History Books!

A Symphony of History: Will Durant’s The Story of Civilization
https://www.theobjectivestandard.co...story-will-durants-the-story-of-civilization/

Eleven years ago, toward the end of my undergraduate years as a philosophy major at the University of Virginia, I was feeling dissatisfied with my knowledge of history. I had taken several history courses but wanted more. Because my immediate interest was ancient Greece, I decided to try a friend’s recommendation, The Life of Greece by Will Durant. Finding the book at the library, I was surprised to see that it was but one volume in a massive series called The Story of Civilization—eleven substantial volumes spanning two feet of shelving.1 Although I wanted to learn more about history, I wasn’t sure I wanted to learn that much. It turned out that I did. Reading those volumes—sometimes poring over large portions of them multiple times—would be one of the most enlightening and enjoyable experiences of my life.

First published between 1935 and 1975, The Story of Civilization is a work of great and enduring value. Exceptional for its masterful prose as well as its size and scope, the Story is a powerful combination of style and substance. An author of rare literary talents, Durant (1885–1981) won a wide readership through his ability to make history intriguing, lively, and dramatic. His volumes, intended for the general reader and each designed to be readable apart from the others, have sold millions of copies. Some even became best sellers, and the tenth volume, Rousseau and Revolution, won a Pulitzer Prize. Individual volumes have been translated into more than twenty
languages

{Snip}

Grand Overviews and a Philosophic Theme

As one would expect from so large a work, the Story contains a wealth of concrete and detailed information. But to understand history well, one must learn more than details. One must also be able to see the big picture, the forest and not just the trees. Durant is a master at helping his readers to see the forest. His skill in this regard is showcased most dramatically in what I call his “grand overviews.” In such passages, which appear perhaps several times in each volume and which range from a paragraph to a few pages in length, Durant covers, in an elevated style, centuries or millennia of history and often identifies the deep, philosophic trends that run through them. Consider, for instance, the following passage from the epilogue of volume 6, The Reformation:

“[D]espite its original intolerance, the Reformation rendered two services to the Enlightenment: it broke the authority of dogma, generated a hundred sects that would formerly have died at the stake, and allowed among them such virile debate that reason was finally recognized as the bar before which all sects had to plead their case unless they were armed with irresistible physical force. In that pleading, that attack and defense, all sects were weakened, all dogmas; and a century after Luther’s exaltation of faith Francis Bacon proclaimed that knowledge is power. In that same seventeenth century thinkers like Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, and Locke offered philosophy as a substitute or basis for religion. In the eighteenth century Helvetius, Holbach, and La Mettrie proclaimed open atheism, and Voltaire was called a bigot because he believed in God. This was the challenge that Christianity faced, in a crisis far more profound than the debate between the Catholic and the Protestant version of the medieval creed. The effort of Christianity to survive Copernicus and Darwin is the basic drama of the last three hundred years. What are the struggles of states and classes beside that Armageddon of the soul?”12 (vol. 6, pp. 939–40)

The fundamental clash between reason and faith, alternately described by Durant as a conflict between rationalism and mysticism, philosophy and religion, and science and religion, is one of the Story’s dominant themes. In the following overview from volume 2, The Life of Greece, Durant sees this theme spanning the entire history of the West:

Hardly any of these [nations] surrounding [ancient Greece] cared for what to the Greeks was the very essence of life—liberty to be, to think, to speak, and to do. Every one of these peoples except the Phoenicians lived under despots, surrendered their souls to superstition, and had small experience of the stimulus of freedom or the life of reason. . . . In the end the two conceptions of life—the mysticism of the East and the rationalism of the West—would fight for the body and soul of Greece. . . . The alternate victories of these . . . philosophies in the vast pendulum of history constitute the essential biography of Western civilization. (vol. 2, p. 70)

This is history in the grand manner. It is the story of man’s past told in essentials, through bold and deep philosophic generalizations.
(Continued)
IMO, great read. If the price is right get them and dip in when you get an itch to know more about an era. But that's me.
 
