Adding to all the excellent answers here, there were also cases like that of Charles VI of France, who ascended the throne at the age of 11 in 1380. However, he was regulated to the position of a regent by his uncles who called most of the shots in how things were done. He had a very hard time, even after coming of age, asserting his position as the monarch. He eventually did, though that was also debilitated by the madness that seized him in later years.

Interesting question honestly. You got to wonder what was going through a noble's mind when he saw that the heir was young, sick, or mad. They respected traditions but they were also pragmatic enough to see that there were ways of working around an invalidated monarch.

Pax Romana by Adrian Goldsworthy looks at this very question. Been a long while since I read it but I think his conclusion was that the pax Romana was a relatively peaceful and stable period compared to what had come before and after. That said, this does have to be measured against what was done to achieve it. Roman conquest could be incredibly brutal and they had no compunctions about wiping out entire people groups, enslaving and/or relocating them, and colonizing their own people. The period was also marked by a number of wars and rebellions but, comparatively speaking, these were pretty minor and very localized. Within a couple generations of conquest, most people had learned to accept Roman overlordship and focused their efforts on moving up in the hierarchy.

Prisoners of Geography by Tim Marshall, very readable and informative. You can really see how much of an impact geography has had on the formation of nation states and their notions of 'national interest.'

American History X isn't aimed at the worst sorts of bigots, from what I've heard a lot of them completely miss the point of it. Instead, it's aimed at non-extremist people who might find themselves slipping into hatred of some kind, be it against a minority for racist reasons, or a whole nation or culture due to nationalist reasons. Hate is something that only gets worse the more you feed it and that's what you see with Derick's character. He doesn't change until he finally comes to the realization that his hate has consumed him and destroyed his life and that of his family for no gain whatsoever. That's the central message of the movie, and you don't need to be a KKK member to get some value out of that message.

Similarly, I don't expect that the documentary Jihad Rehab will ever magically make a terrorist see the error of his ways, or that the movie Walking Up Dead will make a committed transphobe gay person see how wrong they've been. That's ok. But perhaps both films can ignite discussion among those who never knew of these issues or make them reflect on some of their own failings. Of course, no one has to watch these if they don't want to, but I find it a bit absurd if someone says they won't see it because they don't agree with the views of the protagonist.

>I mean the first thing they cite here is a movie about a transphobic gay guy. Big fat shock that nobody wanted to watch it.

Haven't seen the movie myself, but based on what the article said about it, this character starts out initially as transphobic. By the sounds of it, the movie is an attempt to explore this idea of transphobia in the gay community, it's not necessarily endorsing it but asking the audience to reflect on it and, perhaps, come to terms with a difficult subject that not many people like to talk about. That's what any great work of art should aim to do, challenge the viewer by giving them a new perspective on something or bringing an important topic to their attention.

Let's take American History X as an example. It's a movie about a literal neo-nazi, showing his journey into hate and how any human heart can be corrupted by excessive anger and the need for easy answers. It then show's his journey out of that and his attempt to make things right. It's perhaps one of the most provocative and hard-hitting movies ever made, as it makes a viewer question whether there is anything in their own heart that is holding them back or making their life harder than it needs to be. Now, if someone doesn't want to watch this movie simply because of a gut-reaction to it's subject line, then that is their choice, but I also think they're being really foolish. They're judging the film without knowing anything about it, thinking it's endorsing neo-nazi beliefs when in actuality its demolishing them.

If we only ever made "safe" movies where no one's world views are ever questioned and no difficult or complex topics are ever tackled, then this would a very sterile world.

Sounds really interesting. I haven't touched Napoleonic history in a long time but that's definitely something that would add a lot of detail that isn't normally covered. If you're interested in the Egyptian campaign then I would highly recommend Napoleon in Egypt by Paul Strathem.

There's a lot of great history YouTube channels out there but, in my experience, the best ones are those who niche down and can really get into the meat of a topic or era. What historical periods are you interested in?

For instance, I really like early modern Europe history (16th to 17th century) and SandRhoman History is really great for that. The Historian's Craft is also great if you love classical (Greek & Roman history).

Yeah, I've read Empire of the Sea and loved it, guy's got a real knack for making history come alive. Still have yet to check out Conquerors and his book on Venice, which I've also heard good stuff about.

It's hardly a little-known topic, but i really loved Constantinople: The Last Great Siege, 1453 by Rodger Crowley. It truly was an epic battle and Crowley's writing makes it come alive in such a way that you almost feel like you're there watching it happen.

