Is this the only historical fiction that's actually good? And in saying the I got bored and quit as soon as Sulla died

You're just jacking off. It's deep but it's not historical.

It's Tolkien's view on history. It's very much so historical. It's a view on cultural history, and the history of spirituality, not so much a 1:1 event history.

>actually reading historical fiction
Seriously kill yourself.

>Is this the only historical fiction that's actually good?
Wtf, no. Ever read Mika Waltari?

Tolkien was a total Ameriboo.

History is actual real world events. Tolkiens stories are not set in expies of the real world, and therefore, it isn't historical fiction.

PS. James Michener is pretty good.

Robert E Howards world is far superior.

Perhaps I just have lower standards than you, since I happily read all seven books without getting bored, but have a few of my faves:
- Aubrey-Maturin series, by Patrick O'Brian
- I, Claudius and Count Belisarius by Robert Greaves
- Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel

Also have a few much less literary but still quite fun series:
- Cicero trilogy by Robert Harris
- Sharpe series by Bernard Cornwell (the only work of his I actually enjoy)
- Bolitho novels by Douglas Reeman
- Ramage series by Dudley Pope
- Warrior of Rome novels by Harry Sidebottom

And don't forget about period novels. Their authors obviously didn't mean them as "historical" fiction, but centuries later from our perspective, that's exactly what they are.
Jane Austen and Giovanni Verga ought to be read by everybody.

Ever read any of Harry Turtledove's books? He covers a lot of topics, with varying degrees of historicity. My personal favorite of his is Timeline-191, a series where the confederacy wins the civil war with help from Great Britain and France. It doesn't actually cover the civil war, instead going on from it's end to the end of alt-ww2. It's breddy gud and about as historically accurate as you can make such a scenario.

The only problem are the cringey sex scenes, but if you can get past them you'll enjoy it.

I read Hellenic Traders, which was meh. Most of his work is althis, which I can't abide.

Oh, sorry, I guess I misunderstood what genre you were looking for. Alternate History and Historical Fiction sound a lot alike, both in terms of name and definition.

>which I can't abide

Any particular reason why?

If you like alternate history try out any of the Harry Turtledove novels. I'd highly recommend the southern victory series.

>Sharpe series
>Being this much of a pleb

>missing the point
You see, it represents, as I said earlier, our cultural history and out spiritual history, relating to Germanic and Nordic regions. Saying it's not history when it explicitly is doesn't make you correct. It makes you an idiot.

Shakespeare, user.

>our cultural history and out spiritual history, relating to Germanic and Nordic regions. Saying it's not history when it explicitly is doesn't make you correct. It makes you an idiot.
Listen, I love Tolkien, too, but it's literally not history. Those things didn't happen and Tolkien doesn't claim that they did.
"Cultural and spiritual history" are not real history.
You are stupid.

>"Cultural and spiritual history" are not real history.

hahaha right. A regions culture doesn't have history neither does the evolution of spirituality, art or even thought. It's not history cause elves n shiet.

Saxon Tales/The Last Kingdom series is pretty good

>his·to·ry
>ˈhist(ə)rē/Submit
>noun

>the study of past events, particularly in human affairs

>culture, art and spirituality are not human affairs
K

elves and made up worlds are not

>It's not history cause elves n shiet.

correct

All literature 'represents' shit, it doesn't make it historical fiction. You're just smelling your own farts and purposely missing the point.

I got a hardon for Neil Stephenson's The Baroque Cycle. Would make a great movie to.

Except Tolkien work represents human culture and its history. I mean it's pretty obvious with the shifts of thought and consciousness from the first and third ages.

>All literature 'represents' shit
You could not be more right. But in saying this doesn't anywhere nearly refute the fact that Tolkien wrote his work as his own historical fiction, Arda is literally earth in a forgotten time period. Saying "no" doesn't do anything but prove how much of a fucking idiot you really are, see .

Sure The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings do not represent any real events in our history but the way they think, the way they act, how it all changes most certainly does. But of course, that would require reading to understand, and fuck reading, right?

by your logical every piece of fiction with even a little resemblance of human cultures represents history

>It's history cause maps n shiet.

