The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Ghost on the Throne
ROMAN EMPIRE -THE HISTORY...
>
SPOTLIGHTED BOOK - GHOST ON THE THRONE- Week Two - July 20th - July 27th, 2020 - 2. The Testing of Perdiccas (pages 34 - 56) No Spoilers, please
Mod
The second week's reading assignment is:
WEEK TWO - July 20th - July 26th -> 2. The Testing of Perdiccas (34 - 56)
Chapter Overview and Summary
Chapter 2
The day following Alexander’s death, there was a meeting of high officers in the throne room at Babylon, led by Perdiccas, who had received Alexander’s ring from him. Alexander’s body was there, lying in state, and the throne was decked with several of his royal items, including the ring, as though he were presiding over the meeting. They were there to decide who was to succeed Alexander. One possibility was Alexander’s and Rhoxane’s unborn child, another was a 4-year old illegitimate son, and a third was Alexander’s half-brother Arrhidaeus. The problem with the latter choice is that he was mentally incompetent. The council settled on the first choice, with a group of four high-level guardians for the infant (assuming it was a boy).
Most of the council were cavalry officers and lately the cavalry and the much more numerous infantry had been at odds. The infantry, led by Meleager, were for Arrhidaeus (now named Philip III), and stormed the throne room, driving out the cavalry officers. Meleager tried to have Perdiccas arrested but the attempt failed. Ultimately Perdiccas and Meleager came to a compromise, with Philip as king and the baby would be a second king.
Perdiccas still needed to deal with the mutinous army, so he arranged for a ritual called a lustration, where the cavalry and infantry would meet on a field for a mock battle. Perdiccas and King Philip demanded the leading infantry mutineers, who were killed. Meleager fled to a temple, but was dragged out and killed. Finally, Perdiccas and Rhoxane arranged to have Alexander’s other two wives killed so there would be no dispute over Alexander’s offspring.
Now that Perdiccas was totally in charge, he assigned each of the Bodyguards to different parts of the empire, to act as satraps, or provincial governors, while he remained in Babylon as custodian of the joint kings and commander of the royal army.
Mod
Alexander the Great's Cavalry
Discussion Topics and Questions:
1. Why were the cavalry and infantry at odds? Was it just a matter of class - ordinary men vs. aristocrats?
2. Alexander's mixing of Asian soldiers with his Macedonian army doesn't seem well thought out. Could they even speak each other's language?
3. Would the two-kings arrangement even have worked? Philip III had no ideas of his own, nor would the baby have had. It would all depend on how their respective guardians could get along.
Mod
I think the reason I posed this question is because of the way the Romans originally set up their army. The equestrians, or equites, were a separate class, based on wealth. Loosely, you got in that class if you were wealthy enough to own a horse, but not wealthy enough to be in the Senate. I'm not sure it the same type of requirements were used by Alexander.
Vicki, didn’t the British have something of the same arrangement in the 18th and 19th centuries? The cavalry regiments required young men with the long purses, because you had to purchase and maintain horses. The infantry didn’t have quite the same cachet or prestige, or require as large an expenditure. Plus, when you decided to leave, you sold out of your commission, and again the cavalry men could sell for more money.Regards,
Andrea
1. Why were the cavalry and infantry at odds? Was it just a matter of class - ordinary men vs. aristocrats?I think it is a common theme across cultures and ages, cavalry is more elite and traditionally manned by men of wealth, especially nobility.
Let's not forget that very few regions in Greece have plains big enough to sustain cavalry of any considerable size, Macedon being one of them, accentuating the problem.
Moreover, the tactical differences in combat meant that it was not easy to forge links between the two corps. And Alexander was more often than not leading the cavalry into glory, leaving the infantry phalanxes to do much of the less glorious, more tiresome grinding.
2. Alexander's mixing of Asian soldiers with his Macedonian army doesn't seem well thought out. Could they even speak each other's language?That's an interesting question. Of course, it wouldn't be necessary for the rank and file to understand each other as long as their officers could communicate. And in Alexander's era greek wasn't totally unknown to the ruling classes of Persia.
