Historical Book Recomendation Thread

[Fifty]

Have you guys read the Conquest of Mexico by Prescott, and what did you think about it?

I haven't read it but I glanced at it for 2 seconds once at a bookstore, which was plenty of time for me to form the following judgment on it:

There are almost definitely more contemoprary works that address the exact same subject in a more engaging and relevant style, and probably with more historical accuracy. Nonetheless, there will always be a group of young males who look at it, see how thick it is, the fact that it was written a while ago, etc., and decide that they must read it. They will never gain as much out of it as they could have gained from reading a more contemporary treatment of the same subject, but they do get one thing they couldn't have otherwise gotten, namely the self-satisfaction at being intellectual enough to read a big old thick book like that. They will make posts on internet history forums about how it "really is the best" and how its "tough going at times, but worth it", but in reality they don't have anything near the requisite level of expertise to make those judgments. Rather, they just make those judgments doing so makes them look very discerning and scholarly. In fact, it will be amazing if they even finish the thing. More likely, they will buy it with the firm resolve of reading it, picturing themselves spending hours immersed in its archaic but oh-so-intellectual style, gaining insight upon insight into the history of whatever. Then they'll go home, read about the first 35 pages before they get enamoured by the next "big old classic" they must read (for which the same process will happen), and it ends up getting shelved forever.

You're an old dude though, so maybe you'd have a good reason for reading it. Still, I strongly suspect that more contemporary works would be better.

 

[Atticus]

Well, yes I might have a good reason for reading it: entertainment. I'm not really searching for historical accuracy, but something fun to read. Even though I prefer to be aware how accurate the book I'm reading is. I'm guessing Prescott's book wouldn't have become famous if it wasn't entertaining.

 

[Sharwood]

I haven't read it but I glanced at it for 2 seconds once at a bookstore, which was plenty of time for me to form the following judgment on it:

There are almost definitely more contemoprary works that address the exact same subject in a more engaging and relevant style, and probably with more historical accuracy. Nonetheless, there will always be a group of young males who look at it, see how thick it is, the fact that it was written a while ago, etc., and decide that they must read it. They will never gain as much out of it as they could have gained from reading a more contemporary treatment of the same subject, but they do get one thing they couldn't have otherwise gotten, namely the self-satisfaction at being intellectual enough to read a big old thick book like that. They will make posts on internet history forums about how it "really is the best" and how its "tough going at times, but worth it", but in reality they don't have anything near the requisite level of expertise to make those judgments. Rather, they just make those judgments doing so makes them look very discerning and scholarly. In fact, it will be amazing if they even finish the thing. More likely, they will buy it with the firm resolve of reading it, picturing themselves spending hours immersed in its archaic but oh-so-intellectual style, gaining insight upon insight into the history of whatever. Then they'll go home, read about the first 35 pages before they get enamoured by the next "big old classic" they must read (for which the same process will happen), and it ends up getting shelved forever.

You're an old dude though, so maybe you'd have a good reason for reading it. Still, I strongly suspect that more contemporary works would be better.

It's like you can see my life.

@BananaLee: You mean this? :suicide:

 

[BananaLee]

@BananaLee: You mean this? :suicide:

I must've been blind then.. *sigh*

Well, if people have too much time to waste, read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Dodgy history but pretty decent for its time.

 

[Atticus]

It's like you can see my life.

Yes, the picture he paints is so vivid you could almost think it's autobiographical.

 

[Fifty]

Yes, the picture he paints is so vivid you could almost think it's autobiographical.

Yeah but I do it with literature and not history

Actually, its not that I don't read the stuff that I buy, its just that I've had this months long backlog of crap to read because I got about 100 books in the space of a couple weeks via two ultra-cheap book sales (to the tune of $5 for 40 books). I do have a few history classics I'll probably never read, but the only reason I bought them is because they were essentially free and so I was just grabbing stuff by any author I had vaguely heard of!

 

[Atticus]

Well, it's pretty weird to think that you should read books right after you've bought them. I buy books for large part so I could read them later. I haven't bought non-secondhand literature for years because last time I bought a brand new novel and read it right after, I felt just supid. I could have loaned it from a library, and it wasn't good enough to read twice. It's not the money I'm talking about here. I buy books to have them on hand, to take look at different books before reading them. It's probably the same thing why winedrinkers like to sniff their wine before dinking it.

I haven't read probably 20% of the books I have, and I'm glad that I do have always some unread ones. Some books I'll surely never read, and I have no problem about it. Actually I've bought books for the reason that I wouldn't read them if I didn't have them. Mostly for ridiculously low prices though.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Have you guys read the Conquest of Mexico by Prescott, and what did you think about it?

I have his History of the Conquest of the Inca, it is truly a massive book. He's from the 18th century so he writes weird, but contrary to what Fifty thinks, he's better than a contemporary source for in-depth information about their society and everything down to the minute details of events that transpired; in fact, I'm sure most or many of those supposedly superior contemporary sources cite him quite heavily, it would be like saying that a book from 1990 does a better history of early Rome than Livy.

That's how he treats the Inca at least; I'm sure he did the Aztecs similarly.

 

[Atticus]

Ok. The weird language is no problem, since I'll probably read the Finnish translation from middle of 20th century which seems to be very plesant to read. Maybe you English speakers should consider translating your books in modern English!

 

[Sharwood]

Are there any good books, in English, on the Risorgimento? And related events and personalities?

 

[Fifty]

I have his History of the Conquest of the Inca, it is truly a massive book. He's from the 18th century so he writes weird, but contrary to what Fifty thinks, he's better than a contemporary source for in-depth information about their society and everything down to the minute details of events that transpired; in fact, I'm sure most or many of those supposedly superior contemporary sources cite him quite heavily, it would be like saying that a book from 1990 does a better history of early Rome than Livy.

