sad to me that on such a noble subject, we disdain to hear from the nobles who started the subject themselves:

Plutarch
Polybius
Appian
Cassius Dio
Herodotus
Thucydides
etc...

[vartan]

It seems sad to me that on such a noble subject, we disdain to hear from the nobles who started the subject themselves:

Plutarch
Polybius
Appian
Cassius Dio
Herodotus
Thucydides
etc...

I'll just say this: There are some schools that prioritize the reading of so-called Great Books (IIRC that's what they're called). That is, they give most importance to students' study of primary sources (or anything closest to the Source, with a capital S), over other tertiary/quaternary sources such as professor-written works of the modern age.

[oudysseos]

It seems sad to me that on such a noble subject, we disdain to hear from the nobles who started the subject themselves:

Plutarch
Polybius
Appian
Cassius Dio
Herodotus
Thucydides
etc...

Uhhh.... they are all in the first post, at the end. Have a look, eh? By the way, many of these authors are themselves secondary sources, relying on other works now lost to us. Only Thucydides, Polybius, Xenophon, and Caesar are really writing about events that they themselves witnessed. Plutarch, Cassius Dio, Diodorus, Appian, Livy, were all removed in time, in some cases by hundreds of years, from their subjects.

[Moros]

Anyone read Carthage must be destroyed: a rise and fall of an ancient civilization, by Miles?

[President]

I was wondering if anyone could direct me to a place where I am able to buy the classics as they are at your local college library.

For example, I am trying to find the complete set of Polybius' Histories, but the best I could find was Loeb's, however it was split into 6 volumes @ $25! each with each volume being in reality like 100 standard pages... not really worth it.

All the "complete" volumes (1 volume copies, which I prefer when possible) all seem to be abridged or edited for "relevance..."

Any suggestions?

I've tried Amazon but the ones that suggest they are the complete copies seem shady.


EDIT: Forget anything military written by Goldsworthy in favor of Theodore Dodge... dude is in a class of his own.

[Macilrille]

I am not too impressed by Goldsworthy either.

Go for Loeb, fork out the cash instead of buying the second-best, until you can afford it, use the library.

Sara Elise Phang; "Roman Military Service- Ideologies of Discipline in the Late Republic and early Principate" is an interesting, if very academic, read. I may do a full review when I get through it, which will be awhile with Moesgaard Viking Market, Skanderborg Musical Festival coming up and Peanut being very- very ill for the sixth week now...

[President]

Yea, honestly that is why I sort of disdain Goldsworthy's work - it is much too academic. It is much too lacking in that primary sense of experience and relativity that I have come to appreciate from studying ancient history.

That is why I suggested Dodge. He was a Civil War veteran, who after losing his leg, got his degree in history and then traveled the globe to analyze the works of the greatest captains and write about them. He seems to be like an antiquated, experienced General (much like Xenophon and Caesar himself, but obviously without such weight and magnanimity), that is trying to explain to the basic soldier the secrets of the highest generals. You truly understand what war is with him - an art that it advanced by the innovations of great captains - unlike the more academic or technical military historian, whom presumes to give only a generic description of battles and tactics, primarily devoted to the effects such significant battles and wars have on history.

As for Loeb, I will do so when it is time for thee library ;) . Until then, such works of gold will have to be melted down and consumed in bits and pieces :D ! (Seriously... they literally have Livy's History in 13 Volumes - @ about 3 books per volume @ $24! - while penguin has them in 3 volumes @ $15 each, with an average of 13 books per volume. Incredible discrepancy of value. Granted Loeb is the collectors edition, I still don't like to think I'm getting ripped off or paying double price for a side of text that I will never seek to decipher...)

I like to think I am like the greatest of men, whom have said that the greatest fool is he who lets his heart dictate his head!

[Macilrille]

Oh... and here I was thinking Goldsworthy was not academic enough- emphasising ease-of-use enough that he makes mistakes...

Guess it tells that I have a danish Ma in History ;-)

I do believe it should be possible to write facts in a worth-reading way in any case. I suffer from the delusion that I can actually sometimes do it myself ;-)

[Andy1984]

Bauschatz, Paul C., The well and the tree: World and time in early Germanic culture, 1982, The University of Massachusetts Press, 153 p.

The book is open-source, and can therefore be downloaded for free: link

[Luis Sera]

I was wondering if there was a book that had a definitive history on the Galatians? I know there are a few books that have a chapter or two on them but a book dedicated to the Galatians would be great

[Andronikos]

I started reading Tacitus, I have already finished Agricola and Germania and just started Annals. I must say that it is great. There are many things I have read before in some books or even in EB descriptions (e.g. Chatti units).

And what does this mean before the name of the book?

[QuintusSertorius]

Which are good books to read for a view on everyday life (daily routines, religious observances, tasks/jobs, contact with money, food, entertainment etc) in the Hellenistic age? Particularly in Greek communities, but others as well.

I've got Green's Alexander to Actium for a primer on the era in general, but haven't gotten deeply into it enough yet to know how much it covers.

[HFox]

Like to give a thimbs up to 'Persian Fire' by tom holland. A great read and context to early greek and persian 'interaction'. Can't validate its scholarlyness :) as not equipped with the correct educashun but seemed to hang well together to me. A thoroughly enjoyable read.