Any books on any lesser known conflicts? Think I can help with that:

- China's War with Japan 1937-1945 by Rana Mitter (currently reading this one right now)

- The Opium war by Julia Lovell

- The Boys of '67: Charlie Company's War in Vietnam by Andrew Wiest

- The Last Mughal, The fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857 by William Dalrymple

- Pol Pot: The History of a Nightmare by Philip Short (despite what's implied by the name, this one is closer to being a history of Cambodia in the lead up to and during the Khmer Rouge regime)

- The Korean War by Max Hastings

- Europe's Tragedy: A History of the 30 Years War by Peter H. Wilson (a fascinating, though ponderous book at times to get through)

- The Cage: The Fight for Sri Lanka and the Last Days of the Tamil Tigers by Gordon Weiss

- Blood and Sand: Suez, Hungary, and the Crisis that Shook the World by Alex von Tunzelmann

Looking for any book recommendations on the history of China from the First Opium War until the end of the cultural revolution. I'm particularly interested in anything on the political development of China, how it developed a more cohesive national identity, how it modernized, how it adapted to a more expanded world view and the arrival of foreign concepts and ideas.

More specifically, I would love to find more information (be it books, essays or anything at all) on the war lord's period, or really just anything from the revolution of 1911 until the war with Japan. Most of the books I have found on this era are out of print and/or ludicrously overpriced.

The Pursuit of Power: Europe 1815-1914, by Richard J. Evans

>Similarly, does anyone know any good political histories for late c19th European countries, esp. France Germany and Italy? I’m talking about proper high politics, prime ministers and elections etc

It's not specifically focused on that period but Diplomacy, by Henry Kissinger has a chapter that goes in great depth on the high politics of that era. Highly recommended.

> I think I recall hearing somewhere that the Nationalists hit the Japanese in Shanghai specifically to overextend them, but if someone can speak to that with more authority I would appreciate it.

By no means an expert, but I'm currently reading China's War with Japan 1937 to 1945, by Rana Mitter, and that's pretty much what the author said about the battle of Shanghai, it was an additional front to tie up the Japanese and show them that China was prepared to fight. This was important because the Japanese were already advancing rapidly in the north. Chang clearly put a lot of importance on the Shanghai front since he committed his best trained troops to it, and they took appalling loses.

What was most interesting for me to learn is that the Japanese, after the Marco Polo Bridge incident, were not expecting much resistance and thought it would be a repeat of when they seized Manchuria without a fight. That China resisted really baffled and surprised them. They didn't even formally declare war on China. In fact, as late as the fall of Nanjing, the war was still being referred to in Japanese circles as "The China Incident." Chinese resistance and the loses they were inflicting on Japan also caused rage and anger among Japanese troops, which was likely a factor that caused the Rape of Nanjing.

Been a long time since i read it but The Pursuit of Glory by Tim Blanning does, iirc, touch on a lot of these things in the time period it covers, 1648 to 1815. I can distinctly remember some accounts of how god awful it was to travel by road in those days, and the impact mass printed newspapers and pamphlets on social interactions.

Granted, that's a bit before the time period you're looking but it could give you a good starting point.

The Ottoman massacres of the Bulgarians in the lead up to the Russo-Turkish War of 1877 were also widely reported on and caused outrage across Europe. Disraeli, an ardent believer in real politik, tried to calm some of these tempers and even tried to support the Ottomans diplomatically because he feared that a Russian attack would leave the Tsar's in control of the Bosporus Straits. For this Gladstone, tore into him and made Disraeli's position untenable.

Similarly, the first Opium War was widely condemned by the liberal press in Britain, as well as the opposition. Not that that did much good for China in the long run...

Fair point, been a while since I read the books so I thought most of what we get are outsider perspectives. The killing of sheep and their whole thing about them only eating horse meat is definitely stupid when you stop to think about it.

In addition, the leaders of the First Crusade deserve credit for (mostly) putting their differences aside and trying to work as a unified army. Bohemond, due to having the most war experience, was voted as the overall commander, but he still had to consult the other leaders when a big decision had to be made.

By contrast, a lot of later Crusades included several Kings with large egos that made it very difficult to work with one another. Of course, that's only one factor in why later Crusades failed. The Fourth Crusade, for all its twists and turns, showed remarkable cohesion and that may well be because it was a "Princes" crusades made up of Counts, Dukes, and whatnot that were prepared to fight under a single elected leader.

Armies eat through money like you wouldn't believe and before the rise of modern banking institutions, it was extremely difficult to raise funds for a protracted campaign. I don't know if Arab armies in this time differed much from Europeans in how they raised funds, but I can say that European rulers in the time of the Crusades had to go to extreme measures to get the necessary cash. This usually involved selling or loaning out their land to monasteries for a set number of years, selling titles, taking loans from Jewish moneylenders (or outright stealing it) and gathering whatever they could through new taxes. Even then, most Crusaders who came back alive tended to be near penniless.

I suppose you could argue that this view of the Dothraki in GRRM's works comes from the fact that we're usually getting an outsider's perspective on them. Of course they seem utterly barbaric to more "civilized" peoples because all they ever see is the violence and rape, never what goes on in the quieter moments.

That said, surly it can't be denied that nomadic tribes on the warpath could be utterly brutal. There's a reason why groups like the Mongol's had a fearsome reputation, they tended to make terrible examples of cities that defied them.