I've been reading a lot of scattered sources in preparation for the upcoming season of Game of Thrones, mostly papers and specific sections of books, but I did read all of Deep Ditches and Well-built Walls: A Reappraisal of the Mongol Withdrawal from Europe in 1242, a thesis by Lindsey S Pow. Her basic thesis is that the Mongols withdrew from 1242 because of the density and strength of the castles they encountered as they advanced further into Europe.

The strength of Pow's thesis is her demonstration that the fortifications taken easily by the Mongols in Europe were situated on flat plains and were fortified only by earth and timber. She points out that the few stone castles in Hungary, sited on hills, held out even though they were deep in Mongol held territory and that the few stone castles in towns also survived the Mongols.

Pow also looks at why the various Mongol campaigns failed or suceeded in other regions of the world. She relies very heavily on Chinese Walled Cities: 221 BC-AD 1644 by Stephen Turnbull when discussing China, so I have some reservations there, but otherwise she seems to have solidly researched the areas in which the Mongols campaigned. Pow points out that where the Mongols suceeded, there were political divisions and either there were defections to the Mongols, or there was no unity against them. Mostly, there was also not a particularly high density of hilltop fortresses made of stone in these areas either.

On the other hand, where the Mongols failed (India) or took far longer than expected (Korea), there was a high density of stone castles situated on hilltops. They were also areas with very high population density, though not necessarily higher than areas that were conquered. Most importantly, however, Pow notes that these areas did not attempt to buy off the Mongols and stubbornly resisted them, in contrast to the areas of the Middle East and China that attempted to buy them off or surrendered after only nominal resistance.

Finally, Pow notes that there were other significant issues that affected the Mongols' ability to wage a sustained war on Europe, such as the great distance troops had to travel, extended communication lines and internal political divisions among the Mongols.

On the downside, Pow does not consider the relatively small sizes of armies raised by European monarchs of the era, chosing instead to go with the idea that the Hungarians substantially outnumbered the Mongols. Given the low population of Hungary, the political and military situation in 1241 and the size of the largest armies of England and France at the time, I've never been unable to understand why any historian would accept that the Hungarians had any more than 20 000 troops at Mohi (and they probably had many less). While the European nations may have had a higher population base to draw wealthy and supplies from, this does not provide a limitless supply of manpower as Pow believes. The Mongols could almost certainly bring to bear as much cavalry as all Europe had if they so chose, and even a small force would likely equal the numbers of cavalry any European nation could field, if not more than them.

Over all, though, Pow's thesis is quite well written and convincing.

I'm reading Andrew Buck's The Principality of Antioch and its Frontiers in the Twelfth Century, for a review. I'm only about 60 pages in, but so far it's interesting. Huge nerd that I am, I'm most enjoying his in depth discussions of the sources he has to work with, both their flaws and their strengths. A lot of the usual players I see all the time in Crusading history are there, but there's also a lot of differences given the Antioch-specific focus. Several prominent chroniclers are largely ignored due to their heavy Jerusalem focus, while a few sources I've never heard of are playing a major role. It's cool stuff.

I'm reading Gordon Martel's "The Origins of the First World War." It, as he says, is a clear and concise history on the origins of the First World War. In the intro, he discusses how different origins of the war usually point to different beliefs about the war, and then begins to write about each country before the war.

I would recommend it.

I'm traveling in Japan right now and it's gotten me thinking about some of Japan's recent history. I'm particularly interested in Japan's economic development in the 1970s and 1980s and people's attitudes toward it. I'd expect some pearl-clutching on the part of the US, but I don't know as much about how Europe, China, or the USSR saw it. And what about the Japanese themselves? Does anyone know of any sources that bring together these kinds of perspectives, or where I could go looking for them?

I'm reading Rubicon by Holland right now. It's my first foray into Roman history since a university survey courses.

