Hacker News Books

I haven't read Andrew Roberts's book but picked up and enjoyed an even more recent bio by Adam Zamoyski also titled Napoleon: A Life. It's much less focused on the military details and is framed more like the story of an ambitious Corsican family, centered on its very successful son.

That's the plot of GK Chesterton's Napoleon of Notting Hill. Also how some ancient Greek city states used to elect their leaders.

Labyrinth is indeed brilliant. The best wargames recreate history and suck you in. Twilight Struggle is another excellent example. But that's also the highest level of complexity I'll tolerate. Friends of mine enjoy the super detailed a rule for everything games but I think those are better left for the digital realm...just too fiddly for my taste.

I'm an avid gamer (>150 games in my collection) but I only own three war games. Twilight Struggle, Napoleon's Triumph and Maria. I'd recommend all of them :)

Andean Abyss is on my to buy list.

Edit:
Link to BGG, wargames only: http://boardgamegeek.com/wargames/browse/boardgame

"The Autobiography of Malcom X"

What a crazy life he led.

"Napoleon: A Life" - Andrew Roberts

A gigantic book that still felt rushed because of how much he did during his life.

"Babylon: Mesopotamia and the Birth of Civilization" Kriwaczek, Paul

Interesting introduction but I was hoping for more of a focus on a specific period of time. Instead if covers several thousand years of history.

"Buddhism Without Belief" - Stephen Bachelor

Meh.

"The Book of Magic: From Antiquity to the Enlightenment" - Copenhaver, Brian

"The Philosophy Book" - Will Buckingham

Great into to the history of Philosophy

"The Vindication of Man" by John C Wright

Great, great series.

Oh yeah, no disrespect to Napoleon or France. I have Andrew Roberts' Napoleon in my reading queue for later during this quarantine. I just meant that it represents a very foreign era relative to now, though maybe I should think of it as the start of the current era based on your comment.

I would recommend educating yourself on a contemporary Napoleon biography (I really loved Napoleon: A Life) before making such a strong claim. Napoleon is a very complex figure and your kind of blanket statement here is the kind I was rebelling against in my original comment.

The issue here is that writing a good account on Napoleon is very difficult. His enemies disseminated nonsense about him, and he was very careful about his public image even as a very young man.

I could get into the history: but Napoleon was fighting feudal leaders who aimed to restore the monarchy in France. They declared war on him many more times than he on them. The Napoleonic Code is one of the most influential documents in history and through it and Napoleon's influence helped spread the ideals of the French Revolution throughout Europe. Of course there are many negative things to say about Napoleon, but he is a very interesting person who deserves a look.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/we-better-off-napoleo...

Under a book on Napoleon, Sam Altman says:

> An incredible primary-source portrait on a brilliant (but obviously deeply flawed) individual.

What is the obviously deeply flawed characteristic about him that Altman is referring to? I read Napoleon: A Life a few years ago and found him fascinating with character flaws like every other human being, but nothing that particularly struck me as "deeply flawed."

I read Napoleon: A life - it was a great book with fascinating insights.

For example, Napoleon's first big break came not particularly from outstanding competence but because, in the midst of the french revolution, all reputable officers had fled for the hills in fear of getting guillotined. Napoleon was one of the only halfway competent officers still around in Paris, so they picked him for a mission where he performed heroically.

Additionally, the myth that Napoleon only slept for 4 hours a night is both true in false. It's literally true, but he was known for falling asleep in the middle of roundtable meetings, and all those who were afraid of him didn't dare wake him - so his lieutenants just sat in silence for an hour while he dozed off!

Lastly, his infamous defeat in Russia was initially a sound plan - he was going to capture Moscow and spend the winter there - and he actually defeated the Russian army in combat, forcing them into a retreat. What was incredibly audacious of the Russians was that they burned their own capital city to the ground in order to prevent Napoleon from wintering there, which was incredibly brutal and unexpected. It's like the modern equivalent of American military command nuking NYC to prevent its federal gold reserves from being taking.

Hey,

It depends a little bit on what you mean historical.

I am a great fan of Dan Carlin, who has a vibrant way to narrate history. His podcasts are the best but he also has books. I loved this one : https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49947205-the-end-is-alwa...

I try to read a book about all major powers from a few centuries back. The last one I read was about Hamilton (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16130.Alexander_Hamilton), which for non-americans is maybe less known than say lincoln.
Napoleon (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25637528-napoleon) or Churchill are other nice examples, because those are usually much more complex than history remembers them for :).

I'd love you to answer your own thread if you have suggestions, I'm searching for new ideas as well!

I am reminded of the apocryphal exchange between Napoleon Bonaparte and Pierre-Simon Laplace:

    Napoleon: M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this
              large book on the system of the universe, and
              have never even mentioned its Creator.

    Laplace: I had no need of that hypothesis.

I think there's a difference: the sentence is basically a reading list so you can get familiar with the school. You can't really read Napoleon or Caesar, because the first didn't write much, and the second only wrote PR fluff pieces.

Thinkers are influential to schools of thought in a way more concrete way than individuals are to the course of history. It's easy to imagine a modern world without Napoleon (the French army was already kicking ass before he turned up, even if he turned it up to 11). It's not easy to imagine modern philosophy turning out how it has without Kant.

I remember when reading "Napoleon: A Life" by Andrew Roberts, Napoleon wasn't a big fan of the base-10 metric system, but he figured it would be the best way to break with the hundreds of different measuring systems in place in France at the time, and enforce an empire-wide standard.

I much prefer base-12 or base-16 systems, especially when measuring and hanging drywall!

On the other hand, the British waited way to long (until 1971) to decimal-ize their currency. Before that the pound was made up of 240 pence.