David has
832 books
(35 selected)
—
compare books
|
stats
|
cover | title | author | isbn | isbn13 | asin | num pages | avg rating | num ratings | date pub | date pub (ed.) | rating | my rating | review | notes | recommender | comments | votes | read count | date started | date read | date added | date purchased | owned | purchase location | condition | format | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0140441549
| 9780140441543
| 3.81
| 384
| 1390
| May 30, 1965
|
I have long heard the rumours that the vikings had discovered North America long before Christopher Columbus sailed across the Atlantic but I had alw...more
I have long heard the rumours that the vikings had discovered North America long before Christopher Columbus sailed across the Atlantic but I had always assumed that it was little more than a single expedition of which nothing more came of it. However, this little book, which contains two Viking texts: Eirik's Saga and the Graenlendinga Saga says otherwise. Both of these texts tell the same story, however there are a few differences (in that Eirik's Saga seems to be more of a text telling how Christianity came to Greenland while the Graenlendinga Saga is more focused on the journies of the Vikings). Both stories begin with the discovery and collinisation of Greenland and then the subsequent journies to North America, or Vinland, as it was called back then. It is debatable as to how authentic the stories in this book are, though it is quite clear, specifically with the descriptions of the lands encountered, that the events really did happen. In fact, the Graenlendinga saga is quite descriptive with both the lands discovered and the people discovering the land. It is interesting that the writer of this saga spends time giving a description of the main characters (something which tends to be missing from other ancient texts). Another thing that I found interesting was the discovery of Greenland. I was told as a child that Greenland was called Greenland so that people would go there instead of to Iceland, which was a much more habitible island. However, according to these sagas, the island got the name to encourage people to emigrate and settle there. The voyages beyond Greenland to Vinland (as I shall call it) were voyages of exploration, though Vinland was originally discovered when a viking ship was sent off course in a storm. They attempted to establish settlements in Vinland, but hostile natives and the distance made such colonies difficult to support. When the little ice age arrive, the vikings found that the conditions in Greenland became much more hostile, and thus that passage to Vinland became closed. The native Americans in this text are called Skaelings. While I think this name sounds much better than Indian, it should be remember that Skaeling is actually quite a derogative term. Therefore, native American is probably the better term, though the most respectful term would be relating them to their particular nations (of which there were many). What these sagas demonstrate is that the vikings where quite a cultured and capable people. Eirik's saga tells of how Christianity came to Iceland and then to Greenland, and it was because of Christianity that these sagas were written (it was preferrable to dancing). I always considered Vikings to be big hairy brutes with horned helmets that raided coastal Europe killing people. However these sagas (and no doubt many of the others) demonstrate that not only where they incredibly competent sailors, but that they were also a very sophisticated people with a rich cultural heritage.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Jul 22, 2011
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0760786526
| 9780760786529
| 3.68
| 34
| 2007
| Aug 25, 2007
|
The version of this book that I read was actually called 'Turning the Tide of Battle' but after a bit of research I discovered that these books are t...more
The version of this book that I read was actually called 'Turning the Tide of Battle' but after a bit of research I discovered that these books are the same (I think). However, I have read a lot of books like this, but most of them have titles like 'Great Idiots and their Impact on History' (not a real book, but you get the picture). This book is different in that it does not look at the great bungles of history (and try to turn them into a joke) but rather explores a number of battles through which the commander used ingenuity to save the day, usually against much greater odds. I have actually found that this approach is much better and heart warming than simply looking at people's stupidity. This book looks at a number of battles from Salamis (the Athenians vs the Persians) to the Japanese occupation of the Aleutians during World War II. What is good about Cummin's style is that he gives a good, well rounded, background to the battle, and he does it in a readable and very interesting way. The parts of the book that I found most interesting were the two sections on the Mongols. While I had a vague idea about the Mongol Empire, Cummins, though brief, was able to outline this powerful nation in a much better way than normal. In fact he portrayed the Mongols as a very capable, and powerful, force. However, it was pure chance that prevented Western Europe from coming under their dominion. His chapter on the Black Plague was also very interesting, and while he focuses of the battle of Caffa on the Black Sea, he gives a very good picture of the black plague as it arose in China and spread quickly across Asia. However, it his description of the Mongol besiegers of Caffa dying of this plague while the Christians proudly looked on that was the most interesting. Why do I say that? Well, because the Mongols won that battle by lobbing the bodies of the infected dead over the wall, and thus the plague came to Europe, and the rest, they say, is history. The lesson from this? Just because your enemy is suffering does not necessarily mean that God's had is against them, and that you are immune. God does not play favourites, and indeed, it is this event that clearly shows that while the Europeans had Christianity, they did not necessarily understand it tennants.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Jul 22, 2011
| Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
| 9608636493
| 3.00
| 1
| 2001
| 2001
|
This book is basically a tourist guide to an archeological site located on the Peloponese in Greece (to the east of Argos). The content is quite inte...more
This book is basically a tourist guide to an archeological site located on the Peloponese in Greece (to the east of Argos). The content is quite interesting, but the problem is that it would be better to be able to read this before visiting the site than afterwards. When I went to the site, it is clear it is not an incredibly popular site since there are no markings or signs indicating what the part of the ruins are about, so to understand what you are looking at this book helps. However, I bought this book on my way out. Tiryns is a very old site, dating back to the Mycenean period (around 1000 BC). It is not a large site, like Mycenae, but as is typical, it is built atop a small hill (though this suggests that there may be older ruins underneath). The ruins consist of a lower section and an upper section, the upper section being the palace. It is suggested in this book that the lower section, not only being built later, was probably to house to local population during times of war. I slightly disagree with this, suspecting that the lower section was probably inhabited nonetheless. However, it is clear from the ruins, that the lower and upper sections are separated with limited access. This, I suspect, is in case the lower city is breached so as to allow the population to move higher up and, hopefully, continue defending the city. However, it should be remembered that seige warfare was not highly developed back then (with the war in Troy, lasting 10 years, being the case in point). The book does go into the mythology surrounding Tiryns, though it was not as famous as some of the other centres (such as Mycenae). It is quite small (compared to Mycenae), though in those days to call it a city is a bit of a misnomer: it is more of a citadel. However, the speculation on the ruins it quite helpful, and for somebody wishing to travel to Greece, it can be quite interesting. As mentioned, Tiryns is no a popular site, so do not expect tour guides to be swarming out the front, or buses regularly travelling there. When I visited Tiryns, there was a man sitting in a booth, smoking a cigarette, and collecting the entrance fee. As for visitors, other than me, there were probably two or three others. However, there is a really nice beach nearby, so if that is your thing, then I would encourage you to go there (oh, and pick up a copy of the book as well).(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Sep 28, 2011
| Sep 29, 2011
|
Sep 28, 2011
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
| 8072530410
| 9788072530410
| unknown
| 3.11
| 19
| Jan 01, 2000
| Dec 01, 2002
|
I was wondering around the Prague castle when I realised that I needed to pick up so souveniers from friends back home in Australia so I decided to w...more
