Worst history book you've read.

Mouthwash

Escaped Lunatic
Joined
Sep 26, 2011
Messages
9,368
Location
Hiding
For me it is A World Lit Only by Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance by William Manchester, which is a polemic about the savagery and ignorance of the Middle Ages. It will induce vomiting in the educated.

Some choice quotations:

For nearly forty years Christendom was ruled by two Vicars of Christ, a pope in Rome and an antipope in Avignon. In another age, so shocking a split would have created a crisis among the faithful, but there was no room in the medieval mind for doubt; the possibility of skepticism simply did not exist. Katholikos, Greek for “universal,” had been used by theologians since the second century to distinguish Christianity from other religions. In A.D. 340 Saint Cyril of Jerusalem had reasoned that what all men believe must be true, and ever since then the purity of the faith had derived from its wholeness, from the conviction, as expressed by an early Jesuit, that all who worshiped were united in “one sacramental system under the government of the Roman Pontiff.” Anyone not a member of the Church was to be cast out of this life, and more important, out of the next. It was consignment to the worst fate imaginable, like being exiled from an ancient German tribe—“to be given forth,” in the pagan Teutonic phrase, “to be a wolf in holy places.” The faithless were doomed; the Fifth Lateran Council (1512–1517) reaffirmed Saint Cyprian’s third-century dictum: “Nulla salus extra ecclesiam”—“Outside the Church there is no salvation.” Any other finding would have been inconceivable. Catholicism had thus found its greatest strength in total resistance to change.

In the medieval mind there was also no awareness of time, which is even more difficult to grasp. Inhabitants of the twentieth century are instinctively aware of past, present, and future. At any given moment most can quickly identify where they are on this temporal scale—the year, usually the date or day of the week, and frequently, by glancing at their wrists, the time of day. Medieval men were rarely aware of which century they were living in. There was no reason they should have been. There are great differences between everyday life in 1791 and 1991, but there were very few between 791 and 991. Life then revolved around the passing of the seasons and such cyclical events as religious holidays, harvest time, and local fetes. In all Christendom there was no such thing as a watch, a clock, or, apart from a copy of the Easter tables in the nearest church or monastery, anything resembling a calendar. Generations succeeded one another in a meaningless, timeless blur. In the whole of Europe, which was the world as they knew it, very little happened. Popes, emperors, and kings died and were succeeded by new popes, emperors, and kings; wars were fought, spoils divided; communities suffered, then recovered from, natural disasters. But the impact on the masses was negligible. This lockstep continued for a period of time roughly corresponding in length to the time between the Norman conquest of England, in 1066, and the end of the twentieth century. Inertia reinforced the immobility. Any innovation was inconceivable; to suggest the possibility of one would have invited suspicion, and because the accused were guilty until they had proved themselves innocent by surviving impossible ordeals—by fire, water, or combat—to be suspect was to be doomed.

Typically, three years of harvests could be expected for one year of famine. The years of hunger were terrible. The peasants might be forced to sell all they owned, including their pitifully inadequate clothing, and be reduced to nudity in all seasons. In the hardest times they devoured bark, roots, grass; even white clay. Cannibalism was not unknown. Strangers and travelers were waylaid and killed to be eaten, and there are tales of gallows being torn down—as many as twenty bodies would hang from a single scaffold—by men frantic to eat the warm flesh raw.

On early Protestants:

All Protestant regimes were stiffly doctrinal to a degree unknown—until now—in Rome. John Calvin’s Geneva, however, represented the ultimate in repression. The city-state of Genève, which became known as the Protestant Rome, was also, in effect, a police state, ruled by a Consistory of five pastors and twelve lay elders, with the bloodless figure of the dictator looming over all. In physique, temperament, and conviction, Calvin (1509– 1564) was the inverted image of the freewheeling, permissive, high-living popes whose excesses had led to Lutheran apostasy. Frail, thin, short, and lightly bearded, with ruthless, penetrating eyes, he was humorless and short-tempered. The slightest criticism enraged him. Those who questioned his theology he called “pigs,” “asses,” “riffraff,” “dogs,” “idiots,” and “stinking beasts.” One morning he found a poster on his pulpit accusing him of “Gross Hypocrisy.” A suspect was arrested. No evidence was produced, but he was tortured day and night for a month till he confessed. Screaming with pain, he was lashed to a wooden stake. Penultimately, his feet were nailed to the wood; ultimately he was decapitated.

On the coming of the Renaissance:

The mighty storm was swiftly approaching, but Europeans were not only unaware of it; they were convinced that such a phenomenon could not exist. Shackled in ignorance, disciplined by fear, and sheathed in superstition, they trudged into the sixteenth century in the clumsy, hunched, pigeon-toed gait of rickets victims, their vacant faces, pocked by smallpox, turned blindly toward the future they thought they knew—gullible, pitiful innocents who were about to be swept up in the most powerful, incomprehensible, irresistible vortex since Alaric had led his Visigoths and Huns across the Alps, fallen on Rome, and extinguished the lamps of learning a thousand years before.

These aren't actually the bad bits- this is the whole thing. You could look at any page, in any chapter, and find them to be of the same quality.

Please post your favorite horrible history book.
 
Gavin Menzies' "1421" and its sequel is pretty bad. Worse than N*all F*rguson's stuff, even.

Yes, I suppose you might not call that book "history", but it's usually found/categorised as non-fiction history in most library/book stores, so I think it counts.
 
Seeing historiography I don't think there's such a thing as a bad history book. Because even a supposedly bad history book tells you something about the view on history from the time that book was written. And that time may even be now.

So, A world lit only by fire would be quite informative for the Renaissance view on the Middle Ages (the Renaissance basically invented the very term Middle Ages) and how that view persists until the present day. Just to name an example.
 
One year later. My threads outside of OT are never successful. :sad:
 
Perhaps you should have made a thread about badly written history books. There's plenty of those around.
 
Nothing significant happened until the end of the 20th century?
Does the Industrial Revolution mean nothing to him?

I know this is an old post, but that's not what the quotation actually says.
 
I know this is an old post, but that's not what the quotation actually says.

This lockstep continued for a period of time roughly corresponding in length to the time between the Norman conquest of England, in 1066, and the end of the twentieth century. Inertia reinforced the immobility. Any innovation was inconceivable; to suggest the possibility of one would have invited suspicion, and because the accused were guilty until they had proved themselves innocent by surviving impossible ordeals—by fire, water, or combat—to be suspect was to be doomed.

This lockstep continued from 1066 to the end of the 20th century sure does suggest that this is what the author believes.
 
In retrospect, not shoving a wall of text into the OP might have made the thread more popular.

This lockstep continued from 1066 to the end of the 20th century sure does suggest that this is what the author believes.

He's saying that the length of time that nothing happened is about the same as this (from the fall of Rome to 1492). It is a pretty odd way to put it, though.
 
This lockstep continued from 1066 to the end of the 20th century sure does suggest that this is what the author believes.

No, it's inelegantly phrased but quite clear:

This lockstep continued for a period of time roughly corresponding in length to the time between the Norman conquest of England, in 1066, and the end of the twentieth century.
 
Top Bottom