Historical Book Recomendation Thread

[Traitorfish]

Has someone here read Vanished Kingdoms by Norman Davies, and how was it?

It's pretty good. For my taste, their was too much of a focus on politics and not enough on social and cultural stuff, but it was an interesting read none the less.

 

[History_Buff]

Not fluently, but I read it with the aid of grammar and dictionary.

Damn sir, that is badass.

 

[Atticus]

It's not really. It's achievable with fairly small amount of study, and it's not uncommon skill at all. I know fewer Esperanto speakers than Latin readers for example. I'd suppose many of the posters in this thread can read Latin, but probably no one has read Einhard in Latin.

Also, Traitorfish: thanks!

 

[ParkCungHee]

Park told me a while back that How the Irish Saved Civilization is too full of hyperbole to be worth the read. Does anybody have any alternative suggestions for an intro to medieval Ireland?

Well it's not just hyperbole. It's lazy and poorly researched hyperbole. It looks at (mainly secondary) sources about what was going on in Ireland, and then just assumes it wasn't going on in Europe because loldarkages.

I'd recommend A History of Ireland by Peter and Fionna Summerset Fry as a starter. Masada was kind enough to point out it's free on the internet. It's good for early medievel Ireland, which start here.

Stop reading when the words "Brian Boru" appear. It's the kind of biography I thought existed only as a boogey man to warn students of the horrors of Irish Highschool Textbooks. Goes on about how Brian defeated the vikings, saved Irish Civilization and became the undisputed master of the Island, and a bunch of other stuff that never happened.

But until then it's good!

 

[Smellincoffee]

I'm looking for general and specific works in French history. Any reccommendations? Each year I devote the latter half of July to French-culture readings to celebrate Bastille Day. Earlier today I was considering a book called Paris to the Past which seemed interesting. Its premise is visiting historical areas by train and recounting France's history from the rails...so a visit to Orleans or Rouen would see the episode of Jeanne d'Arc recounted. That combines twin interests for me, since I like reading about transportation affairs.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well, the best book I've read on French Culture is The Birth of Fascist Ideology by Zeev Sternhell, but I don't think that's what you're looking for.

 

[History_Buff]

It's not really. It's achievable with fairly small amount of study, and it's not uncommon skill at all. I know fewer Esperanto speakers than Latin readers for example. I'd suppose many of the posters in this thread can read Latin, but probably no one has read Einhard in Latin.

I don't know about that. There's something decidedly romantic (hur-dur) about reading a 1200 year old book in it's original language.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Well, the best book I've read on French Culture is The Birth of Fascist Ideology by Zeev Sternhell, but I don't think that's what you're looking for.

Not exactly, though its premise is certainly interesting..

 

[ParkCungHee]

It actually does a really good job capturing the mental confusion of the early Third Republic.

 

[Traitorfish]

(I always feel really clever when somebody mentions an academic book and I recognise the author. )

 

[ParkCungHee]

Where do you recognize Sternhell from?

 

[carmen510]

Any good books on 19th-20th century Chinese history? Recommendations for biographies during this time period would also be welcome.

 

[Traitorfish]

Where do you recognize Sternhell from?

I looked at a couple of his papers for an essay last semester.

 

[aronnax]

Has anyone read 'Empire' by Dominic Lievan? I read about half the book so far and I was wondering what other people thought of it.

The book, which is part 'What makes an empire?", part comparative history, part Russian viewpoint of history and politics, is extremely ambitious as it compares the Russian Empire with that of Britain, Austria Hungary and the Ottomans, rich in detail in all four while tossing in short by stimulating paragraphs on India, Indonesia, China and Rome and so on that all contribute to the concept of 'empire', what makes it and what breaks it.

Several times, while reading the book, it made me think of the debates that occur in this forum. One point was when two regulars were arguing over whether the phrase 'those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes' is to some extent true. Lievan touches on this by comparing the problems of the Russian Empire, the Confederacy and modern India and how each of them dealt with them touching on themes of nationalism and identity, democracy, elites and so on.

Haven't seen a book quite as varied in theme and focus and yet so detailed and thought-provoking with the commitment to Empire.

 

[Masada]

'Indonesia' as an Empire? Hahaha.

 

[sophie]

Several times, while reading the book, it made me think of the debates that occur in this forum. One point was when two regulars were arguing over whether the phrase 'those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes' is to some extent true. Lievan touches on this by comparing the problems of the Russian Empire, the Confederacy and modern India and how each of them dealt with them touching on themes of nationalism and identity, democracy, elites and so on.

The problem with such a statement like this is often the similarities of the two circumstances are superficial at best. Ultimately I don't think the point of history is to directly apply stories from history to predict or decipher how best to respond to future events, but rather history's benefit is as a contextual guide so that present circumstances can be better understood, and a better conception and manner to look at the world as a whole can be reached. I mean, at least if you have to look for a practical application of the field, which I'm sure other guys on here such as Dachs will tell you is not necessarily a must.

 

[Tee Kay]

'Indonesia' as an Empire? Hahaha.

*must resist starting an argument about Indonesia with Masada that I will inevitably lose*

 

[Traitorfish]

Starting an argument with Masada about South-East Asia is like starting an argument with Dachs about everything that's not South-East Asia.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I looked at a couple of his papers for an essay last semester.

On what? I'm genuinely curious, because it always seems strange to me that Zeev Sternhell is known for stuff other then Fascism when he's one of the foremost authorities on that.
He seems to be in a not-dying contest with A. James Gregor in order to be the authority on Fascist Ideology.

 

[aronnax]

'Indonesia' as an Empire? Hahaha.

He didn't call Indonesia an empire. Lievan just mentioned that some of the problems that Indonesia has in it's national development is similar to that of some empires, ex: creating a uniting symbol/identity/front to curb secession movements, which he compared to Ottomanism, Hasburg Catholicism, anti-colonial movements, Russian Nationalism and Orthodox religion.

The problem with such a statement like this is often the similarities of the two circumstances are superficial at best. Ultimately I don't think the point of history is to directly apply stories from history to predict or decipher how best to respond to future events, but rather history's benefit is as a contextual guide so that present circumstances can be better understood, and a better conception and manner to look at the world as a whole can be reached. I mean, at least if you have to look for a practical application of the field, which I'm sure other guys on here such as Dachs will tell you is not necessarily a must.

I agree with you, though I don't think my statement was interpreted the way I wanted. Lievan was comparing Russia to Britain, Austria Hungary and Ottoman Empire to see how each state developed, prospered and declined, all in the contribution of exploring the concept of 'Empire' that we universally apply.

There was this interesting part when he compared Ancient Roman society with Han Chinese society and how, because of the different cultural aspects, geographical point and society, the idea of 'empire' persisted in China while splintered and died off in Europe. A singular massive continental state was constantly being reincarnated in China whereas the few attempts to establish the same failed in Europe. He notably touched on the Christian 'empire' under Catholicism and the Holy Roman Empire and how they failed where China 'succeeded'.
A similar one was written for the Ottomans and Russia. While I won't call these similarities 'superficial', I do admit that at times, they seem almost vague and random, eg "both grew up in the shadow of the Mongol Empire", but I think that it is justified because he was focusing on the concept of Empire, which itself needs to accept some level of generalisation. He certainly supports his arguments rather than just throw pirates and earthquake statistics together.