I was wondering around the Prague castle when I realised that I needed to pick up so souveniers from friends back home in Australia so I decided to wonder into one of the shops there (and to be honest with you, I have seen more sovenier shops in one city in Europe that I have seen in my entire life in Australia. We Australians really have no concept of mass tourism). Anyway, a friend of mine wanted something arcane, and to be honest with you, I did not realise that you could get any more arcane than Prague. However, as I wondered around this store, I found this book, and simply going on the title, I decided to purchase it. This is a collection of stories that arose from the Prague Ghetto. For those who do not know, the Ghetto is not a slum (as is the common usage of the word) but derives from the island in Venice where the Jews were locked up at night. From this one location, all of the Jewish Quarters throughout Europe derived their name, and this the Prague Ghetto is basically the Jewish Quarter of Prague. However, since the Jews have been pretty mistreated thoughout the years, and the places in the cities that they were relegated to were dumps, the connection betweem a Ghetto and a dump arose. However, this quaint little book tells the story of how the Jews arrived in Prague and the challenges they faced there. However these stories are legends and there are a lot of mystical elements surrounding them. The arrival of the Jews came as a prophecy to the first Queen of Bohemia (the land in which Prague was the capital) that if she were to allow the Jews to settle there, then her land will prosper. It did. It also tells the stories of how various Jewish landmarks (such as the Old-New Synagoge, and a couple of streets) came about. Once again, these stories have the elements of legends in them, such as the Jew who upset his patron by praising God whenever his patron gave him money. The patron then withdrew his support, and in the Jew's darkest hour, a monkey full of gold came flying through the window. It should be noted that all of the Jews are upstanding and moral character's in the legends. They are always honest (well, okay, not always, but the characters that the stories promote, are) and are always fair in their dealings. However, they also face persecution, but in these times there is always divine intevention (such as when the Emperor Wenceclaus falls into a deep sleep and signs a document revoking his expulsion of the Jews). However, I wish to finish with the story that caused me to purchase this little book, and that is of the Golem. I have always known the golem as something that came out of Dungeons and Dragons, and may have originated from some early fantasy book (such as say Frankenstein). However, it turns out that it did not. It was a Jewish Myth. I had only just discovered that, so when I found a book about the Golem, I quickly snapped it up. I won't go into any further details of the Golem (and for those who are interested, I am sure you can easily find it on the internet), but this book was a fascinating read, if you can find it (and hopefully that does not involve a trip to Prague).(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Sep 26, 2011
| Sep 28, 2011
|
Sep 26, 2011
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0801481376
| 9780801481376
| 3.82
| 277
| 65
| Dec 16, 1993
|
Lucan was a contemporary of Nero, and in fact died at the age of 25 when he slit his own wrists after being discovered being involved in a plot to ov...more
Lucan was a contemporary of Nero, and in fact died at the age of 25 when he slit his own wrists after being discovered being involved in a plot to overthrow Nero (it seems as if this was a dignified way to die in the early empire). As such Lucan's poem regaridng the civil war between Ceaser and Pompey remains unfinished. It is clear from the text that Lucan does not like Julius Ceaser, and that the translator of the version I read (Robert Graves) does not particularly like Lucan. So, if the translator does not like the writer, why does he bother translating the book. Well, he answers that question himself in suggesting because of its historical value. The Pharasalia does give a good outline of the civil war, right up to Ceaser's arrival in Egypt and his seduction of Cleopatra, however it is questionable as to whether this is what would be termed revisionist history. Considering that the other source of the civil war is actually from Ceaser's own hand (and further sources, such as Seutonius and Plutarch, were written a lot later), there can be an argument that Ceaser's account could be somewhat biased. However, it is clear that Lucan is quite biased as well as he does not paint Ceaser in a particularly appealing light. Now, interspresed amongst the text are a lot of stories relating to mythology, as well as some pseudo-scientific theorising (and I say Pseudo-scientific because it seems that Lucan attributes a lot of things to the gods). There are also some intersesting accounts, such as Ceaser rowing across the Adriatic Sea in a row boat (and it is interesting how Lucan says that it is when he makes landfall that he regained his empire, suggesting, and there is a lot of truth to it, that while he was in the middle of the Adriatic in a rowboat, he was no longer master of his own destiny, nor was he master of Rome, but then considering that he was in the middle of a civil war, he wasn't master of Rome anyway). The other story was that of Cato's march through the desert to visit the oracle that Alexander of Macedon had visited. The story of how Cato refused water, and marched alongside his troops, gives a lot of credence to his character. However, since Cato was originally on the side of Pompey, and that Lucan is an admirer of Pompey (as well as a barracker for Ceaser's assassins), it is not surprising that he paints him in a really attractive light. After Pompey's defeat, and after Pompey was assassinated in Egypt, Lucan raves for quite a while about how undignified a death it was, and how he was denied proper burial rights, and how such a great man deserves many more honours than what he received. However, it should be remembered that Ceaser was just as horrified at Pompey's undignified murder as was Lucan. However, Lucan is writing very much a 'what if' book, believing that all of Rome's current troubles are the result of this one civil war, and he lays all of the problems faced by Rome squarely on Ceaser's shoulders. He does forget though that Ceaser did turn down the crown, and that he had also seen major flaws in the Republican system of government, yet even though his murderers, who were appauled at the idea of a single ruler, ended up moving Rome further to the Imperial State that it became by killing Ceaser. Further, they forget Sulla, who established himself as dictator, and then stepped down once his reforms had been completed. The other thing that is forgotten is that Ceaser did not proscribe (that is mark for death) any of his enemies, and it is because of this that he ended up meeting his death. The time that Lucan wrote in was a much different time than the one that he writes about. It was about 100 years after the events in his poem, and Rome had become a much different place. There was no freedom, and Nero ruled the empire with an iron fist. If you disagreed with Nero, you pretty much kept your mouth shut because there was no freedom of speech. It is in a sense why the Pharasalia Lucan's way of criticism the current regime, however he ended up not simply keeping it in his poem, but attempted to act it out in his own life, which resulted in his suicide. At the end of the poem (or at least what he wrote of it) he seems to describe it as lasting for as long as the story of Ceaser lasted, however why this particular piece of literature was kept in the absence of other works is beyond me. I can't read Latin so I cannot comment on it's poetical value, though it does provide us with some interesting, if somewhat biased, view of the ancient world.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Aug 18, 2011
| Aug 24, 2011
|
Aug 18, 2011
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0140441328
| 9780140441321
| 3.74
| 699
| -63
| Feb 28, 1964
|
I do like books written by ancient historians, though we must remember the purposes of the ancient historians are a little different to us (though I...more
I do like books written by ancient historians, though we must remember the purposes of the ancient historians are a little different to us (though I would argue that it is not that different). The editor argued that ancient historians tended to have different purposes, though all historians, I believe, will approach a period in history, or, as in Sallust's case, certain events within history, to not only tell a story but for the reader to come out of the story having learnt a lesson. This is not so much different to how many historians write today. Granted, we do have text books and encyclopedias which try to be as objective as possible, however it is very difficult not to let one's subjective opinion, or even revise the events, to push one's own personal agenda. I can easily refer you to the works of Niall Ferguson as an example of this (his book on the British Empire was written to push the idea that imperialism is not necessarily a bad thing) and I will also refer the reader to Philip Jenkin's Lost History of Christianity as an example of a revisionist text (though he tries to be objective, when I do think of the history he writes, he tends to put the scientific achievements of the Arabs into the hands of the Nestorian Church). This particular book is about two events near the end of the Roman Republic. One event is a war with an outside enemy (the Numidians, located in modern day Algeria) and the second involves a spoilt rich kid who could not handle losing his bid to become consul (sort of like a president, but less so, particularly since one had to share the position with another), which brought the Republic onto the verge of civil war. Sallust, in the first story (for that is what it really is) explores the events that brought Rome to war with the Numidians, and the destruction that the focus on this war left upon the peninsula. The reason for this was because Rome had committed much of his veteren troops to Numidia, they were unprepared by another Gaullic invasion from the north (though this invasion was nowhere near as devastating as one of the earlier invasions). He also delves into how Jugurtha would bribe