Also in all probability, we don't talk about mixed units. I think the most likely is that at unit level men were from the same region (a practice holding well up to the modern age) and their commanders would have more or less working knowledge of each others' language.
Besides, training to fight together is actually the most important thing. Verbal communication in the heat of the battle would be futile in any case and horns, colours etc, commonly used to convey orders, speak a universal language.
3. Would the two-kings arrangement even have worked? Philip III had no ideas of his own, nor would the baby have had. It would all depend on how their respective guardians could get along.No, never! I can't think of any such successful arrangement in history. This was just a compromise reached in order to avoid the greater evil of loosing everything. It is one of those compromises that just put things on hold until a crisis passes and each party prepares to settle things to their benefit when the opportunity arises.
3. Would the two-kings arrangement even have worked? Philip III had no ideas of his own, nor would the baby have had. It would all depend on how their respective guardians could get along.I don't think it would have. To me was Perdiccas plan of succession that was the soundest. Not only was he appointed to take Hephaestion’s place but he was passed the singet ring from Alexander and thought to wait for a legitimate heir! Appoiting the mentally underdevelpoed half brother as king who would need a guardian made no sense.
Michael wrote: "2. Alexander's mixing of Asian soldiers with his Macedonian army doesn't seem well thought out. Could they even speak each other's language?That's an interesting question. Of course, it wouldn't ..."
I think it's pretty common to mix people in battles. During the American Revolution the British used Hessians who spoke German mostly. They were ruthless in battle.
1. Why were the cavalry and infantry at odds?I think that Alexander may have contributed to this as well. On page 46, Romm writes "Alexander had routinely promoted those he cherished from infantry to cavalry, leaving the former feeling passed over and estranged from their higher ups."
1. Why were the cavalry and infantry at odds? Was it just a matter of class - ordinary men vs. aristocrats?From what I read in this chapter I believe it had a lot to do with difference of opinions in regards to Alexander’s choice to bring in Asian soldiers. There seems to be a huge dispute as many still saw them as enemies not fellow comrades.
2. Alexander's mixing of Asian soldiers with his Macedonian army doesn't seem well thought out. Could they even speak each other's language?
Probably not. Language barriers are a big reason, and probably obvious reason, for miscommunication.
3. Would the two-kings arrangement even have worked? Philip III had no ideas of his own, nor would the baby have had. It would all depend on how their respective guardians could get along.
It would have to had come down to the guardians. From what I understand Philip III had a mental disorder and basically just went along with whatever paper was put in front of him making him easily controllable. A baby is a baby and is most certainly not capable of ruling.
Glynn wrote: "I think it's pretty common to mix people in battles. During the American Revolution the British used Hessians who spoke German mostly. They were ruthless in battle."Yes, indeed it is, in fact British forces at Waterloo was actually a mix of nationalities. However what I am saying (and holds true in most conflicts) is that each unit was nationally homogeneous more or less. Par example Hessians soldiers fought in their own regiments not mixed in British ones.
Mod
That's an interesting question. Of course, it wouldn't be necessary for the rank and file to understand each other as long as their officers could communicate..."
You're probably right about this, Michael. Although Romm does say on p. 41, "He had formed a new phalanx, in their eyes a grotesque hybrid, made up of only one Macedonian for every three barbarians." But the men in the phalanx probably wouldn't need to communicate with each other, having gotten their orders from their commander.
1. Why were the cavalry and infantry at odds? Was it just a matter of class - ordinary men vs. aristocrats?The bring your own horse thing probably made it a class thing from the start, but Alexander made it even more so. He rode with the cavalry. Infantry leaders were rewarded by promotion to cavalry. Nothing the other direction. Alexander’s best friend was “head of the first squadron of the elite Companion cavalry” (Romm, 39) and was chiliarch. This passed to Perdiccas. Meleager was loved by the infantry because he never went to the cavalry. He was the exception. If nothing else, if I had to walk from Europe to the Indus, I would have hard feelings toward people who had a ride.