Holy fuck are you almost me? Got quite bored as soon as Caesar is in Gaul, barely started Antony and Cleopatra and quite. Series made me the Sullaboo I am today.

I stand by the Anons who offer Ken Follett (I'm actually rereading Pillars of the Earth right now) and Gore Vidal's Julian. Gore Vidal's Creation is also great, and Mika Waltari's The Roman and The Egyptian. Crichton's The Great Train Robbery (great film too), and Leon Uris's Trinity.

Don't touch Conn Iggulden or Bernard Cromwell with a ten foot pole, fucking retarded messes.

>Don't touch Conn Iggulden or Bernard Cromwell with a ten foot pole, fucking retarded messes.
How so?

did Tolkien draw this map? I've never seen a map with the southern and eastern lands on them

I definitely read that first as Dank Land.

They're basically fantasy. I mean, the authors take such extreme liberties with the events, technology, personages, and daily lives of the respective time periods that it's like writing a book about Apollo 8 captained by Richard Nixon landing on Jupiter and finding aliens.

If it isn't literally something one could mistake fora version of a real historical event, it's not historical fiction. They're good book, Tolkien was a great writer, but it was based in a different world.
You're just giving Tolkien fans a bad name.

Not him but a lot of alt history stuff is too far fetched

Check out Steven Pressfields stuff, tides of war, gates of fire

Romance of the Three Kingdoms
If you don't read it in traditional Chinese you're a faggot

Eh, I'm not really a fan.

I liked Sharpe, but I think the TLK takes the worst aspects of Sharpe and ramps them up to 11. Uthred is so amazingly badass, without him the Danes would have conquered England years ago, he's so amazing he sleeps with basically every woman alive and he still gets around to shitting on Christians despite them being better than the Danes in almost every way.

I hate his books. The characters are boring, the main characters have the same politics as your average mid-2000s liberal and yet are somehow fine living in the Middle Ages where everyone else is a cheating scheming murdering pedophile priest merchant

Mary Renault gives a really vivid look at Ancient Greece and Alexander's life. The Last of the Wine and The Persian Boy are both really good, and don't be perturbed by her being a lesbian and the early LGBT crowd endorsing her--if anything, that's just a knee-jerk reaction on their part of her being a lesbian writer who was actually good. She did write a few pieces of fiction just for gays, but her historical fiction is smart and well written.

With the noble but fallen Aryan Atlantean civs which were ruined by reptilian Asians and ape like niggers? Howard's works often featured people literally devolving into those 'missing link type creatures. Read the unedited Bran Man Morn stories for full 19th century racist pulp.

I knew I couldn't be the only one who cringed at his virginesque deceptions of sex. Guns of the South was alot of fun but it was silly to the nth degree. I read the first few books of 191 but lost interest

>Stop liking things I don't like

The Aubrey-Maturin series which begins with master and commander is an EXCELLENT series of books and we'll researched to boot

>If it isn't literally something one could mistake fora version of a real historical event, it's not historical fiction
See
>>actually reading historical fiction
>Seriously kill yourself.

This is a retarded position to take and you only make your self look worse by attempting to defend it

Great argument senpai, calling me an idiot surely refutes the idea that Tolkien's work is a historical view on nordic culture and human thought.

Now I just do not know anymore. You understand there is a genre of mythological history? Books like the Shahnameh (and Tolkien) fit into this aspect. It's actual history, with mythological aspects mixed in. You've got no idea what you are saying. And again, why the fuck are you wanting to read fucking fake history? Are you a pleb?

Your position is literally, culture art and thought has no history, it's been the same and always will be the same, if that's not retarded I do not know what is.

Make an actual point, please.

So without any Veeky Forums faggotry, can anyone give me some pros and cons to Cornwell's various ancient Britain/saxon/viking series? I saw the first series of the TV adaptation, and thought... kind of interesting, but the books are probably better. Is that true?

Is Darkness at Noon historical fiction?

Get on my level

Don Winslow thrillers are also acceptable