his opponants to leave him alone, and he would use intrigue to set elements of the Roman Senate against each other. However, in the end, Jugurtha was defeated, by the Consul Marius (who was elected into the position seven times, but died during his seventh year as consul). Underneath Marius was Sulla, a man who was to become quite important as cracks began to appear in the Republic. The Conspiracy of Cataline is basically about a spoilt rich kid. It is clear from the text that Cataline was never consul material. He just kept on getting himself into trouble, and the one time he almost got elected, he lost by the narrowest of margins, and instead of simply accepting what was what, he stormed off in a rage, and began to raise an army to forcefully take the position. When considering people like Cataline, it brings to mind modern politicians like Richard Nixon and John Howard. Nixon lost by the narrowest of margins to Kennedy (and some suggest that Kennedy cheated), but waiting eight years and was elected in a landslide. While not so similar to John Howard, as the news media said when he was finally defeated in 2008, that he was one of those politicians that would be elected when the time was right. If Nixon and Howard had thrown a tantrum like Cataline then it is highly unlikely that they would have come to the fore as they have. As for Al Gore, another modern politician who lost by a narrow margin, he went on to win a nobel prize and an oscar, two things Bush never got. Sallust was a supporter of Julius Ceaser, and after Ceaser's assassination, he retired to his country estate to become an author. I wonder if he expected that his writings would still be read by history buffs and taught in universities two thousand years after his death? Thucydidies wanted that to happen, but then I guess there were a lot of writers back then that dream of such a legacy. Out of all of the Roman Emperors, only Ceaser and Marcus Aurelius obtained that distinction (most Emperor considered themselves authors). As for his history, we must remember that Sallust was writing in living memory. He experienced the conspiracy of Cataline, and was no doubt a young man during the Jugurthine War. However, looking back, it seems as if the devastation of the Jugurthine War that Sallust wrote about, was minor indeed, for the Roman Empire went onto its greatest period subsequent to this, much in the same way that after losing her American Colonies, Britain then went on to rule the world.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Jul 22, 2011
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0140440399
| 9780140440393
| 3.82
| 10,849
| -411
| Sep 30, 1954
|
I really liked this book, but then I generally really like books that deal with ancient history and are a retelling of events that were beyond our li...more
I really liked this book, but then I generally really like books that deal with ancient history and are a retelling of events that were beyond our lifetimes, such as this one. This book, though incomplete (namely because the author died before he could complete it) tells of a war between the rival Greek city states of Athens and Sparta. I could (and would like to) write a thesis on this book, but I will stick to my main theme, and that is the invasion of Sicily. As I read it, I though as to whether there was a similar event in our time that reflects what happened then. Namely, in the middle of a war, the Athenians send a bulk of their forces halfway across the mediterranian to capture an island that really had little to do with the war they were fighting, and lost. Though they lasted another ten years, it was this event that brought about the downfall of their empire. Remember, Athens was a democracy, so it was not as if a single ruler made up his mind to do this, but rather one party, though the use of elegant speaches and promises of glory managed to bring the people of Athens around to their way of thinking and to vote in favour of this war. It does remind me very much of a similar war in this century. (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Jul 23, 2011
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 1741960428
| 9781741960426
| unknown
| 3.59
| 22
| Aug 13, 2013
| unknown
|
I like reading a good book on history, particularly one with an interesting theme. Okay, granted, I have become rather tired of the battlefield mista...more
I like reading a good book on history, particularly one with an interesting theme. Okay, granted, I have become rather tired of the battlefield mistakes genre that tries to garner some laughs out of other's misfortunes, but that does not mean that all theme orientated history books are just as boring. While this one was not the most engaging, it was interesting nonetheless. As the title suggests, this book is about rivarly, though the case studies (if that is the best word for it since it is written for the non-academically inclined) don't really suggest rivalry to the same extent as Cummins suggests, though when we have somebody like Alexander the Great, whose only real enemy was Darius of Persia, then no doubt this would create a rivalry. However, the rivalries to take note of would not so much be the empires in collision, but rather the rivalries between two people of the same country, such as Ceaser and Pompey, and Benedict Arnold and Horatio Gates. I wish to look at two of the rivalries that he explores: Henry II and Thomas Becket, and Arnold and Gates. My favourite line from this book would have to come from Henry II who, after being exasperated once again by his rival, and indeed his good friend, Thomas Beckett, screamed out 'will no one rid me of this turbulent priest!' While he screamed this out in frustration, and it is suspected that he didn't want anybody to actually kill Beckett, some of his knights took him literally and made their way to England where they proceeded to murder the Archbishop in the Cantebury Cathedral. This pretty much turned Beckett into a martyr (not that he was an outstanding character in anycase, it is just that his brutal murder on holy ground elicited a lot of sympathy). A lot of the rivals in the book were and stayed enemies, however Beckett and Henry weren't, it is just they were thrust into that position. While not a man of huge ethical morality, Beckett took his position seriously, so when he was appointed Archbishop of Cantebury by King Henry, he had no choice but to be faithful to his role, and if this involved rebuking the king, then so be it. This all happened during a very turbulent time in history, namely the power struggle between the church and the state. The Church, centered in Rome, had pretty much dominated European politics for hundreds of years (and at this time still did), but as the nation states began to rise, and the kings began to bring more power and loyalty under them, the church's power was threatened, but they did have excommunication. While to us moderns it seems like an empty threat, to the medieval mind, who believe that the Pope was Christ's representative on Earth, excommunication (that is kicking somebody out of the church and condemning their soul to the fires of hell) was a very power and fear provoking tool. While in this stage of the battle the church won out, it's power was declining, and as people ceased to fear excommunication (particularly since a subsequent Pope could revoke it) the Pope slowly lost his powers over the temporal realm. The second rivalry I wish to look at is Gates and Arnold. This played out in the American War of independence, and it was simply a story of one man (Gates) stepping all over another man (Arnold) to bring prestige to him. From my reading of this story, Gates was simply not the type of person that I would want to befriend, and he did seem to mistreat Arnold, but still this had a lot to do with ambition, and Arnold was a man prone to outbursts, and in the end, he gave up on the country that he was fighting for and changed sides. That did not endear him to history at all as the name Benedict Arnold is now synonymous with traitor. (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Jul 22, 2011
| Jul 23, 2011
|
Jul 22, 2011
| |||||||||||||||
| 0141007540
| 9780141007540
| 3.81
| 1,609
| 2003
| 2003
|
This book is brilliant. I first learnt of the author, Professor Niall Ferguson, when I watched the series called 'The Ascent of Money' and then read...more
This book is brilliant. I first learnt of the author, Professor Niall Ferguson, when I watched the series called 'The Ascent of Money' and then read the book that the series was based upon, so when I saw this book in the bookstore it was an automatic purchase. Like 'The Ascent of Money' Professor Feguson deals with a complex topic in an easy to read and very engaging way. In fact, the book reads more like a novel than a dry and dull history book, and it goes to demonstrate that history is much, much more than simply a collection of dates and dead people. In fact, when put forward as such, history plays out like a story that not even the greatest writer could create from his head (and I can assert to that, not that I consider myself a great writer). Anyway, what did I learn from this book, because I do not believe that a book is worth reading unless you learn something from it. First of all, I discovered that Britain ruled the world from the Indian Subcontinent. India was indeed the jewel in the crown of the British Empire, which is why the fought tooth and nail to keep it. I also learnt that because of its empire, Britain was no match for any other budding world power. When you take into account the resources that it was able to draw upon, there was no way that Napoleon or the Kaiser, or even Hitler, had any chance of defeating them. However, it is also true that if, at the turn of the 20th Century, you said that in 50 years the British Empire would be no more, you would have been laughed at (and indeed, that was something that Winston Churchill did say). Yet, it turned out that way. Despite winning World War II, the British Empire did not survive World War II. Finally, while I am not a fan of imperialism, and indeed not a fan of American Imperialism, we must always consider the alternatives, and this is something that India did in World War II. Britain, as indeed America, are not perfect, but if the alternatives are Nazism, Imperial Japan, or Stalinist Russia, then in the end, the British, and now the American Empires are the much better alternative.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Jul 23, 2011
