Which book are you reading now? Volume XI

[Joecoolyo]

Finished Canticle For Leibowitz, wonderful read, one of the better post-apocalyptic books I've read.

And right as I finished it, I went directly to the library to pick up my next read, Power and Plenty. I wanted to dive into another history book, and this one seemed perfect considering the rave reviews its getting here.

 

[Borachio]

Subversive

Spoiler :

Leon Tolstoy's War and Peas

This is the epic story about Napoleon's historic rush to Moscow to find some peas. After which he and his mates had to sit on the church steppes all night; then go home the next day without any - peas, that is.

I don't know where the "War" comes into it. It's probably just a gimmick to sell more books, because it came out when Evelyn War was so popular. Remember her?

War and Peas is too long a read, though. There's only so much you can say about peas before it gets a bit samey.

 

[caketastydelish]

I am reading a historical book called God's crucible. The language is very difficult to understand and I often have no idea what I'm reading.

 

[sophie]

I am reading a historical book called God's crucible. The language is very difficult to understand and I often have no idea what I'm reading.

At the beginning of the eighth century, the Arabs brought a momentous revolution in power, religion, and culture to Dark Ages Europe. David Levering Lewis's masterful history begins with the fall of the Persian and Roman empires, followed by the rise of the prophet Muhammad and the creation of Muslim Spain. Five centuries of engagement between the Muslim imperium and an emerging Europe followed, from the Muslim conquest of Visigoth Hispania in 711 to Latin Christendom's declaration of unconditional warfare on the Caliphate in 1215. Lewis's narrative, filled with accounts of some of the greatest battles in world history, reveals how cosmopolitan, Muslim al-Andalus flourished—a beacon of cooperation and tolerance between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity—while proto-Europe, defining itself in opposition to Islam, made virtues out of hereditary aristocracy, religious intolerance, perpetual war, and slavery. A cautionary tale, God's Crucible provides a new interpretation of world-altering events whose influence remains as current as today's headlines. 8 pages of color illustrations; 4 maps

Sound a bit biased, don't you think?

 

[caketastydelish]

I never said the book wasn't biased. I'm just saying the book uses so many big words that even a doctor couldn't understand it.

It's biased, but the word structure is so complicated that I can't even understand their biased point of view.

edit: I have to write a book report on it that is due monday. That is why I'm reading it.

 

[_random_]

If that blurb reflects its contents, something along the lines of "This book is dumb." should accurately report on things.

 

[caketastydelish]

My history professor agrees with the book though. So yes, he's biased. That is the problem.

 

[Antilogic]

Seems like the book glosses over the entire East Roman Empire.

How about a well-thought-out critique of some of the weaknesses in the evidence?

 

[Borachio]

<random nonsense deleted>

 

[_random_]

Seems like the book glosses over the entire East Roman Empire.

Byzantines were important of course, but referring to the Medieval Period as the Dark Ages in any context other than explaining why it wasn't a dark age suggests neglect of the many cultural and intellectual advances that came from Western Europe at the time. And the reference to slavery in particular throws me off, since, while the Feudal system was hardly enlightened, proper slavery was pretty much gone from Christendom at the time, but practiced in the Muslim world. The bit about religious tolerance has some merit, but I have a sneaking suspicion the author milks the hell out of it.

 

[sophie]

I never said the book wasn't biased. I'm just saying the book uses so many big words that even a doctor couldn't understand it.

I'm sorry, by biased I was trying to find a nice way to put "worthless piece of crap". I'm with _random_, your best bet would probably be some kind of essay explaining why this book is terrible, because I would have a hard time writing anything in agreement with this outside of "it contains grammatical statements in English", or something along those lines. My line of attack would be the phrase "Dark Ages Europe" which is...out of date to put it nicely. Should be a slam dunk.

Oh another easy one is the quip at the end about the topic having "world-altering events whose influence remains as current as today's headlines." Unless by that he means "the continent these events took place on are still inhabited by humans" there's really not that much merit to a statement like that. You could attack the famously misquoted phrase "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it", which I and many others completely disagree with. There is plenty to go on here.

Oh and as to the prose, meh, you just gotta get a good ear for the style most historians utilize. It takes practice, but it can be very rewarding with time.

 

[Dachs]

Should be a slam dunk.

Except when your professor doesn't agree with you.

 

[caketastydelish]

Thank you all for this advice. I will bare this in mind while writing my report. This is what I have so far:

Spoiler :

The first chapter of the book, “The Superpowers” is the untold story of the two major powers in the ancient world, Rome and Iran. Lewis argues that “Peace between Rome and Iran was an interruption rather than a normal state of affairs”(4). He mentions that Romans and Iranians first battled each other in Mesopotamia. Lewis agrees with Greek geographer Strabo, saying that the Iranians rivaled the Romans in terms of territory in population. Lewis quotes Heraclius, agreeing with him that that rich Roman citizen Crassus’s military debacle against the Iranian’s (Parthians) was what lead to the two superpowers fighting against each other. “The conflict of Rome and Persia was prolonged from the death of Crassus to the reign of [Emperor]”(7). Lewis says the fall of the Parthian dynasty was because of a military debacle where Parthian leader Artabanus “failed to oust Rome from Mesopotamia”(7). Rome was humiliated by “the the armies of [Iranian leader] Shapur I”. In fact, one Roman emperor was taken alive by the Iranians, and, Lewis states, “For an emperor to be taken alive in battle against a foreign enemy was an affront to all that Romanitas- ‘Roman-ness”(8). One hundred years later, Roman emperor Julian the Apostate tried to avenge his Roman brethren. However, in order to do this, they went through a much needed “radical overhaul”(8). This was done by Diocletian who, “eliminated his competition, divided t he empire into western and eastern halves..., and churned out a record number of transforming edicts(8).