2. Alexander's mixing of Asian soldiers with his Macedonian army doesn't seem well thought out. Could they even speak each other's language?
I’m going with Michael on this. Mixing cultures and languages within a single unit was probably a noble but bad idea.
3. Would the two-kings arrangement even have worked? Philip III had no ideas of his own, nor would the baby have had. It would all depend on how their respective guardians could get along.
If there was a single regent for both, it might work until Alexander’s son was old enough to kill Philip III. Until then, there would be people trying to kill both kings and/or the regent.
Sorry I didn’t participate more last week. Discovered my browser was only showing some of the posts. Changed browsers and boom. Michael, thanks for getting back to me on whether
Greeks today were familiar with Alexander’s companions. Americans aren’t much different. A lot of us think Ben Franklin was a President.
Good Morning, Bill! the Roman Empire was a dual monarchy for some time. Remember Constantine and his co-rulers? It works well until a “strong man” shows up.Regards,
Andrea
P.S. I’m struggling with my library to get a copy of this book, so I’m flying blind here.
Mod
Michael, thanks for getting back to me on whether
Greeks today were..."
Glad you were able to finally get in, Bill. Thanks for your comments. I get what you mean about walking to India. Plus there were a bunch of fights along the way.
Bill wrote: "Sorry I didn’t participate more last week. Discovered my browser was only showing some of the posts. Changed browsers and boom. Michael, thanks for getting back to me on whether
Greeks today were..."
No worries Bill! Glad to have you back!
In fact I will be mostly offline for the next ten days or so.
I will pop up for short comments when able.
Andrea wrote: "Good Morning, Bill! the Roman Empire was a dual monarchy for some time. Remember Constantine and his co-rulers? It works well until a “strong man” shows up.Regards,
Andrea
P.S. I’m struggling with..."
Well that didn't work very well for the Roman Empire in the end too, since it was practically split in Western and Eastern Roman Empire, a source of many problems in the centuries to follow. (Eastern Roman Empire is known to us as the Byzantine Empire although they themselves never stopped calling and thinking themselves as Romans down to the last Emperor Constantine XI)
A couple of quick thoughts in response to the comments above. (1) In 327 BCE (4 years before he died), Alexander recruited 30,000 Persian youngsters (for some reason they were called "successors") and left's them behind to be trained in Macedonian military tactics and taught Greek. The youngster were ready for active service 2 years later. There was nothing noble about this experiment by Alexander; it was dictated by necessity. His army was subject to constant attrition as a result of combat casualties, sickness, desertion, and the need to leave behind garrisons at strategic locations. It was becoming more and more difficult to obtain new recruits from Macedonia or the Greek mainland, which were running out of available manpower. The most obvious pool of new recruits were native youngsters. It was not about mixing nationalities; it was about finding able-bodied soldiers. (2) It's misleading to say that Alexander considered infantry second-class citizens. On the contrary, during his lifetime he made a concerted effort to cultivate his infantry veterans. Now, there was certainly an officer class from which came all of the top commanders for both infantry and cavalry. Most of this group of men were actually classmates of a 13-year-old Alexander at a prep school set up by his father Philip to prepare him for taking over as king. To furnish Alexander with companions, Philip invited members of Macedonian nobility to send their sons to this prep school. It was a small school, perhaps 20-25 students. As their teacher, Philip hired Aristotle. (Only the best of his son.) The amazing thing is how many of these classmates at Mieza became leading generals, including Hephaestion, Ptolemy, Perdiccas, Seleucus, Lysimachus, Cassander, and several others. But they served as commanders of both cavalry and infantry units and were occasionally moved back and forth. So, was there a class component? Certainly, these men were all sons of Macedonian nobility. (A notable exception was Eumenes, who was Greek and was brought in as a secretary and scribe but eventually became a military commander.) But does this explain all the strife covered in Romm's book? Not really. It's more complicated. Which is what makes the strife among the Successors such an interesting slice of history.Alex
Gentlemen, have you considered the problem that Alexander’s “Hellenism” later caused the Jewish “nation.” There were hellenised Jews and Pharisees, and to complicate things further, Sadducees. An excellent book covering the period between the “Testaments” (approximately 400 years) is “Mind the Gap.” I hope this isn’t a spoiler, but it all started with Alexander. (My library should come through eventually.)Regards,
Andrea
by Matthias Henze (no photo)
Alexander wrote: "A couple of quick thoughts in response to the comments above. (1) In 327 BCE (4 years before he died), Alexander recruited 30,000 Persian youngsters (for some reason they were called "successors") ..."That's a great insight in the matter Alex! It seems you know the history of the period very well indeed.