That's how he treats the Inca at least; I'm sure he did the Aztecs similarly.

If its true that stuff that old can still be at the forefront of scholarship, then that's positively embarrassing for the discipline of history.

 

[Sharwood]

If its true that stuff that old can still be at the forefront of scholarship, then that's positively embarrassing for the discipline of history.

Try linguistics. Semiotics is still based primarily on the works of Charles Saussure and Charles Peirce. I don't think either man suvived the first decade of the 20th century, and worse, they contradict each other. Yet somehow they're both right?

Don't you just love it when scholarship becomes pseudo-intellectual masturbation, and theories are based on theories which are based on theories? The only guy to do any decent practical work in the area was Barthes, and he's openly acknowledged as being wrong with most of it. You can now see why I despise half of what I do at uni.

 

[Fifty]

Try linguistics. Semiotics is still based primarily on the works of Charles Saussure and Charles Peirce. I don't think either man suvived the first decade of the 20th century, and worse, they contradict each other. Yet somehow they're both right?

Semiotics is not mainstream linguistics in the USA, thank god. Since Chomsky came around linguistics became a respectable discipline.

 

[North King]

If its true that stuff that old can still be at the forefront of scholarship, then that's positively embarrassing for the discipline of history.

...Perhaps you missed the memo about it being the study of the past?

 

[Sharwood]

Semiotics is not mainstream linguistics in the USA, thank god. Since Chomsky came around linguistics became a respectable discipline.

Bah, you're lucky. There's a major branch of semiotics known as the Sydney School - guess where I'm from? - that originated at the University of Western Sydney - guess where I attend university? - and was founded by Robert Hodge - guess who taught my class? Pseudo-intellectual wannabes who made up bs theories in the '60s and who still believe the proletariat will rise up at any moment do not make for the best instructors. Especially when discussing their own bs theories.

 

[Fifty]

...Perhaps you missed the memo about it being the study of the past?

That doesn't even make sense.

Just because a discipline is the study of the past does not mean there is no such thing as scholarly progress in the field. The areas that the cited books cover are vast and complicated areas of history. Thus, it would stand to reason that not everything was discovered about them when Livy or Prescott wrote. One would infer that since Livy or Prescott, a lot has been discovered about those time periods, and thus a better synthesis ought to be made. If there hasn't been enough discovered about those time periods since Livy and Prescott, then that's embarrassing for the discipline of history. The only way ought of this would be in the highly unlikely event that Livy or Prescott discovered everything (or nearly everything) worth discovering about those time periods, which is of course unlikely.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

That doesn't even make sense.

Just because a discipline is the study of the past does not mean there is no such thing as scholarly progress in the field. The areas that the cited books cover are vast and complicated areas of history. Thus, it would stand to reason that not everything was discovered about them when Livy or Prescott wrote. One would infer that since Livy or Prescott, a lot has been discovered about those time periods, and thus a better synthesis ought to be made. If there hasn't been enough discovered about those time periods since Livy and Prescott, then that's embarrassing for the discipline of history. The only way ought of this would be in the highly unlikely event that Livy or Prescott discovered everything (or nearly everything) worth discovering about those time periods, which is of course unlikely.

Sometimes we only have one source on the place or period. Livy's is pretty much the only history of early Rome. Xenophon is pretty much the only person who wrote about the Ten Thousand.

 

[Atticus]

I'm no historian and it's pretty funny we're talking here about book which none of us has read, it seems. So I'd better shut up, but on the other hand feel compelled to comment Fifty's comment due to it's general nature. I'm not trying to prove anything here about history, but that it's possible to Prescott's work be better than any subsequent one, and that it isn't embarassing to history.

You have to take into account to things: the scope of the research and differences between sciences.

As you probably know, science has changed vastly during couple of last centuries, scientists mostly concentrate on smaller and smaller things. One clear way to see this is the format of new research which changes from books to articles. In the case of Conquest of Mexico, it's sure true that historians know more about Aztecs than they used to, but recently discovered things are probably published in very specialized papers. Prescott's book on the other hand looks at the whole thing from much larger view.

Writing about that subject as whole requires that the writer's sources are mostly texts: produced by eyewitnesses and archeologists. When telling what happened, the narratives* play probably much bigger part. As an example excavations in Rome don't tell me much about assasination of Caesar if I don't find any literary sources. Therefore it is possible that Prescott's big picture hasn't changed at all. Even more possible is that no one has written better book about it.

Lastly I'd like to point out that Euclides' Stokheia was forefront of scholary for two thousand years and the basic differential and integral calculus haven't changed for 150 years. Yet that isn't thought as embarassment of mathematics, on the contrary. If you're going to say that this is due to special nature of maths, then you'll have to go back to my previous point: the methodology of history is different from the metholdology of maths, physics or philosophy.


*I'm very sorry to use this word stained by a certain CFCer among many others.

 

[Antilogic]

I must've been blind then.. *sigh*

Well, if people have too much time to waste, read Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Dodgy history but pretty decent for its time.

Having read Gibbon's 6-volume work, I can attest that it is engaging for such an old work. Also, his analysis of early Christianity and Islam is virtually guaranteed to offend those who believe blindly and have never questioned their faith's history before.

 

[Dachs]

Having read Gibbon's 6-volume work, I can attest that it is engaging for such an old work. Also, his analysis of early Christianity and Islam is virtually guaranteed to offend those who believe blindly and have never questioned their faith's history before.

Yes, blatantly false things tend to do that. You realize that Gibbon's analysis of Christianity's effect on the Roman Empire has been considered intellectually invalid for at least a hundred years or so, right?