Maybe I'm out of place, since I'm only a first year in a nothistory field, but I'm in an accelerated course and I'm doing archive work on a guy named Gordon Skilling. Czechoslovak specialist, comparative communism scholar, partial founder of the CCF, and who happened to be in the right place in the wrong time in Czechoslovakia twice, having a honeymoon in 1938 right before the Germans invade (and apparently running a radio station with the Czech underground for a bit??) and then again in 1948, right when the communist system was being implemented.

Three things from this:

1. What am I doing with my life? This guy's CV is impressive

2. I have so much respect for you historians now, there's just so much stuff, it's hard to get through to the good bits. In the 70s, Skilling gets arrested by the Czechoslovak secret police, and then he mentions that in one line, and never brings it up again

3. Why. Why is his handwriting so shitty. I thought mine was bad, I had to czech (hahahahahah) to make sure he wasn't writing in Arabic at first, it was that bad.

I'm currently on my university's deserted campus, line-editing my undergrad thesis to send to graduate programs. It's maddening.

About halfway through Rise of American Democracy. Does it get any better?

I went in knowing it was a pro-Jackson, pro-Democracy polemic. Wilentz says as much right up front. But much of it has read more like an exercise in how much Wilentz is willing to contort and handwave away the coalition's serious faults. The unconvincing apologetics for the proslavery wing and "he meant well" as a mitigation of Indian removal are especially notable, but it's remarkable how Wilentz has almost no interest at all in the decline in the quality of the civil service thanks to Jacksonian patronage practices. There are some gestures here and there about corrupt officeholders from before and after, but if he wrote anything about the overall effect then I've forgotten or not come to it yet.

Weirdly, since I'm very interested in political history, I also think Rise is excessively political. There seems to be very little consideration for how people came to prefer the political values they did and even ordinary political events that you would expect front and center. The narrative rarely leaves Washington except in the company of a major figure. Events that don't involve either Washington City itself or the direct actions of political organizations and organizers get only cursory mentions. I think there's more written about Jackson's health problems than about his activities in Florida, even though the former have a mostly conjectural role (He was in a lot of pain, which might help explain his temper.) while the latter had serious, direct political implications. (Jackson's reputation as a military despot was deeply informed by them and he carried a grudge over the controversy he generated that informed his interactions with major figures in Washington.) The two British citizens he had executed get almost exactly as much coverage as his dentures.

I hoped for a book that would do well as a counterpoint to What Hath God Wrought. Maybe that's unfair, since Howe was trying to talk about some of everything and Wilentz is specifically interested in politics. Howe also wrote after Wilentz, so one can hardly read Wilentz as a response. (It's the other way around, per Howe's notes.) I do think Howe probably somewhat oversold the benevolence of the Whigs and the evangelical reform associations, as well as ignoring or downplaying the labor movement. I came away with the impression that Howe just doesn't care about class issues at all, honestly. With all that going in, I imagined myself ripe for Wilentz's argument. But this isn't cutting it. There are some worthwhile points, and I suppose you've got to read it if you want to be up to date on nineteenth century politics anyway, but the price of admission is quite a lot of dodgy apologetic. Sure you can use the book to kill household pests or maim children, but you could do that with Howe too.

I've come across a spectacular claim that I've set myself out to investigate: Apparently, a Swedish man by the name of Per Uno Nordell fought on both sides of the Algerian War. He fought both as a Foreign Legionnaire in French service and as a FLN guerrilla. Here's an illustration of the man in question on the cover of the Swedish men magazine "Lektyr" from 1958. It's interesting to note that he's dressed in the illustration as he would have looked like when he was allegedly part of the FLN, and it's not that historically inaccurate either. I can't for the life of me identify the SMG he's equipped with and it's very possible (just like the actual story in question) that it was something the illustrator made up on the spot.

Any recommendations for books on the Paris commune? Preferably at the accessible end of the spectrum as I'm getting more than my fill of more intense, academic reading on my American history masters.

I am reading Tobias Capwell's* 'Armour of the English Knight 1400-1450'. It is the first part of a projected 3 part series on the armour of English men at arms during the 15th century (upcoming volumes are English armour 1450-1500 and foreign armour in England 1400-1500), and though it covers 1 country and 50 years of late medieval history, it is a 300 page long folio. Which shows how much there is to write about the subject.

Because there is almost no surviving English armour from the 15th century other than a few helmets, Capwell's study is based on a complete survey of English funerary effigies depicting armoured figures, supplemented by a survey of bronzes and incised slabs. A decent part of the introduction of the book is dedicated to showing that effigies are in fact fairly faithful and reliable depictions of armour - a lot of the evidence is that 1) the armour on effigies (unlike brasses and incised slabs) tends to be unique, and shows few signs of being made from some kind of template 2) the armour depicted on effigies has the exact kind of inconsistencies that actual armours do - mismatched hinges where some have been replaced, different types of belt ends, etc 3) the armour depicted in effigies is a practical, workable form of protection that fits together as armour should (this is dealt with in the appendix, which details reconstructing a harness as depicted in a funeral effigy).

This is a book I've been anticipating for several years now, since there's a massive hole in the study of 15th century English armour in published armour scholarship. So far it is not disappointing-the book includes a lot of eye-opening arguments, including that English armourers were not restricted to making low quality harnesses but instead often made high-end armours - indeed, they may have specialized in making custom harnesses for an elite clientele, while semi-off-the-rack continental imports would be purchased by those lower on the social ladder. In that vein, Capwell argues that previous scholars may have read too much into Henry VIII's decision to found an armoury at Greenwich staffed by foreigners - this could be as easily explained by Henry's desire to imitate his continental peers, or his personal tastes, rather than a lack of native quality or talent.

Capwell argues that the armour of English men-at-arms as depicted on effigies shows a form of plate armour adapted to fighting on foot, the practice of late medieval English men at arms. So far I am just getting into the details but so far the book is persuasive and fascinating.

u/Valkine and u/MI13 may be interested in this as well.

*He did an AMA a couple of months ago