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0143034790
| 9780143034797
| 3.50
| 749
| Apr 26, 2004
| Mar 29, 2005
|
I find Professor Ferguson to be an incredibly insightful historian and a very concise writer, and I must say that I have really enjoyed the books of...more
I find Professor Ferguson to be an incredibly insightful historian and a very concise writer, and I must say that I have really enjoyed the books of his that I have read. However, I did find that this book did start to become a bit dry and depressing near the end, but it is still a very good book and well worth the read. Without going into extensive arguments and discussions about what America should do with his unprecidented power, and also the concept of the rule of law (which he does not explore in this book, but I will make mention of it) I shall look at what I found insightful, the aspects of the argument that I do agree with, and then the aspects of the argument that I disagree with, and in a way believe that he has overlooked (not that it really changes his conclusion all that much). The United States is unique among empires in many ways. The main difference is that it is an empire that seem to be repulsed by expansionism. In the early 19th century it expanded to take direct control of a large strip of land on the North American continent, and then all of the sudden it stopped. Since that time, the US only acquired Alaska, a collection of islands in the Pacific and the island of Puerto Rico. Every other country that they have occupied they have eventually left (though it is too early to see with Afghanistan and Iraq). In fact the American people seem repulsed by war. The anti-war protests in the lead up to Iraq, and the subsequent protests since are nothing new. In fact anti-war protests, and critics, date back to the Mexican American war, though even despite the fact that the US had an overwhelming victory against the Mexicans, they pretty much withdrew after the obtained the southwestern states. Secondly, unique amongst empires, America did not expand simply by conquest, but rather by purchasing land through the issuance of bonds. The Louisiana Purchase, the Gadsen purchase, Alaska, and even the Southwestern states were not so much the spoils of war, but rather a fire sale forced upon the Mexican government. As for the aspects of his arguments that I agree with: the main one is that if the United States were to collapse as a world power, would that make the world any better - highly unlikely. First, when we look at the ashes of World War II there were four contenders to become the world superpower - Germany, Japan, Russia, and the United States (Britain was in its final death throws). Out of those four contenders, we are pretty comfortable in picking the one we would all like. As for now, Ferguson's argument is that there is no viable contender - Europe is straining under an aging population, and China is a bubble that is waiting to burst. A withdrawl of American power is likely to leave an apolar world, or a world without a significant influence, which is likely to leave us in a worse position (though he does not consider the rise of corporate power over the last half century). His case for liberal empire is very compelling, and in stating his case, he looks at Britain. While Britian is guilty of many attrocities, she also invested heavily in her empire in that her former colonies are now quite prosperous (see Australia, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong) and even India and South Africa, despite a widening wealth gap, are still better today than before they arrived. America, he argues, could to a lot, but it doesn't. It isn't the case that American as a power is not a nation builder, all we have to look at is Germany, Japan, and South Korea to see their successes with nation building. However, the American attitude of non-interfearance, and that when they do interfere, they simply want to topple the government and go home, is not conducive to the creation of a functioning nation state. Even trying to invade on the cheap just does not work. Ferguson points out that there is an abundance of labour available in prisons and on the streets to fill the army (the British did that), but they are loathe to instate conscription, even if it only applies to those who have forfeited their rights due to the commission of a crime. As for my disagreements, they are twofold. In his discussion on an apolar world, he does not take into account the rise of corporate power. There are mega corporations today that function like countries, and have the capital of a developed country. However, unlike a country, companies cannot easily default on debt. Still, in an apolar world, corporate power is going to be much more noticable, and much more oppressive than it is currently. It will not be a world of nationstates, but a branded marketplace of ever increasing competition and back room deals. Unlike a democracy, where there is one vote for all, in a corporate, it is one vote per share, so the biggest shareholders hold the greatest power. Secondly, I simply do not accept his view on the Iraq War. While I agree that Sadam could not be trusted, and was a dangerous man, the government still lied. Further, the question of weapons of mass destruction is a moot point. North Korea and Iran are much closer to developing nuclear bombs, and other states, if they cannot make them, they can still purchase them, pretty much puts Sadam alongside all of the other tinpot dictators out there. So, why Iraq. That is a one world answer - oil. Two words - cheap oil. I'm sorry professor Ferguson, it's not a conspiracy theory, its a fact. The US needs cheap oil, and bucketloads of it (okay, I know, oil is measured in barrels, but that is beside the point). With Iraq having the worlds second largest reserves that the government is refusing to sell to them at prices they like, then with a bunch of hawks in government means that it is going to be too tempting a target to ignore.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Jul 22, 2011
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0465024963
| 9780465024964
| 3.85
| 517
| 2005
| Oct 09, 2006
|
While I might not agree with everything in this book (and a book on the Ancient World is going to deal with a lot of speculation based upon the evide...more
While I might not agree with everything in this book (and a book on the Ancient World is going to deal with a lot of speculation based upon the evidence that we have) this is a good book that gives a great overview of Greece and Rome between Homer and Herodotus (one of the disagreements I have is that I believe the classical world came to an end with Augustus, but that is just me). There are two main themes running through this book and that is the question of liberty and luxury. It is interesting to note that the ancient people did not like tyranny, and in fact, many Greek city states, Rome, and Carthage, were all ruled by councils and elections as opposed to hereditary monarchies. In fact, as we look at Athens and Rome, we see a period of oligarchy move to tyranny which is then overthrown to produce a democracy. However the flaws with democracy is that there is a pandering to populism which results in a return to tyranny. Churchill was right when he said 'he who negelects the past is doomed to repeat its mistakes'. The question of luxury, something that we should take a long hard look at in our day and age, raises the question of a civilisation becoming soft, and in becoming soft, opens itself to danger from without and within. In our days we not only take luxury forgranted, but we actually see it as our right to live a luxurious life, but in the last few years we have seen this desire for luxury result in an economic crisis in that our lifestyle has been supported by debt, which in the end must be paid back, but because credit has been so easy to obtain, it has resulted in bad loans and toxic mortgages which brought the banking system to its knees and we have not yet seen the effects of the resulting bail outs. He who neglects history is doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Jul 22, 2011
| Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
| 1906833133
| 9781906833138
| 3.93
| 96
| 1952
| Oct 01, 2009
|
The basis of this book is that the Ancient World in in fact quite mysterious. We don't actually know the full extent of what happened and the time lin...more
The basis of this book is that the Ancient World in in fact quite mysterious. We don't actually know the full extent of what happened and the time lines that we have created are more speculation than actual fact. Granted, we know quite a lot about the Greek and Roman worlds, but go back before the Greek Dark Ages before the classical period and then we enter into the mists of history. Velikovsky believes that what we understand about Egyptian history is just plain wrong, and though he goes in details attempting to realign the Egyptian world with the biblical worlds, he doesn't actually explain what the leading academics have got wrong. Namely were the extra 600 hundred years that he proposes has been inserted. I have read another book where the author believes we have inserted 300 years into Egyptian history and has readjusted the time line accordingly. However, understanding ancient history is a puzzle, and constructing an understanding of the events of the ancient world can be like putting a jigsaw puzzle together, and sometime we simply slam the pieces into the puzzle to make them fit. I'm not saying that the mainstream historians are correct because in a lot of cases I believe that they have also slammed the pieces into the puzzle, and though Velikovsky does provide a lot of research, I believe in a number of cases he has done the same thing. All in all, a dry and academic book, but interesting nonetheless.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Jul 23, 2011
