Well, these are very fair criticisms, indeed. And her thesis about how you can draw parallels between the 13th century and the 20th is far-fetched at best. Yet, its a good read to get a glimpse into the lives of those in that long-ago time. I enjoyed it probably because of the subject matter, mostly. The structure of the book itself (and frankly most of Tuchman's books) is fallible but the era is a fascinating study.
The Asbridge book I read is more straight history.....he doesn't try to draw too many parallels. The only one he makes, really, is at the conclusion when he stresses that the success of the 1st Crusade stemmed from the fact that Christendom (or at least Latin Christendom) was united in the quest as contrasted to the many sects of Muslims who really had no common goal with regard to keeping control of Jerusalem. He then goes on to hint that the later crusades would not prove nearly as successful, largely because of a reversal of the aforementioned dynamic.
the Crusaders desended into money grubbers, even allying themselves with certain Muslims in order to stay in power. That was one of the subjects of my senior history paper.
Well even during the 1st Crusade, they made pacts/truces with certain Muslim leaders/cities when they thought it was pragmatic to do so.
this is true. And by the time of the later Crusades the rulers of the Crusader states had more in common with the locals then they did with the Europeans who came over. My arguement was that the decendents of the first crusaders did not want to lose any power to the new comers so they started forming alliances with local muslims rulers, even though they slaughtered hundreds of thousands of them in the first crusade. I think I also mentioned Thuycidies (sp?) and his essay on the Nature of Power.
Except for the fact that it is bad history- Really I don;t understand why everyone likes this guy. In my opinion he picks the weaker side of this argument and presents in in such a non-scholarly manner as to debase what value there is. For a good exposition of the other side look to The European Miracle by Eric Jones- written much earlier but still valuable.
Ok to post some stuff that is holding down a permenant place on my bookshelf: Russian History: Janosz Bardach Man is Wolf to Man - memoir about survival in Kolyma Sheila Fitzpatrick Everyday Stalinism Martin Amis Koba the Dread- not really true academic history, but fascinating reading Anne Applebaum Gulag Orlando Figues- Natasha's Dance wide sweeping cultural history- probably specialists here will find it too general, but it was a great intro into the topic for me. Also read his history of the revolution which I think is the best book on the topic (Better than Pipes/Conquest et. al). WWII Germany: Die Fuhrer Konrad Heiden- fascinating biography written by a contemprary journalist-stops halfway through as it was written just after Heiden escaped the country The Nazi Conscience- Claudia Koonz The Third Reich: A New History MIchael Burleigh- an absolutely amazingly well written book though perhaps the experience of having the guy as a teacher makes me biased on this subject as he had an amazing personality. I Will bear Witness Victor Klemperer- too bad he didn't keep writing when under the Russians The Politics of Retribution in Europe; Neighbors both by Jan Gross Ordinary Men- Christopher Browning The Hitler Myth- Ian Kershaw The Politics of Cultural Dispair- Fritz Stern Miscellaneous The Anatomy of Fascism- Robert Paxom excellent looks at the "lesser" fascistic movements trying to ideentify common intellectual threads The Black Book of Communism- multiple authors Cash Nexus Niall Ferguson I also like Empire but view it as more pop history than real The Vanished Kingdom- James Charles Roy Mixes history and current events by looking at the modern sites of Prussian, not German, history. Cosmopolitinism and the Nation State- Meinecke The Muaqaddimah- Ibn Khaldun Th Thirty Years War-Wedgewood Historian's Fallacies-David Hacket Fischer COnquests and Cultures- Thomas Sowell
By that time, most of the rulers of the Crusader states were born in the Middle East. They learned to live among the Muslims. One need to know that the Middle East in that period was more advanced than medival Europe.
Got 1491 for Xmas and will add it to the "recommended" list. It presents recent findings of civilizations in the Western Hemisphere. Although some of the conclusions are speculative the author always notes that they are. It supercedes Guns, Germs, and Steel in many ways.
I don't understand your talk about 'sides'. I've read two of Diamond's books, and what I get from them is some filling in the blanks of history. I don't see his ideas as contradicting the current view of western histories. I see it as providing some possible explanations for why things turned out as they did. And I give differing weights to his many points. For example, his discussion on the domesicability of large mammals and the spread of crops make a lot of sense, while his theories on governmental sizes was not as convincing. In all, though, I don't see 'bad' history there. It's not strictly a history, anyway.
Well.........that's debateable. There was little difference between Saladin and Richard III. The Arab apogee had already passed, while the Turkish brilliance would be built entirely on Byzantine splendor. In 1095 Constantinople was still probably the greatest city in the Mediterranean world. By the late crusades the difference wasn't particularly notable, and the Reannaisance was already stirring in the early 14th century. Europe of the Crusades was not Europe of the Dark Ages.
Cultural v. geographical determinants as primary drivers in long-term economic growth rates and explanation of the growth of the West in the modern period. I don't follow how you see this stuff as not history. Its very long-term history, but still counts as history. I refer to it as bad history because its very derivitive, but people talk about it as if it is a brand new thesis.
Some guys I was travelling with recently had just read this. Sounds like its essentially a survey of the latest anthropology data about pre-Colombian North America? What are some of the hypotheses the author proposes?
Haven't read it (though it's definitely on my 'to buy' list) but I did see the author on CSPAN's weekend book series. As I remember it, his main thesis is that there were far more people and at a substantially higher level of cultural complexity all over the Americas than was generally believed until relatively recently, with a particular focus on the Amazon and Mississippi valleys where there weren't as many durable artifacts left after the population collapse triggered by the arrival of European diseases.
A little bump here. Just finished Confederates in the Attic from Tony Horwitz, which I'm sure many folks have read here. While not technically a history book, its more of a travelogue-as-social-commentary-about-history book as he talks with the confederates of today about the Confederates of the 1860s. The closing chapter was the most poignant for me as it show how complicated race and race relations are today, as evidenced by Montgomery, Alabama, a place that has civil war and civil rights history. Anyone here read it and have any thoughts?
I read it a couple of years ago and enjoyed it very much. He's a very sharp guy. If you liked it, I strongly recommend Baghdad without a Map, a similarly wide ranging memoir of the time he spent professionally in the Middle East in the 80s and early 90s.
i liked it. He's also got one called Blue Latitude i think. He travels to all the spots that Captain Cook went to. interesting stuff. kinda like Confederates in the Attic
It's an excellent book--you pretty much sum up the main thrust, but you have to read it to really appreciate what a complete overhaul of the conventional wisdom this book contains. For example--the thundering herds of bison that roamed the Great Plains? Probably a result of the decline in Indian population during the colonial period. When Columbus first landed in 1492, the bison population of North America was much SMALLER than it was in, say, 1800. That's just one example.
Does he talk at all about food production in central and south america? The fact that so much of the world's food is native to that region fascinates me.
The Romans, actually. On a side note, has anyone read the new Mao biography? I am not knowledgeable enough to disucss some of the most controversial accusations in depth, but its a very well written book. And surprisingly funny for such a morbid subject.
I like most things Sir Martin Gilbert. I think his "History of the Twentieth Century" volumes were spot on.
Last history book I read is "The Dragon in the Land of Snow" about history of Tibet after 1950-1990. It was written by a pro-Independant Tibetan historian but a pretty good read. Right now, I am more focus on some new Chinese archlogical findings, especially the Hongshang (Red Moutain) culture and Shangxingdui culture. Hongshang culture is about 5000 years old, and had some very big surprises if more diggings come out. Shangxingdui culture is about 3500 years old, and there is also a big debate on it. Both of them can seriously change Chinese history and human history.