I agree with your analysis on the necessities of replacements and indeed it was the "class of Alexander" that came to share the world between them.
Andrea wrote: "Gentlemen, have you considered the problem that Alexander’s “Hellenism” later caused the Jewish “nation.” There were hellenised Jews and Pharisees, and to complicate things further, Sadducees. An e..."Now that's something I am unaware of! I know one of the first translations of the New Testament was compiled in Alexandria but I didn't think of any further complications! I'll try and locate the book you mention.
And, Michael, guess what? The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, was also compiled in Alexandria!!!The plot thickens ...
Regards,
Andrea
by Anonymous (no photo)
Alexander, wonderful post. Thanks. Using Persians to replenish fallen troops fits in with my perception of Alexander as a conqueror rather than an aspirational social activist. Even though Alexander respected the value of the infantry, they may still have felt second rate—correctly or incorrectly.Andrea, you are right about Romans sharing power. I forgot about the Romans. They also tried to do it in the republic with the 1st and 2nd triumvirates. These were always sharing by powerful men. Alexander’s son and Philip III were not powerful. The power would rest with Perdiccas who, I assume, had no intention of sharing.
Andrea wrote: "And, Michael, guess what? The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, was also compiled in Alexandria!!!The plot thickens ...
Regards,
Andrea
b..."Oh yes, the famous "translation of the seventy" (seventy is Ο in ancient Greek notation) giving rise to the issue of virginity.
Mod
Alex, very interesting note about training the 30,000 Persian youth. Alexander really knew how to plan ahead. It sounds like you have good background knowledge on Alexander, looking forward to your further posts.
Mod
Of course, nether triumvirate lasted. Number 1 ended up with Crassus killed in Syria and Caesar and Pompey waging war against each other. And number 2 didn't work out much better, although Lepidus was allowed to just fade away, rather than being killed. Octavian's war with Antony was the basis for much literature. The Romans weren't very good at power sharing.
Mod
Division of the Empire of Alexander the Great
Discussion Topics and Questions:
4. Why was Arrhidaeus, Philip II’s other son, in Babylon, along with the generals and advisors? He had no advice to give or any plans to propose, given his mental state. Wouldn’t it have made more sense for him to be back in Macedonia?
5. What do you think of the ritual called a lustration? How would cutting a dog in two and dragging the halves to the sides of the field purify the army?
6. What do you think of the division of the empire into the various provinces, each with its own satrap or governor? Ptolemy seems to have gotten the best piece, Egypt being rich and peaceful.
Vicki, wasn’t there a Roman ceremony (I’ve forgotten what it was called) that halved an animal (a crow?) before a battle to practice divination? There are several pre-battle practices for ensuring a good outcome for the army. For instance, in the book of Samuel I believe, the Israelites bring the Ark of the Covenant into the camp to ensure victory over the Philistines. It doesn’t work and the Ark is captured!Regards,
Andrea
(Zondervan)
4. Why was Arrhidaeus, Philip II’s other son, in Babylon, along with the generals and advisors? He had no advice to give or any plans to propose, given his mental state. Wouldn’t it have made more sense for him to be back in Macedonia?I will foolishly answer before Alexander. Why leave someone in Macedonia who might be used by someone powerful to challenge Alexander in his own country? Alexander was gone for something like a decade and had no plans to return.
