|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 4, 2010 16:50:57 GMT -5
Just finished The Trojan War by Barry S. Strauss. A pretty quick read and very up to date account of these events. Strauss is good and I also enjoyed his The Spartacus Wars, the best thing I've read on that and quite a corrective to the Kirk Douglas movie and the Howard Fast novel on which it was based.
Strauss is clear that much of what he relates is speculation, based on Homer's The Illiad and, to a much lesser extent, The Odyssey, but also on the latest archeological evidence as well as anecdotal evidence. His account is filled with comparative examples of actions by other people of that region around that time, suggesting that Homer is pretty reliable, even if none of the major protagonists may ever have really existed at all (Paris, Helen, Agamemnon, Achilles, Hector, Odysseus, Menelaus, et al). It's not even certain that the Trojan War ever occurred, or if it was actually a series of smaller wars fought over a long period, rather than the grand epic that Homer suggests.
Despite the necessary speculation, Strauss lays out a reasonable scenario of what might have happened, which is consistent with the archeological evidence, as well as Homer and other sources.
Your own interest in this book may depend on how interested you are in this event, or the period, or how likely you are to be drawn into it. But, if you are curious about it at all, you will not be disappointed by Strauss.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Donald Hash on Apr 29, 2010 18:15:14 GMT -5
Have you read anything by Michael Wood on the topic of the Trojan War? (He also has an excellent companion book to his awesome series about Alexander the Great).
Thucydides believed that the Trojan War wasn't actually such a big deal at the time that it happened, but was made to be super awesome through Homer. The ancients pretty much regarded Homer is having a good grasp of history, and it appears that the archaeology seems to back him up. -- I saw a documentary years ago where the trenches around Troy were discovered, paralleling the siege described in Homer.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 29, 2010 20:07:23 GMT -5
Strauss's book covers much of this discussion re: Homer, the archeological evidence, and he has a very plausible hypothesis as to what the Trojan War probably was, how long it lasted, and how much liberty Homer took. But, that's the extent of my exposure to this period (so far!). I'm now working on 2 Billy the Kid books and an Alexander Hamilton bio for my history book club.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Donald Hash on Apr 30, 2010 9:11:10 GMT -5
I like your description of the book, and hopefully I can find it next time I'm out. The Trojan War is right there at the horizon of Western collective memory. A few more generations back and even the Greeks had no idea of what their tribal ancestors were really all about.
Regarding Hamilton, I've recently read (somewhere) that he was actually aspiring to be king of America, and is basically responsible for engineering America's downward spiral into the cut-throat aspects of free market capitalism... But if that's not the case in that book, let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 30, 2010 11:00:22 GMT -5
That's a gross overstatement of Hamilton and any ambitions he may have had. He really never aspired to public office and several times left political appointments to resume his law practice in order to pay his bills. This is the kind of charge that was made against him repeatedly by his enemies, who feared the idea of banks or people earning money by any means other than physical work, such as loans and financing. He created the 1st Bank of the United States, which many of that generation feared and distrusted, but which Hamilton thought essential to a modern nation. Hamilton also admired the British economic and political system, despite the war for independence from England, in which he had fought. He also was skeptical about the French and their revolution, which was very popular in the United States for a tiime, especially with Jefferson. Some of Jefferson's writings actually remind me a bit of MaoTse Tung, believe it or not (the need for continual, bloody revolution). Both here and in McCullough's book on John Adams, Jefferson comes off as a bit of an underhanded weasel, schemer and hypocrite. He made a habit of hiding behind the scenes, while attacking his enemies underhandedly or through surrogates.
I still have not completely finished the book, but Hamilton comes across as a man of very strong ideas and principles, but also as one who is more than willing to compromise in order to move forward, even if he typically didn't get what he wanted. He wasn't crazy about the Constitution, but realized it was the best document that could be produced and fought hard for its ratification, writing the lion's share of the Federalist Papers himself. That document may be his most lasting legacy, along with the Constitution itself. He was prideful and somewhat vain, perhaps the most brilliant of the Founders (according to many of his contemporaries), and one who put his own ambitions second to those of the country. Washington trusted him more than most of his fellow Founders and admired him. They shared many views in common, including misgivings about foreign entanglements. Hamilton, for example, saw no obligation to back the French revolutionary government, the Jacobins, just because King Louis 16th had backed the American colonies during the Revolution. First, Hamilton noted, the alliance had been with the French crown, not the Jacobins and, second, France didn't help the colonies out of the goodness of its heart, but rather to advance its own interests vis-a-vis Britain.
I also have Chernow's huge bio of Hamilton, which I have not had the courage to begin yet, but after reading Brookhiser's brief account, I am curious enough about Hamilton to take that one on as well.
Allen
P.S. I left out one of the more important aspects of Hamilton's views, which brought him into conflict with Jefferson and others; he favored a strong national army and active central government. Fear of those things was common among the Revolutionary generation, which had fought to rid the land of British troops and government by a monarch. Suggestions of activist central government would continue to raise concerns about despotism and monarchy for many years to come, certainly well into the Jackson era. Naturally, those who were most vehemently opposed to these ideas, including Jefferson, saw Hamilton as a threat and a closet monarchist, but Hamilton's views were motivated entirely by his political philosophy and what he thought essential to a lasting nation, rather than one that was doomed to failure and disintegration.
|
|
|
Post by Donald Hash on May 2, 2010 22:32:37 GMT -5
Growing up, Hamilton was second and tied with Mrs. Adams... right there beneath Thomas Jefferson on my list of favorite Revolutionists (Okay, not counting John Lennon). He still is.
I forget the anti-Hamilton article I read somewhere, but I recall now - I think - that he was mentioned in the "Zeitgeist" documentary about capitalism. The whole bank situation, economic meltdown, fillibustering baby-boomers, seemed to have sprung from his genius... But like all writers and documentarians, they each have their agendas and their axes to grind.
I never considered Jefferson along the lines of Chairman Mao when it comes to continual revolution... Because I never took Jefferson to literally mean "go grab a musket and overthrow the government"... But now that you mention it... It's something for me to reconsider!
Your reply to my question is very, very well-written. It makes me want to go out and buy a Hamilton biography. I already have "The Federalist Papers".
Thank you!
Donald
P.S. - In middle school (early 90's) my history teacher asked the class, "Who shot Alexander Hamilton?" One of the smarter (and sarcastic) girls in my class raised her hand and said, "Raymond Burr." Everyone snickered and the teacher shook her head, "No, Perry Mason did not shoot Alexander Hamilton."
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 2, 2010 23:33:10 GMT -5
Thanks for the nice compliment, Donald; I'd recommend this Brookhiser short bio on Hamilton as a start; then you can see if you want to go into his career in more detail. I was surprised at how little I knew about him and how much he is kind of a "lost founder" among the more often noted people of that generation (Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin, et al). I may have overstated things with the Mao reference, but at times I get that weird feeling about Jefferson. He seems to have been more comfortable with "The Terror" in France than most American leaders. In many ways, Hamilton struck me as a more hard-headed realist than Jefferson.
I'm surprised that your clever classmate didn't state her answer as "Isn't it TRUE that is was Raymond Burr???"
Allen
|
|