I'm loving it so far and am intrigued by the Claudii, Pompey, Caesar and all the big wigs so far. I'm trying to decide whether Caesar was a bad dude, just over reached or something else entirely.

I'm fascinated by Cicero. I thought this whole time he was someone that people looked up to historically but from my brief reading it seems like he's just someone else looking out for number one. Perhaps it was his exile that did that to him? I am confused a tad as to why people were so pissed about the Triumvirate. It seems like the first consul year everything was ok. Then they tried it again after a meeting in Ravenna and then shit hits the fan? why? was it just because it was out in the open or was it because it was two years in a row?

I love hearing about the feuds too. Pompey v. Cicero; Cicero v Clodius; Sulla v everyone; Crassus v decency. It's great.

I'm curious about the building times of things though. Cicero's house was destroyed brick by brick; Caesar built a wooden bridge across the Rhine (at what point too because that can be a massively wide river); someone else built a palace near Baiae (sp?) to get oysters. How many years would it take to build things like these? How many people would build the bridge? Did they have trained engineers or was it just a trial and error thing?

It's also cool to read something that was mentioned in a podcast that i've heard too.

Anyway, always interested in reading up about history so if you have suggestions, I'm keen!

EDIT: I also read a book about dutch cartography during the golden age (Capitalism and Cartography in the Dutch Golden Age) and how it was used to cement the burgermeesters, the VOC and the WIC, and the government and their vision of the world. sort of like a middle ages propaganda machine. it was particularly neat because i have prints of some of the maps they used. If anyone has suggestions for Dutch Golden Age books, i'm keen for titles too!

Thanks

I'm 158 pages into Roll, Jordan, Roll. It's been this weird mix of stuff I'd already gotten from post-Genovese sources, really good descriptions, and intense frustration. Genovese clearly wants to tell this story: The enslaved and enslavers exist in constant tension with each other, with slavery mediating more general interpersonal relations. There are things the enslaved are forbidden to do, but do anyway, and the same for enslavers. Both set some limits on the other.

If he kept to that, I don't think there would be too much that's controversial about his argument. The problem is that his thumb is constantly on the scale in favor of the enslavers. He'll write a few pages about how they exhibit genuine feelings toward some slaves and do so much for them at such a cost...and then write a paragraph or two about the horrors. Rinse & Repeat. He does the same thing with class and race.

I haven't checked all his sources, but the prevalence of eye dialect and the general content of Genovese's quotations points toward heavy use of the WPA slave narratives. The only enslaved POV sources I've seen that appear contemporary to slavery are Frederick Douglass (and so far he's skipped the grisly stuff from Douglass) and Solomon Northrup. That's...not good. The WPA stuff isn't worthless, but they were asking people who knew slavery as teenagers, tops, about it in the Jim Crow South. The interviewers were white and often closely connected to the area, so even if they didn't heavily prime the informants (and they probably did) the "correct" answers wouldn't be hard to figure out.

Suspect that if we got a shovel and went to ask, Genovese would tell us that he understood himself as firmly in the UB Phillips tradition of slavery studies. He openly praised the dude in The Political Economy of Slavery.

Looking to read some books on Late Antiquity. I already know Brown's, Heather's, and Kulikowski's works. Can anyone recommend anything else?

Is there a good book on the collapse of discipline in the US Army post-Vietnam? Particularly looking at the causes and how they could have effected US Troops in a conflict with the Soviets?

I've been slogging my way through Anthony Beevor's The Battle for Spain. It's quite good and has kindled an interest in me for the Spanish Civil War. However, the writing style seems to be...off at times. I can't really put my finger on what it is exactly.

Anyway, the Spanish Civil War is quite interesting. He points out the numerous flaws within the Republic's leadership and how, due to the increasing presence of the communists and soviet advisors within the republic, the Republic began to mirror the Soviet Union. You can definitely see how Orwell's 1984 was influenced by his experiences in Spain. I highly recommend Beevor's work