I've not tried those, I got £70 of Waterstone's voucher from my former colleagues when I was made redundant, spent most of it on books for mini-Orrible (baby books are more expensive than you may think!) and then decided to go for something I've not really got any knowledge of (BA Hons in Ancient istory and Archaeology, mainly on Western Roman Empire, I used to know a fair bit).

I really enjoyed Conn Iggledon's Wowman series and the Genghis series, the former spawned a Wowman army and I sure that a Mongol horde will follow :eh: I'm wondering which famous leader he'll do next - I hope he does more

Been reading too much history recently so now re-reading V for Vendetta for the umpteenth time.

I've dropped everything other than my trousers to read Beevor's new D-Day book. I didn't know that Eisenhower smoked 20 packets of fags a day...

He got a slapping for his comment about the Caen bombing being almost a war crime.

If I was being cynical, I'd suggest that the reason why historians do that now is to help sales in the wider European market. Hastings in his "Armageddon" book banged on at length about Dresden being a warcrime and it's now fashionable to accuse Churchill of warcrimes for ordering the sinking of the French fleet. Or maybe you just have to say something controversial - Beevor was slapped down by the Russians in respect of his last book, when he said the Red Army raped its way through Germany.

It seems like many authors have chosen to manufacture controversy (often with scant evidence) in order to sell books. Personally, I believe it's a poor substitute for writing talent and solid research. The mindset is "gotta sell books," even if maybe you should find a new line of work instead. btw, "smoking fags" has a dramatically different connotations over here.

Just finished Warfare in the Medieval World by Brian Carey, very good read, starts with the fall of the Roman Empire and analyses key battles up to and including the Thirty years War. He discusses the change of battlefield roles of heavy and light infantry and cavalry. Just started reading Poiters 1356 by Pen & Sword Press.

I'm sure he's correct - I was just mentioning the fact that the Russian ambassador to the UK spoke about it publicly, saying Beevor had dishonoured the brave men of the Red Army with his "claims".

Just finished a couple of Osprey Napoleonic infantry tactics books and am now reading the latest Wargames Illustrated.

I'm hoping to get Beevor's D-Day book for my birthday next week. In my experience most of these 'controversies' are a load of old bollocks usually whipped up by the media. In Beevors case I think it was the article in BBC History mag that was the culprit. He points out that what happened at Caen can be technically construed as a war crime in the modern sense (which is correct) and counter-productive from a military point of view (also correct). I don't have much of a problem with people pointing out Allied 'war crimes' as long as they're put in the context of the wider war. How can you write a book about Berlin in 1945 without mentioning the rapine of Soviet troops anyway?