Status Updates From The Book of Ancient Bastard...

Good to see him take time out of British history to mention the Borgia (even if he condensed all three into one entry), but skipping Mehmed and what he did to Constantinople is stupid.

Good to see him take time out of British history to mention the Borgia (even if he condensed all three into one entry), but skipping Mehmed and what he did to Constantinople is stupid.

Okay, I was mistaken, still connected to the British throne. I guess it was too daring to think of figures not directly connected to the western narrative.

Finally someone not connected to the British throne?! *gasp* Could it be?

There are better figures they could have picked than these worthless kings.

Crusader Kings. This book is very clearly focused on Western figures and no one else.

Up to the slew of church v king pissing matches that precede the Crusades.

If you’re going to reduce Justinian’s entire reign to the Nika Revolt, the least you could do is actually go over the event. Saying it was a sports riot at the hippodrome that he had to put down doesn’t even begin to cover it. Also, not mentioning Charlemagne was made Roman Emperor in a shifty deal with the church? For shame.

Passed the big names in Roman history and onto the minor ones. Shame everything is so abridged.

Now, that didn’t do Alcibiades justice at all. It skipped out the best parts.

Sargon the original Moses and Hammurabi the law-giver. Very much abridged entries in this one.