5. What do you think of the ritual called a lustration? How would cutting a dog in two and dragging the halves to the sides of the field purify the army?
I don’t think much of it and it wouldn’t purify anything, but the troops believed it would and that would make them more confident in battle.
6. What do you think of the division of the empire into the various provinces, each with its own satrap or governor? Ptolemy seems to have gotten the best piece, Egypt being rich and peaceful.
Was Egypt considered the best piece at that time? Not sure. It certainly turned out to be. Dividing the empire between governors would make it more efficient but create risk of war between satraps or overthrow of Perdiccas. Perdiccas needs to make sure he has power to control governors. Apparently, he didn’t.
Mod
I wouldn't be surprised, although I'm not up on Roman purification or divination rituals. There were so many.
Mod
I think you're right, Bill. Alexander would want to keep an eye (and hand) on Arrhidaeus, who might be used by someone who could undermine Alexander.
I wonder why Philip had only 2 sons. His Wikipedia article lists 7 wives, although without dates. You'd think there would have been more offspring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_...
Vicki,Children had a bad habit of dying very young, and wives were expendable and also prone to die in childbirth!Regards,
Andrea
Vicki wrote: "I wonder why Philip had only 2 sons. His Wikipedia article lists 7 wives, although without dates. You'd think there would have been more offspring."Yes, Philip had a total of 7 wives and 7 children -- 4 girls and 3 boys. He had a daughter named Cynane with wife no.1 -- she'll play a role later on. No offspring from no.2. No.3 was the mother of the half-wit Arrhidaeus. No.4, Olympias, was the most famous of them all. She was the mother of Alexander and Cleopatra. No.5 died shortly after giving birth to a daughter named Thessalonike. Interestingly, Olympias brought up Thessalonike as her own daughter. Thessalonike figures in later history, to the point of having a city named after her. No offspring from no.6. No.7 had two children, a girl named Europa (no, the continent was not named after her) and a boy named Caranus.
Now, here is the really interesting story (and it's all true, at least according to one of our sources, Justin). Philip was assassinated in 336 BCE. The assassin was killed in turn immediately afterward, before he could talk. As a result, conspiracy theories have flourished ever since. One theory is that Olympias had something to do with it, because young Caranus, who was just an infant, was a potential rival to her son Alexander. So, shortly after Philip was removed from the scene, Olympias burst into the rooms of wife no.7, accompanied by some guards; she personally murdered the two little kids, Europa and Caranus, in front of their mother's eyes; and then, she handed a rope to no.7 and left her there. No.7 was found hanging in her room the next morning. [Full disclosure: We do not know for sure that all this happened. After the Successors finished their fighting (about which I won't say anything) Olympias ended up getting a very bad press, so we have to view these stories with some skepticism.]
Whatever you may think of Olympias, she is arguably the first great female personality, for whom we have actual historical documentation, to emerge from this ancient misogynistic era.
Alexander and Vicki, why am I reminded so forcefully of Robert Graves’ book, “I, Claudius?”Regards,
Andrea
by
Robert Graves
Well, for one thing, Claudius was taken by everyone to be a half-wit as well, although, as we know, he really wasn't. For another, he lived during another murderous era that gave rise to a lot of great stories.BTW, for anyone who has not read "I, Claudius," rush out there and read it right after your current book. It is one of the great historical fiction books of all time.
Another good post Alexander. Thanks. I’d read somewhere about Olympias killing a child that could rival Alexander’s claim, but not the details. One of those stories that ought to be true.
Gentlemen, why were these men, almost to a man, so blood-thirsty, paranoid, and ruthless? Yet, Greek and Persian cultures were supposed to be the ne plus ultra of their day.Regards,
Andrea
I can’t answer your question. Having said that, I think it’s only the men we read about. There were still men in Macedonia—farmers, shepherds, fathers, etc.—who were not blood-thirsty and ruthless—unless their actual home or land were threatened. One of the benefits of taking an army elsewhere is that it gets all of that testosterone out of the country. This was one of the “benefits” of the crusades. I also read where a US WW2 general said that the North Africa campaign taught Americans to hate their enemy. They weren’t good fighters until then. Part of your answer might be because the enemy taught them to hate. Who taught who first we don’t know.