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
|
| 0199132755
| 9780199132751
| unknown
| 3.00
| 1
| unknown
| unknown
|
It is always difficult to write a book covering an historial period when there are generally so many events leading up to this period and also many r...more
It is always difficult to write a book covering an historial period when there are generally so many events leading up to this period and also many reprecusions from this period, and it is even more difficult when one is writing a book for highschool students. This particular book was recommended by our year 12 history teacher since she believed that it covered most of the topics that we would be looking at. However, while it touched on the events before 1905, it finishes off around 1920 after Lenin introduced his New Economic Policy. Russia had always been a backward country, the Reformation had not reached its borders nor had the democratic revolutions of the 19th century and of the European powers Russia was one of the last countries to industrialise. While many of the Western European states had become industrial powerhouses by the turn of the 20th Century with a rising middle class, Russia was still an autocratic state with a substantial peasant population with a definite class structure. There was really no upwardly mobile middle class and the reigns of government was tightly held by the Tsars. That is not to mention that there were no reforms, serfdom had been abolised (though this was relatively late) and factories were beginning to appear in many of the major cities, but the backwardness of the country was ripe for a revolution. Throughout the late 19th century numerous left wing groups (such as the anarchits and the nihilists) were agitating for change, and this agitation did lead to the assassination of one of the Tsars. The response was a brutal crackdown on these extreme groups. Obviously the boiling point came in 1905 when the country broke down into a revolution, and the most famous event of this period was the Battleship Potemkin where the sailors of the battleship (which I believe was the pride of the Russian fleet at the time) rebelled and took over the ship. The revolution was quickly crushed, but Tsar Nicholas did institute some reforms introducing the Dumas, which was their form of parlaiment. However the Duma was quite weak and Russia was still very much an autocratic state. While tensions still mounted through the period, when war broke out in 1914 Russia quickly joined the side of Britain and France. In their mind the defeat of Napoleon still loomed large and they believed that nobody could take Russia (they had forgotten the embarrasing defeat during the Crimean War, a war which they should have won). However things did not work out as they planned. Germany did not invade Russia, but rather they would launch strike missions against their lines, but did not go deep into Russian territory as Napoleon had done. This meant that when the Russian troops pulled back, scorching the earth as they went, they were causing more damage to themselves than to the Germans. To say that the war went badly for the Russians is an understatement. It went so badly that in February 1915 the country once again collapsed into revolution and this time the Tsar was deposed as a parlaimentary democracy was established. However this did not last long. The country was still at war, and the war was still going badly, and the lot of the people had not changed much at all. This was what Lenin and his Bolsheviks needed, and in a coup in October 1915 seized control of the important institutions of Russia and established the Soviet Union. Now a couple of things. Russia was never meant to become a communist state at this stage. This is not what Marx had envisioned. The communist state was to come about through a workers revolution, where the workers rise up enmass, overthrow the Bourgiasie employers, and establish a series of comunes. The idea was that the concept of the management structure was to be disbanded and the workplace was to run on democratic principles. We see echos of this idea today with the union movement, though many people look down on the unions as being under the control of the employers that they are supposed to stand against, though this is a debate for another time. Secondly Lenin's following was quite small. The Bolsheviks were the more radical of the groups, with the Mensheviks being supportive of Marx's ideas but somewhat less radical. However, the Bolsheviks won, and with control of the government structure of Russia, proceeded to execute the royal family (so that they could not seize control. One method is establishing control in a coup is to kill the previous leaders for as long as the previous ruler is still alive there is always a chance that they will rally support and make another tilt at the throne). He then pulled Russia out of the war (which upset the allies no end, and resulted, after the conclusion of hostilities in Western Europe, in a civil war in Russia). It is interesting to speculate as to whether it was withdrawing from the war was the cause of the rift between the Bolsheviks and the west, or was it more on ideological lines. We see that during the 20s there was a growing rift between the communists and the capitalists, but then the ideological differences between the two was always going to lead to conflict, particularly since the communists in Russia were agitating for a world wide communist revolution (which never came). The tipping point was during the Great Depression, and shortly after the end of World War II. In 1933 Germany was divided between the two extremes of Facism and Communism, and the Facists won (with a little help from the Americans) and the West then sat back hoping that Germany and Russia would destroy each other in a war of attrition. This never happened, particularly since Hitler and Stalin signed a peace treaty. However I am getting way ahead of myself. I will finish off with the New Economic Policy. This was pretty much a response to the fact that Lenin's extreme version of communism pretty much failed. Granted, Russia had been economically devastated by World War I, and was now facing pressure from the White Russians and their allies in the west. A completely state run economy was not work, so Lenin, while maintaining control of the means of production (that is agriculture and industry), he allowed small business to flourish. As with the civil war he didn't need to do all that much. The West was sick of war and did not want to continue to fight against Russia, and the White Russians were weak without them, so the whole war collapsed leaving the Soviet Union to dominate world politics for the next 70 years. Finally the means of production. The truth is, who owns this? Modern Russia (under Putin) has seized back control of Russia's oil and gas wealth, which was taken out of government hands during the rise of the oligarchs in the 1990s. Russia now uses its energy wealth as a very power bargaining chip to force her neighbours to heel. However we see the struggle between public and private interests all the time. It is my position that all mineral wealth in a country is owned by the people of that company, so foreign (especially foreign) miners who want to come in and mine these minerals need to pay for them like everybody else. It is like walking into a shop, paying a flat fee to the store owner for being in the store, and then taking what you like. I have to pay to take something out of the store, so why don't the miners pay for the minerals that they want to take (as China is doing by restricting the sale of Rare Earth Elements into the market). Granted, it may cause fluctuations with the price of the commodity, but hey, all of that iron ore up in the Pilbara belongs to us Australians and that should be remembered.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Nov 13, 2011
| |||||||||||||||
| 0521367026
| 9780521367028
| 3.00
| 7
| May 28, 1993
| May 28, 1993
|
I've mentioned this before about how difficult it can be to write a book on a particular period of history when there is a lot in the past that leads...more