I'm not sure that academic books make the best introductions. They're often quite inaccessible, not just in the sense of using long words but also in addressing issues that you only really want to know once you have a bit more of the basics in place. Personally, I look out for books on the everyday market which have won prizes (the Wolfson Prize hasn't let me down so far) or received very good reviews. Penguin seem to be quite good at picking up scholarly but introductory-level titles.

If you say so. But that certainly hasn't been my experience.
 
We really need to re-do the top recommendations thread: quite a few good books came out of it that never actually made it into the master post. Unfortunately we're at a low point for historians at the moment.

I picked up Norman Davies' Vanished Kingdoms, about European countries that no longer exist, a few days ago. Several I had never heard of before (can anybody else say that they know anything about Alt Clud, Sabaudia or Rosenau?) so should be interesting.

I'm fond of the Davies book, which has a nice chapter on Burgundies. All the Burgundies. He came up with ten Burgundies throughout history, some of which have no territory in common, and he was being conservative.

I like Susan Wise Bauer's books as a multivolume popular history. I suspect she's going to find herself covering half-century periods soon.
 
James L. Loewen Lies My Teacher Told Me, which confirms my position that 99.9% of history books written for American schools are written by blockhead bourgeois propagandists.
 
Not all blockhead bourgeois propagandists are created equal. My APUSH text book was better than some others, though it had the troubling tendency to romanticize the Spanish colonization of the New World.
 
I don't think history books are written for high schools, actually. Those are text books. So they're written by school text books blockheads.

Currently reading John Keay's History of India. 800+ pages, so he's taking his time.
 
800 pages for 5000 years... sounds like rushing... Hell, Harrison Salisbury took 600 pages for The 900 Days about the Siege of Leningrad.

I also recommend Lee Lockwood's Castro's Cuba, Cuba's Fidel, which may not technically be "history," but it's old enough to qualify as a vivid portrayal of the early years of the Triumph of the Revolution.
 
Actually, its 600+ pages. Considering ancient Indian history has few sources (mainly archaeological), and it's a survey, some nuance might be in order. Its medieval history is mostly literary, which poses other problems. I got the title wrong also, which is India, A History. (And you won't find 900 pages on the siege of Leningrad in a History of Russia either.

Your recommendation would be interesting from a historiographic point of view, if that's what you mean.
 
As would Ignacio Ramonet's 100 Hours With Fidel (aka "Fidel Castro: My Life, except it's a translation that our Cuban friends find more accurate). Fidel is dead-on-balls accurate.

edit: wikipedia-ing, again? Because my hardbound edition of The 900 Days is 599 pages of text, the rest are notes and index.
 
I'm not sure what you are trying to refer at. I see no quotes in my post. At any rate, historically it seems more interesting why a revolutionary from the 1960s is still in power (admittedly shared with his co-dynast) after 50 years. It raises the question if revolution is actually a genetic concept. But more to the point, where is the History of Cuba since 1960? (And it doesn't need to be 900 pages. Length does not equate quality.)
 
John Darwin's Unfinish Empire is good. It argued that (follow Gallagher ) Britons unintentionally build up a empire (by this he doesn't claims british imperialism are morale, he doesn't bother to argue morality of it, unlike Ferguson), often grabbing lands for temporary use ands start to regret it afterwards, so the empire end up consists of great variety of territory .
 
The late, great Eduardo Galeano's Open Veins of Latin America is a beautifully-written horror story of the European conquest of the Americask

Puts Jared Fogel Diamond's Germs, Germs and More Germs to shame.
 
That's not hard. GG&S is the kind of rigid environmental determinism that accidentally slides into apologia for imperialism. Looking at the causes of long-term trends outside of human decision-making [which is kind of the pet project of the Annales historians and their kin] is and can be interesting insofar as it helps to understand how and why the civilizations that rise and fall in those areas have the priorities they do and make the decisions that they do. However, making the leap to using it as a basis to understand the origins of the modern world independent of human agency is the same thing as saying that Europeans were destined to rule and everyone else was destined to be ruled. And that effectively absolves imperialism of its terrible crimes.

If you want some good history written with those concerns, though [long-term trends], I recommend Fernand Braudel's, well, everything. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II is pretty great, as is his three-part "Civilization & Capitalism 15-18th Century," titled The Wheels of Commerce, The Perspective of the World, and The Structures of Everyday Life, respectively.
 