Lewis argues that the Iranian empire was more tolerant to religious minorities than the Romans were, saying “Shapur 1, determined to do all he could to undermine the enemy [Romans], had encouraged Jews and the still persecuted Christians in the second half of the third century to leave Roman rule and settle as taxpaying assets in his empire”(12). Lewis explains that eastern Rome(western Rome had already collapsed) spread itself too thin by trying to reconquer barbarian lands of western Rome, and then left itself exposed to Iranian attacks. Lewis says that Mazkad “an Iranian nobleman”(18), had “deflation of the Zorastrian clergy, and welfare programs that opened imperial granaries to the poor”(19). His followers, called Mazdakites, “went on rampages in Bablon, Ecbatana, and Persepolis, destroying fire temples, taking property from the rich, and distributing harem women as common possessions”(19). The Mazdakites however, were eventually defeated. However, despite of this, Lewis argues, “Khosrow I [the Iranian king] actually achiefed several essentials of Mazak’s agenda”(20). Lewis says, “ Tax reform, massive public works, a housebroken feudality, and a streamlined ecclesiantical establishment were antidotes that drew the poision from the stricken body politic”(20). The Iranians attack eastern rome in 571, which Lewis emphasizes the “superior professionalism” of the Iranian army. This in itself contradicts western popular culture regarding the Iranians, such as in the movie 300 where the the Persians can only win with vastly superior numbers.

 

[sophie]

Except when your professor doesn't agree with you.

Details, details.

 

[Antilogic]

Byzantines were important of course, but referring to the Medieval Period as the Dark Ages in any context other than explaining why it wasn't a dark age suggests neglect of the many cultural and intellectual advances that came from Western Europe at the time. And the reference to slavery in particular throws me off, since, while the Feudal system was hardly enlightened, proper slavery was pretty much gone from Christendom at the time, but practiced in the Muslim world. The bit about religious tolerance has some merit, but I have a sneaking suspicion the author milks the hell out of it.

Gotta say, that's still a weak period for me. I've read one of Chris Wickham's books and a few online articles, but I'm still substantially behind the scholarship on the "Dark" Ages. I figured the slavery was hyperbole and the author would know better, but (maybe Oldschooler can confirm) it seems like it was meant to be taken seriously.

Thank you all for this advice. I will bare this in mind while writing my report. This is what I have so far:

How detailed/long a report are you planning on? The term "book report" somewhat implies that you are expected to summarize the author's arguments and then critique whether or not he supported his thesis well, so instead of an all-out attack you could write this as "constructive criticism" and probably get away with it despite the professor's support of the thesis. But if you summarizing each chapter in such great detail, you might not be able to do much more than a summary if you have hard page limits.

 

[_random_]

Gotta say, that's still a weak period for me. I've read one of Chris Wickham's books and a few online articles, but I'm still substantially behind the scholarship on the "Dark" Ages. I figured the slavery was hyperbole and the author would know better, but (maybe Oldschooler can confirm) it seems like it was meant to be taken seriously.

It's one of my better periods, but I'm still streets behind most of our history wizzes here. Hannam's The Genesis of Science is pretty good if you wanna get a feel for intellectual life at the time. (I tend to recommend that book a lot, since it's one of the few I've read.)

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I feel pretty jealous of you historically minded people. I'm still having seizures in the corner about texas culture bombs.

 

[caketastydelish]

I'm sorry, by biased I was trying to find a nice way to put "worthless piece of crap". I'm with _random_, your best bet would probably be some kind of essay explaining why this book is terrible, because I would have a hard time writing anything in agreement with this outside of "it contains grammatical statements in English", or something along those lines. My line of attack would be the phrase "Dark Ages Europe" which is...out of date to put it nicely. Should be a slam dunk.

Oh another easy one is the quip at the end about the topic having "world-altering events whose influence remains as current as today's headlines." Unless by that he means "the continent these events took place on are still inhabited by humans" there's really not that much merit to a statement like that. You could attack the famously misquoted phrase "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it", which I and many others completely disagree with. There is plenty to go on here.

Oh and as to the prose, meh, you just gotta get a good ear for the style most historians utilize. It takes practice, but it can be very rewarding with time.

Where is Panninous when you need him?

 

[_random_]

I feel pretty jealous of you historically minded people. I'm still having seizures in the corner about texas culture bombs.

If you're looking to get into it, this thread could help get you on your feet.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Thanks random!

I am interested in history, but no realistic amount of reading on my part is going to catch me up to the likes of the pros around here. Every time the subject turns to history, I get my nose bloodied. The funny thing is, with most people IRL, I'm considered a minor expert.