I've mentioned this before about how difficult it can be to write a book on a particular period of history when there is a lot in the past that leads up to the particular period in which the book is set. This book begins with the Act of Union between England and Scotland, thus creating the United Kingdom of Great Britain and finishes in 1975 with Britain's entry into the European Economic Community. Thus this book is a book about sovereignty, and it is seen by many that by entering the Economic Community Britain surrendered much of its sovereignty. In another sense this book also chronicles the rise and fall of the British Empire. Britain did have an empire prior to that, but it wasn't until the mid 19th Century that the Empire was at its peak, and it wasn't until 1920 that the Empire had become that largest empire, in terms of land holdings, that the world had ever seen. However, power and land can be mutually exclusive since when Britain had the influence over the land, its power was already in decline. This book was set as one of the text books for a university course on British History. The course started at 1689, which was the date of the Glorious Revolution, when William of Orange was invited to England to take up the throne, and King James II was effectively kicked out. Many see this as the turning point in Britain's fortunes, however we cannot forget that England was a developing powerhouse from much earlier. However, what 1689 brought about was stability. After the death of Elizabeth and the ascension of the House of Stuart, England had fallen into conflict within itself. The conflict was between the protestants and the catholics, as well as between King and Parliament. This conflict exploded into a full blown civil war which resulted in King Charles losing his head, and then the establishment of the English Republic under Oliver Cromwell. Come 1689, the Stuarts, who had taken back the throne after Cromwell's death, had been removed and England was thus brought out of this period of conflict. In 1707 Scotland and England United to create the Britain that we know today. This period saw an unprecendented rise in English Economic power. The 1700s brought about the rise of merchantalism along with the agricultural revolution. However, England still lacked a lot of land, which is why she continued to search for colonies overseas so that the people at home could be supplied with food. This was the beginning of Globalisation, however tarrifs still existed, and all trade had to go through England, which resulted in the American Revolution. Trade became very important during this period as is evident during the Napoleonic Wars. When asked about Britain, Napoleon simply laughed and asked what a nation of shopkeepers could do. What they could do was to raise capital to finance a war against Napoleon. While Napoleon attempted to strangle England's economy through the continental system, it didn't work, and Napoleon was defeated. While it was not England's wealth that defeated him, it helped a lot. It was also during this time that the Rothschilds came into their own by betting on the Battle of Waterloo and winning. The 19th Century brought the greatest changes to the world as we know it. England industrialised, and this industrialisation spread from her shores to Europe and America. With industrialisation (as well as the Republican movements in the continent) came a rift between the owners and the workers. There were no labour laws in existance, and people were paid pittance to work in horrific conditions. But along with the labour movement came reforms such as the eight hour day and free education (thanks to the Conservative Party). The idea was that by given a little to the working classes would temper the desire for outright revolution. The American revolution had been infectious, spreading to France in 1789, and then to the rest of Europe in 1848. It should be remembered that in 1795, at the height of the French Revolution, England itself was on the verge of revolution. However the rising middle class already had access to power, but it was through the reforms of the 19th Century that power was shifted from the hands of the Monarchy to that of the people (a lot had to do with Victoria not really being interested in running an Empire). This book has a lot to do with political and economic change in England. It does look at the wars and the rise and fall of the empire, but this is not really what it is interested in. There are other books that deal with these issues. This book is looking at political and economic reform. Back in 1707 access to power was limited in the extreme, however by 1975 anybody had the chance to rise to the top of the food chain (though one still needed money and friends). Much of this change arose from the threat of communism and a workers rebellion (which never originated, though many suggest that this was because of the union movement). However, this book stops short of the changes brought about by Margaret Thatcher, though this occurred during the 80's, a period when both the US and the UK swung heavily back to the right on the belief that the socialist reforms of the last 100 years were having an adverse effect upon the economy. However, not everybody can afford a good education, and thus the swing back means that housing once again become unaffordable, the quality of schools and healthcare degrades, and the poorer classes of society are thrown back into their desparation as they struggle from day to day to make ends meet. Still, it is interesting to see that pretty much all of the beggars on the streets of London were white.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Nov 13, 2011
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0521625777
| 9780521625777
| 3.46
| 56
| Jan 28, 2000
| Jan 28, 2000
|
My previous arguments with relation to history books really do not apply here with Australia. From my memories of my school days, Australia did not h...more
My previous arguments with relation to history books really do not apply here with Australia. From my memories of my school days, Australia did not have a history prior to 1789. Okay, a couple of explorers stumbled across the country, but all they saw was lots of rocks, desert, and low lying trees, so they wrote it off as uninhabitable. It was only when Captain Cook arrived off of Sydney Harbour (more precisely Botany Bay) that they decided that the country was worth colonising. Prior to that there was no history to Australia. However that is incorrect, and this book does try to address this. Some would say that it is taking a reinterpretive version of history, but I disagree namely because the original history of Australia failed to take into account the thriving nations of indigeonous Australians that lived here prior to our arrival. Granted the aboriginals may not have lived in cities but that does not mean they are any less human. In fact, up until recently Aboriginals were treated pretty much like orcs are in a Dungeons and Dragons campaign. That is a bunch of barbarous sub-humans that it is okay to kill because the laws of murder do not apply to them. This, obviously, is not the case. The Aboriginals had a complex political system of nations that stretched right across the country. While the aboriginals did not live in cities, they had their own territories which they did not cross, and a sophisticated system of diplomatic relations (such as a visitor standing on the border until they were invited in). They also had a complex legal system as well as a deep cultural heritage. The difference is that they had no recorded history like we have, but there was no need to. Life pretty much went on the same as it had been for thousands of years. Everything they needed was produced by the land, but if they needed something better, they would invent it. While they did not have farms, they did farm the land by planting and harvesting crops as needed, and while they did not fence of paddocks, they did graze the wildlife in the region. However, from 1789 to the present day I still suggest that Australia has no history in the sense that European Nationstates (or even the United States) have. Australia is pretty much an extension of British sovereignty, and since its slow separation from the Crown, it has now entered an era where the region dominates and not the country, though there is still a struggle between Australia's British Heritage and its new Asian identity. We are not Asian, we white Australians say, and because we are not Asian we are not apart of Asia, we are our own. Australian history is thus pretty much a history of expanding coloniasm. We do not care about, and in fact ignore, the wars against the Aboriginals (what? There were wars with the Aboriginals? I thought they simply submitted). Well, that may be the case, but it was what they call peace through superior firepower. There were some incidents of Aboriginals launching guerilla raids against British farms, but they were generally isolated. The fact is, when the Australians first colonised a region, the first thing they would do would be to gun down the inhabitants, and those that were left were either enslaved or fled inland. Now what we have is an underclass of aboriginals living in our cities, and another underclass living in uninhabitable lands in central Australia (much the same as the story of colonialism in the United States). I still think that there is a lot of rewriting of history even today. One prominent church in Australia likes to boast of its evangelical heritage that dates back to the the founding of the colonies. However a religion that preaches peace and goodwill to all men, and that we are all equal under God, that participates in such wholesale slaughter of Aboriginals cannot be that evangelical (how indeed can a pastor of an evangelical church step back and do nothing while innocents are gunned down simply because they want the land). Granted, I was not there when that happened, so I really can't speak for the pastor at the time, but I find that the statement is one of those all encompasing statements that the Church condemns others for using. Look, I liked this book because it tried to take a different view of Australian history. This was a history of class warfare (which was being mimiced in the United Kingdom) and this warfare has broken out into bloody battles such as the Eureka Stockade and the mass protests at the turn of both the 19th and 20th Centuries. While we Australians have been handed our prosperity on a plate, we are not necessarily complacent about it. As with the Workplaces Reforms that the last Liberal Government tried to implement we saw a huge reaction from the working people (which, ironically, has not manifested out of the Carbon Tax). However, the corporate rulers of our country use their power to attempt to influence our thoughts as well, and while I believe the Carbon Tax is a poorly implemented law, it is a necessary step in attempting to reign in unbridled pollution. Workchoices was simply a way of increasing the power of corporate Australia at the expense of the average worker.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Nov 13, 2011
