Just sent off a book manuscript, on early Greek poetry. It's frustrating: it's a pretty short book -- shorter than my PhD thesis was -- but bugger me if it didn't take at least four times as much research. I've been feeling very stupid while finishing it: it gave me the feeling that I was only now getting to grips with material that I ought to have had a thorough understanding and knowledge of 15 years ago. Plus it's 18 months late. I'm hugely relieved to have finished it, and I think it's pretty good, but it does leave a bit of a sour taste too. I wish it could be more obvious how much work went into it...

*sigh*... plus I'd probably better switch to a new account when the book comes out.

Off to bed for a rest now. Sorry to the people asking questions about Greco-Roman antiquity this fine Mother's Day, but I'm not going to be posting any answers this morning!

This is probably more than half a rant, but anyway.

I FINALLY managed to finish a little introductory book on the Jacobites. I'm hesitant to name it because I'm going to rather pan it, particularly the author's approach.

In any case. I started this book well over a year ago. And before I'd gotten out of the introduction, it pissed me off more than I think any other book has ever done--I even posted about it then on a Friday Free-for-All. The author begins with a thought experiment "What would have happened had the Jacobites won?" and concludes that basically nothing would have changed--baring a couple monarchs, the kingdom would have passed through the same line as today. Nothing would have changed, eh? What about Scotland? What about the changes after the Union, or the aftermath of Culloden? The Dress Act and it's related Acts? That's a pretty large burden borne by a segment of the population that very definitely would not have happened if the Jacobites had won.

Well, he goes further. After reading a chapter or two, I realize this author appears to hate the Jacobites. There's just these little jabs and digs at them throughout the text, particularly when he gets into talking about the Scottish ones. Blames them for basically being stupid when their plans were thwarted by a storm. Because they can control the weather, amiright? Now, really, some of the Jacobite attempts really were hamfisted and badly planned, and that the '45 even happened is something of a fluke, but this particular case was just really, really unfair.

So I'm stubborn and kept reading. In the last chapter, he starts talking about the expatriot Jacobite community, which he divides into Patrician and Plebian Jacobites. Yes, you read that correctly, patrician and plebian. He goes on the rob the plebians of any agency they could theoretically have had with that designation, but comparing them to so just so much flotsam washed up on the shores of Europe. Because they couldn't have decided to go there on their own.

Then, THEN, the crowing glory of the work: In retrospect, it was all too apparent that Charles Edward had deliberately misled them, and that his refusal to fight on after Culloden had condemned them to condign punishment when guerilla war (at which the clans were past masters) might have extracted a negotiated peace.

Most of that sentence I'd agree is quite true--Charles Edward was almost certainly more a liability than a credit during the entire '45 campaign, and even more so around Culloden, when he'd found the arms of his long-time mistress, Clementina Walkinshaw. However, there's that little word condign. I had to look it up, but it means appropriate, fitting and deserved punishment. We're talking about Culloden. Surely, yes, defeated rebels did/do deserve punishment by the state, but Cumberland's orders after Culloden were exceptional. Brushing that aside with "they deserved it" is probably worse than the bit in the prologue that said nothing of any importance changed!

And now you're probably wondering why I read through the whole thing. It was the first introductory work on the Jacobites I'd ever read and, as expected, there were a lot of insights into things I hadn't encountered or connections I hadn't made. It ain't easy finding the appropriate resource when you need it and are self-taught, so this was rather worth it. But I absolutely hate that this is the introduction that students get to my field and remain utterly confused about why someone (i.e. the author) would devote their life to studying a movement they see as pointless among a people they clearly see as lesser.

Don't know if this relate: Why did the university of calafornia became one of the largest publsihers of books on classical antquity?

I'm currently reading Mathew Strickland and Robert Hardy's The Great Warbow. I read most of it several years ago when I was just starting my Ph.D. and now as I'm reaching the end I thought I could do with a bit of a refresher on what it said since it's probably still the most important contemporary work on the longbow. I may have slightly underestimated how long it is, though, so my progress has been slower than I had expected. Still, I should be finished with it by the end of next week and ready to get back to writing (always writing....)

Next year I'm taking a course which involves writing a dissertation on 20th Century British history. I'm interested in charting Britain's response to the 1983 US invasion of Grenada but other than ‘“A Matter of Regret” by Gary Williams, I've found little written on the subject. Could anyone recommend some readings please or explain the wider context of the topic.

In my free time I have been reading David van Reybrouck's Congo, has anyone here read it? I'm about a third of the way through and it's extremely interesting, but some of the tangents he goes on seem more fantastical than anything. Is this book reputable? Or should I remain vigilant while reading it?

Not really reading, but finally finished the history of Rome podcast! Probably have to listen to it at least one more time though... there's just so much information in it I'm sure I didn't process a ton.

I also got a free audio book through their audible deal so I'll probably listen to that next though. He's also got a huge list of recommended books so... just so much stuff to look at about Rome, it's kind of daunting.

I'm currently reading through some pieces on medieval nobility. Constance Bouchard's Strong of Body and Sword, Miter, Cloister. A little dated now but definitely worth the read. Next is the Kings Two Bodies. After that I suspect I'll dive into crusades stuff like Marcus Bull and others. Any suggestions along that line?

Can someon give me a example of a hyper specfic academic book on ancient egpyt like nubian slaves in ancient egpyt.