That's not hard. GG&S is the kind of rigid environmental determinism that accidentally slides into apologia for imperialism. Looking at the causes of long-term trends outside of human decision-making [which is kind of the pet project of the Annales historians and their kin] is and can be interesting insofar as it helps to understand how and why the civilizations that rise and fall in those areas have the priorities they do and make the decisions that they do. However, making the leap to using it as a basis to understand the origins of the modern world independent of human agency is the same thing as saying that Europeans were destined to rule and everyone else was destined to be ruled. And that effectively absolves imperialism of its terrible crimes.

If you want some good history written with those concerns, though [long-term trends], I recommend Fernand Braudel's, well, everything. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Phillip II is pretty great, as is his three-part "Civilization & Capitalism 15-18th Century," titled The Wheels of Commerce, The Perspective of the World, and The Structures of Everyday Life, respectively.

I've said essentially this on CFC before, and the response essentially came in two fronts: 1) we shouldn't be disputing the environmental determinism on the grounds of its moral judgement (or lack thereof), but as to whether or not it is true (or at least a credible explanation), and 2) saying that colonial empires could only originate in Europe (true or not) does not absolve people of responsibility for the manner of founding them, or for crimes committed while doing so. I haven't actually read the book in question, so I'll have to defer to your experience as to whether its arguments are about closing off possibilities (I'm reminded of Sartre's comment that 'freedom is what you do with what has been done to you') - in the vein of 'no empire like that of Britain could have been based in Newfoundland' - or setting out inevitable historical processes, which I agree is usually something to be wary of, though I'm not convinced as to how significant human agency is when applied in large numbers. Individual people are quite unpredictable, but if we get rid of the 'great man' sort of history then we have to remember that it is rarely small numbers of individuals who make great historical events and processes happen.

The best large-scale work of history (or perhaps archaeology) I have read is Cyprian Broodbank's The Making of the Middle Sea, which deals with the Mediterranean - all of it - from the early Stone Age until the beginning of the Classical period. In a similar vein but less ambitious is Michael Pye's The Edge of the World, concerning the North Sea. I've just finished (out of order) Hobsbawm's 19th-century trilogy, and have come away from it with a bit of scepticism about big historical canvases - he moves so fast through events that you know could be written about at length that I can't help but suspect that there's more to things than space allows him to set out.
 
I have to disagree with thats. Hobsbawm's goal is not to describe every single event (the chronologist's wet dream), but to show the flow of history (or, if you prefer, cause and effect). I think analytically he's quite brilliant.

For those more interested in the details of history (military history in this case):

Anthony Beever Ardennes 1944

(Reviewed here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/b...1211&nl=bookreview&nlid=61820453&ref=headline)

Less satisfying is

Alistair Horne Hubris: The Tragedy of War in the Twentieth Century

which fails to make its case and appears to be yet another volume on 20th century war. Which goes to show not all analysis is brilliant. (Horne being a military historian has written better works.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/b...1211&nl=bookreview&nlid=61820453&ref=headline
 
Yes, I understand the argument that the 'big picture' is more important than being bogged down in detail. However, if you're regularly wrong - particularly wrong with a particular bias - about the detail, the conclusions about the 'flow of history' that you build on top of those details have nothing to stand on. I think you need to at least acknowledge the scope for different interpretations, particularly those of fact, which Hobsbawm rarely does.

CFC's favourite work of military history seems to be Hew Strachan's The First World War, which is excellent.
 
Without a more concrete example of Hobsbawm's failing in your eyes, I don't see how this conversation can continue. I mean if you view a history text, or Hobsbawm's in particular, as a generic "introduction to all things historical for this place or time period" then they really have to start at square one in every book. But I don't think that's Hobsbawm's aim at all, and I believe he says so in the Preface to the first book, Age of Revolutions. His Long Nineteenth Century series is for people who already have a basic grasp of the events of history, which is why he skips around and focuses on long-term trends rather than the minutia of the event.
 
CFC's favourite work of military history seems to be Hew Strachan's The First World War, which is excellent.

I read this a couple of years ago and it is indeed insightful and comprehensive. Excellent work.
 
Top Bottom