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 1740458095
| 9781740458092
| 3.31
| 26
| unknown
| unknown
|
If I were to sum up this book in a single sentence it would be that this is a book about tools. Not tools in the traditional sense, but in the sense...more
If I were to sum up this book in a single sentence it would be that this is a book about tools. Not tools in the traditional sense, but in the sense of a person that we have a very low opinion of due to a number of reasons, usually because they do or say stupid things. Granted, a number of people mentioned in this book have, or have had, very good reputations, and some of them still do, but what this book does is that it explores the darker sides of this individuals. Now, when we come to people like Tchaicovsky or Polanski, we usually think of them as being a brilliant composer (as in Tchaicovsky's case) or filmmaker (as in Polanski's case), however it is their dark side that is the focus of this book. Both of these individuals a paedophiles, Polanksi actually having a conviction recorded against his name. However, we should note that while paedophili is illegal (as it should be), it was only about 50 years ago that anything that wasn't the strict Christian view of sex was illegal (and even then sex between a married couple was also considered a little off). It is interesting to see how much has changed since then. One of the common themes that seems to run through this book is that most (not all) of the people explored were in one way or another sexual deviants. Granted, the term has changed now so that any form of sex between consenting adults is acceptable. However if we consider many of the characters in this book (with de Sade being one of the worst) there is also a common theme of people being interested in young boys. This, to me, is simply perverted. The reason I say this is because unless one is an adult, one really has little concept of what is happening, and such actions can result in a deviated mind later on in life, and this was the case with the Marqui de Sade. He was molested as a boy, and out of all of the sexual deviants in this book, he was the worst. In the case of de Sade, anything goes. He was a prolific writer, however I have already decided that his books are off my list (and I suspect that they are still black listed in a number of places). It was good to see that Napoleon, after reading two of his books, was so horrified, that he locked de Sade up, and went to extraordinary lengths to prevent him from writing any more. Reading through a number of these characters does remind me of an incident that happened in Australian politics. A high profile member of one of the state legislatures was caught having sex with a mentally deficient man. Now, technically he was an adult, but due to his mental deficiency, one does raise the question of whether he was able to consent. In the same way that until a child reaches the age of 18, the child is incapable of making an informed decision, I believe that a person who is mentally deficient will also have the same difficulties. While it was implied that technically what the politician did was not wrong, it was good to see that he was pressured to resign. It was not because of his homosexual tendancies, that is not an issue here in Australia, given that there are a number of openly homosexual politicians in prominent positions, but rather because, as I believe, he took advantage of this man. Fraud is another aspect that this book explores, and there are a few people who are guilty of it. The book looks at one Parisian lady who has been considered one of the greatest fraudsters that ever lived. However, as with all fraud, and lies in general, they tend to be built on shaky ground, and once somebody wisens up, the whole house of cards quickly collapses. We saw that recently with Bernard Mardoff. Then there is the tele-evangelist who built an empire on the innocence of people and their religious beliefs. Through his programs he would raise millions of dollars which went to fund an extravagant lifestyle. We still see this today where pastors of mega-churches live in luxury while their congregations struggle to make ends meet. No wonder that people find it difficult to trust the church. Look, in the end, unless you are interested in learning about people's darksides, this book can be quite disturbing and gut wrenching. One of the other things that sticks in my mind is the story of Anthony Blunt. He was a high profile member of the British elite, holding the position of Surveyor of the Queen's Pictures. Not only did it turn out that he was a homosexual (though by the time his secrets were revealed, it was no longer a crime) but that he had been selling secrets to the Russians. What happened was that the Russians would leverage him and his friends through blackmail. Learning that they were homosexual, they threatened to reveal this to the world, unless they assisted them. Despite my position on homosexuality, making it a crime simply does not work, and the proof of this is clear with the life of Anthony Blunt. It was only because it was criminal behaviour that the enemies of freedom were able to use it as a weapon against the English (and no doubt the Americans also).(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Dec 19, 2011
| Dec 21, 2011
|
Dec 19, 2011
| ||||||||||||||||
| 0140264485
| 9780140264487
| unknown
| 3.39
| 51
| Jan 01, 1998
| Aug 26, 1999
|
This is one of those books that it is difficult to put into an actual category. In a sense it would be non-fiction if you actually believe everything...more
This is one of those books that it is difficult to put into an actual category. In a sense it would be non-fiction if you actually believe everything that he writes, and in the same sense it could also be considered history. The problem is that Baigent's writings tend to sit at the fringe of accepted academia (if in fact he is considered academia) and in turn his evidence, or at least his interpretation of the evidence, is dubious in the least. This does not necessarily mean that what he writes is wrong, but a lot of it is based on opinion, and in parts, it is based on a belief that really cannot be measured scientifically. Now, the theme of this book is the question of whether there was a significantly advanced society that has been lost in the mists of pre-history, of which only small clues and 'ancient traces' remain. He then further goes onto explore the possibility of some world wide catastrophe that destroyed this civilisation and pretty much wiped all but the smallest of evidences of its existence from the face of the planet. Now while a lot of people, both from the scientific and religious communities, would consign this book to the rubbish heap, I do actually believe that he does raise some very interesting points in this book. It is very clear that Baignet is not a Christian, his book Holy Blood Holy Grail is the book that the idea of The Da Vinci Code was borrow from (I will not use the word stolen as others have used because authors always borrow their ideas from other writers, or even history itself: nothing can truly be considered new or original) however he opens his book outlining the problems with evolution. While I myself am a creationist, I do not consider evolution to be a major issue within Christianity. Some Christians believe in evolution, others (like myself) do not. Unfortunately, some kick up such a fuss over this minor issue that it causes rifts and creates huge amounts of dissension within and outside of the ranks. To me, it is actually refreshing to see a non-Christian write about problems with evolution, which to me, goes to show that this theory has quite a lot of unanswered problems. The next thing that I wish to discuss is the belief in a long lost ancient civilisation. Now, most of us will immediately think of Atlantis, however the earliest indication of the existence of this lost continent is in Plato, and one of the dialogues on the subject is unfinished. Now the accepted belief is that Plato was using Atlantis as an example of his perfect society, and it is suggested that the reason the dialogue on Atlantis is unfinished is because he decided to discard the idea of using Atlantis as an example of his society and wrote 'The Laws' instead, which (at this time I have not read) is simply a rundown on how his society should be constructed without any reference to some mythical society. Plutarch gives a but more of a background on the origins of the story, and though Plutarch wrote some 500 years after Plato, the sources that he would have had available to him were much more significant than what we have available to us. In short, while we have Plutarch, the sources that Plutarch uses we do not have, so we are pretty much relying on second or even third and forth hand accounts of the story of Atlantis. Plutarch suggests that the story originated in Greece after the Athenian Lawgiver, Solon, travelled to Egypt where he learnt of this lost continent from the Priests. Where the priests learnt this, and whether it was actually written down, is lost to us (as far as we know), though it is highly likely that between the priests, and Plato writing the legend down, at lot has been changed. There is, ironically, another possible source for this information, though in this source, Atlantis is not actually named. This source is the bible. The reason I raise this is because in Genesis there are at least two pre-historic societies mentioned in passing, one being the Tower of Babel, and the second being the antediluvian civilisation. I suspect that this ancient society is likely to the the