Mod
Alexander, thanks for the details about Philip's wives and progeny. It sounds like we don't know for sure what happened to Caranus. Olympias is definitely an interesting character, we're going to read much more about her in this book.
Aaaarrrrggghh, Vicki, I’m still waiting on my Library to acquire a copy of the book. It has been recommended, but, poor things, they’re under-staffed.Regards,
Andrea
Mod
Regards,
Andrea"
So sorry, Andrea. All our libraries are having trouble lately. Ours only opened up for picking up reserved books a couple weeks ago. I had to pry open my wallet and buy a copy.
message 45:
by
Vicki, Assisting Moderator - Ancient Roman History
(last edited Jul 25, 2020 04:49PM)
(new)
-
rated it 3 stars
Mod
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/110...
ETA: I just went back to the Google page and was able to find what looks like the full article here:
https://archive.hshsl.umaryland.edu/b...
Vicki,.how macabre! Shades of Lenin, Stalin, and Evita! Who’s the barbarian???Regards,
Andrea
I know, I'm late to the party... but mixing soldiers has worked successfully even earlier. A good chunk of the army that Genghis Khan raised were from conquered people, and he too adopted many of the rituals of those conquered. Which has to make sense, you think, you have 1000's of original soldiers, but some do die (in battle, sickness, accidents, etc.), and if you conquer a place then move on to the next place, if you don't leave some behind, the conquered place eventually revolts... so you eventually have to replenish your army, and it just makes sense to add those who fought and lost to you to your army, just make sure that they are lead by a veteran. And Alexander went quite far, he had to replenish with that he had immediately available.
as for the duo-archy (haha), I totally understand their situation, as they did mention in the book, there really wasn't any good answer, and I assume even in the duo-archy, it really would be lead by the 7 (or some fraction of them, with Perdiccas as the lead 'advisor'. I'm sure this has happened before, if a king dies too young, his child too young to lead, so... child is king in name only until he reaches of age. we know it has happened later. but yeah, it's kicking that can down the road since 'phillip' is simply incapable of leading.
As for separating the kingdom into pieces, lots have tried though, but inevitably, they end up attacking each other. I think only Clovis (merovingian king) was able to do it, his 4 sons who each inherited what they thought was an equal slice of the kingdom did it, probably because they had common enemies. but his grandkids all ended up warring against each other... happened with Shah Jahan, the emperor who built the Taj Mahal, his sons deposed him, then went to war against each other...
by John Gifford (no photo)and
by
John Keay
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The History of France, Volume I (other topics)The History of France, Volume I (other topics)
India: A History (other topics)
Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (other topics)
I, Claudius (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
John Gifford (other topics)John Keay (other topics)
John Gifford (other topics)
Jack Weatherford (other topics)
Robert Graves (other topics)
More...
Hello Everyone,
For the week of July 20th - July 26th, we are reading Chapter 2: The Testing of Perdiccas of Ghost On the Throne by James Romm.
The second week's reading assignment is:
WEEK TWO - July 20th - July 26th -> 2. The Testing of Perdiccas (34-56)
We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.
This book was kicked off July 13th.
We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.
There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.
Vicki Cline will be moderating this selection.
Welcome,
~Bentley
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL
REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.
Notes:
It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.
Citations
If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.
Here is the link to the thread titled Mechanics of the Board which will help you with the citations and how to do them.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Also, the citation thread:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Introduction Thread
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Table of Contents and Syllabus
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Glossary
Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.
Here is the link:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Bibliography
There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author may have used in his research or in her notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations or other books either non fiction or historical fiction that relate to the subject matter of the book itself. No self promotion, please.
Here is the link:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - Spoiler Thread
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...