Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
It was just on fascism, I'm afraid. (One of the non-history classes I took was a sort of political ideologies 101.)
aelf
Ashen One
But but but funding...!
SeekTruthFromFacts
King
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2009
- Messages
- 670
Jonathan Spence, The Search for Modern China is the obvious place to start in English.
If you have broad liberal sympathies (in the early 20th century sense), then Jonathan Fenby will give you an interpretation that you'll enjoy.
If you want to interact with mainland Chinese, it helps to know the Party Line. A less painful way to do that is through the (auto)biographies of Han Suyin - she's a good writer, and an occasional eyewitness to the events she describes.
I haven't read it, but presumably the Cambridge History of China would have comprehensive coverage.
I read it two years ago, and I remember it as one of the more outstanding books I read that year.
I got it based on the forum recommendations, and it is a great book. It is an eye-opener on modern archaeological research. Only thing I didn't like were the personal travel anecdotes--a few were okay, but there were so many they started detracting from the (important) points being made.
I recalled that 1491 was that notoriously bad Zheng He book, but apparently I'm mistaken.
Charles Mann is the author of 1491. You are thinking of Gavin Menzies' books: 1421 and 1434. It can get a little confusing.
Well, I mistook no more than 5%. 
Great book, just finished it close to a month ago.
Definitely don't return it, and definitely give it a read.
Bowsling
Deity
I will reiterate my recommendation for Stolen Continents by Ronald Wright. He follows the achievements and then the conquest of the five major Native American groups at the time (Iroquois, Cherokee, Aztecs, Maya and Inca), and then discusses their cultural impact and resurgence in modern society. Slightly hyperbolic, but hey, it's worth a read.
Well, I mistook no more than 5%.
No problem, just figured I would issue an immediate correction lest people associate this great book with that fictitious garbage.
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
What's your opinion of C.V. Wedgwood's The Thirty Years War? I'm nearly finished, and I'd say it's well-written, well-sourced, and she carefully avoided seeing things through an overly modern perspective. She doesn't focus too much on the battles and such, but covers them well enough without losing sight of the big picture.
The book has a very overtly German bias in terms of the events covered, but bemusingly is rather short on imperial constitutional politics, which, one would think, would be the primary area of interest for a German-focused account of the war. Wedgwood also tended to discuss things from the point of view of the anti-Habsburg powers, and some of the analysis is clouded significantly by the then-concurrent international protagonism of Nazi Germany (and the concomitant abhorrence of a centralized German state).
It's not quite a bare-bones account of the war, but it is awfully close; the things Wedgwood covered in the most detail - the Winter King, Mansfeld and Bethlen, the Edict of Restitution, the Swedish and Danish interventions, Wallenstein's death, and the IPO/IPM - are the ones for which the war is now, regrettably, known over and above all else. The pre-war constitutional problems and clashes got little play. The Dutch were practically ignored, while the minutest English involvement went under a microscope. Global consequences of the fighting did not show up. The French were mentioned for La Rochelle, Rocroi, and Lorraine but little else.
I mean, it's an okay book, but it definitely shows its age and there are much much much newer and better works out there.
It's not quite a bare-bones account of the war, but it is awfully close; the things Wedgwood covered in the most detail - the Winter King, Mansfeld and Bethlen, the Edict of Restitution, the Swedish and Danish interventions, Wallenstein's death, and the IPO/IPM - are the ones for which the war is now, regrettably, known over and above all else. The pre-war constitutional problems and clashes got little play. The Dutch were practically ignored, while the minutest English involvement went under a microscope. Global consequences of the fighting did not show up. The French were mentioned for La Rochelle, Rocroi, and Lorraine but little else.
I mean, it's an okay book, but it definitely shows its age and there are much much much newer and better works out there.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Got an alternate recommendation? The whole inner workings of the Imperial government remain something of a sad dark spot in my memory. I've read Peter H Wilson's uniquely titled The Thirty Years War, but I fear I haven't retained too much of it.
sophie
Break My Heart
It's probably one of the best books you can get on the subject (in English), being both thorough and well written. Also it's actually titled The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Has Dachs read every history book, or just most of them?
sophie
Break My Heart
Well, The Thirty Years War is something Dachs was interested enough in to write a history article on, so I imagine he's immersed himself quite a bit in its scholarship, so as far as that topic goes, I'd imagine he's read a great deal of them (at least in English).
Similar threads