Antediluvian one. The reason I suggest this is because straight after the account of the fall we have Caine's genealogy. This genealogy, after three generations, indicates that humanity had developed ironworking and music. To suggest that this society did not grow much beyond this, I believe, is to ignore the evidences before that. Further, Genesis was complied over the time period between the Flood and the Exodus, with Moses putting it into its final form. It is highly unlikely that Moses, or even Abraham, living in the societies that they did, would have been able to expound a technological society that was in essense greater that the society in which they were living. While they could understand the concept of ironworking, I doubt they would have been able to understand anything beyond that. I won't go into details of the world wide catastrophe that destroyed this civilisation beyond mentioning that the world wide flood is not something that is confined to the bible. The flood narrative actually appears in cultures as distinct as the Greeks and the Australian Aboriginies. This is evidence that our collective memories knows of a disaster that destroyed all civilisation with the exception of a handful of people. If one wonders how such an event could have happened, the evidence that I generally point too are the two crater like gulfs on the east coast of North America. One of them is Hudson Bay, the other is the Gulf of Mexico. If these two locations are actually the impact points of ancient meteorites, then the destruction that the impacts (both of them) would have had on the world would have been extensive indeed. There are a number of other books that I have read on this topic, so I think I should leave this until such a time as I get around to reviewing those books. However, I will point out that the conclusion of this book was a little disappointing. The reason is that it concludes with a chapter on reincarnation. While Baigent has every right to believe this, I do find the concept of reincarnation to be very subjective, and a little strange. First of all, people seem to always be reincarnated from famous (or wealthy) people, and never from poor peasants. Further, it is very subjective, and while a lot of the aspects of this book are difficult to test, some of the theories, that I have outline above, can be tested with evidence. Unfortunately, reincarnation cannot. However, once again, this is a topic that I will leave for another time.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Dec 26, 2011
| Paperback
| ||||||||||||||
| 0060844256
| 9780060844257
| 4.07
| 146
| 1990
| Jun 27, 2006
|
This is similar to the Noam Chomskey book that I read where it was a transcription of a radio interview that the historian had. This one is a collect...more
This is similar to the Noam Chomskey book that I read where it was a transcription of a radio interview that the historian had. This one is a collection of interviews with Alternate Radio where he discusses American History and basically where the United States was at that point in time. While the book was released in 2006, it contains a number of interviews post September 11 and the main theme of the book is that really nothing has changed with the American system of government since its inception. He believes that it is a militant government bent on war of the sake of war, and that the many wars that the United States has been involved in drains funds from the public purse to support what Eisenhower termed as the 'Military Industrial Complex'. I have spoken about war elsewhere, and will do so again, however I will try keep my comments brief here. One of the things that I tend to disagree with the pacifists is that there is the idea of a just war, and that there are times when to is necessarily to go to war, obviously to defend the interests of yourself and your allies. However, sometimes it is necessary to go to war to attempt to prevent the aggressive tendancies of another power or idea, sometimes it is necessary to go to war to remove a tyrant. However, it is not the question of war that I am raising, but how one goes about it. It is quite clear that while there was probably a very good reason to send troops to Vietnam, the way the war was carried out was not. The same goes with Iraq, and it is with Iraq that I will now come to. It is accepted that Sadam was a tyrant, and it is accepted that he murdered many innocent people during his reign. What made Sadam such a threat though was that he has industrialised his nation, and then geared his nation to war. It is true that there is a lot of oil wealth in Iraq, and during the cold war he would play the Russians against the Americans to get the best price for his oil. With the proceeds he then set about industrialising his country and his military, and proceeded to go to war with Iran. The Americans even provided him with weaponry to fight this war. However, it was after the war was over, and that his ally, the Soviet Union collapsed, that the United States discovered that he could not be trusted. The US has no problem with propping up brutal dictators, as long as the dictator plays by their rules, which usually involves opening the country up to corporate exploitation. Further, as long as the country does not embark on projects involving poverty relief, then that is fine as well. There have been a number of South American countries who have elected socialist governments in an attempt to address the poverty of the region, only to discover that the US government has not only allied with their political opponents, but armed them as well (the Sandanistas in Nicuragua and Salvadore Allande on Chile both ring a bell). While it was a noble and just idea to go into Iraq to remove Sadam, this was no the reason that they wanted to do it. There are numerous other dictators (as mentioned) that are just as brutal and dangerous as Sadam, but they are on the US' side. Sadam clearly was not, so he had to be removed. Further, the reason was not noble and just in allowing the Iraqis to determine their own destiny, but to rather install their own, corporate friendly government in the country and open up the population to the free market. It was also intended that the oil wealth of Iraq not go to the Iraqi's, but straight into the coffers of the oil barons. However, things did not turn out the way that they expected. They expected that the country would be in such as shock, that they could move in, change everything, install a Pizza Hut and McDonalds on every corner, and then move out just as fast. However, it did not turn out like that. Immediately after the government collapsed, the people went on a looting rampage, and six months after the invasion, Iraq was on the brink of civil war. One of the other important things that Zinn discusses in this book is history and education. This goes in hand with the idea of media manipulation. With the media concentrated in the hands of (I believe) seven megacorporations, and the expense involved in attempting to establish an alternate source, our understanding of the past and the present is presented to us in a santised package promoting the ideas that the complex wants us to accept, and to rewrite history in a way that we can never know the truth of what really happened. Take Vietnam for instance: it was an embarrasement for the US government, and they had to get out of their as soon as possible. What was more of an embarrasement was that the media was not controlled. We saw a similar incident in Somalia (which is ironically forgotten, and has been sanatised so that only the heroic actions of a small few are all that is remembered by what turned out to be another embarrasing loss). Now information from the warzone is much more tightly controlled. In Vietnam the journalists wrote about and filmed what we saw, and for the first time, on our television screens, we saw the true horror of war. However, come Iraq, journalists are embedded with American troops, and those that go out on their own are told that their life is in their own hands. There are even allegations that journalists who would not follow the official line and remain where they were told to ended up dead. The same went for human rights activists and other NGOs that went into Iraq. The powers that be do not want us to know the truth, and as such limit what we can find out. They will even resort to murder to keep the truth out of our ears (if we even are able to remember it). Education is another thing that is under attack. Education is dangerous because it teaches people to think for themselves. With funding being withdrawn from public schools, and these schools becoming little more than daycare centres, the bulk of the population is being denied a right to education. It is only the wealthy that are able to afford a good education, and even then I suspect that what is taught in the prep-schools is a sanitised, official version, that is not questioned. I suspect that people in those schools are not taught to think but rather taught the official line, and are expected to follow it. There are numerous works on this issue of education, but one film that springs to mind is Dead Poet's Society. In brief it is about a maverick teacher that comes to a prep-school and begins to teach students literature. However, this backfires when the parents find out that their prized possessions (their children) have decided to become actors rather than doctors, and as a result one of the students commits suicide, and the teacher is blamed. It is interesting that none of the characters actually acknowledge that maybe they are in the wrong, it is much easier to externalise blame, and to tarnish another's name just to give one a sense of self-justification. I have probably written enough on this book and on Zinn's ideas for now. There are other books in my collection that also deal with the issues that are raised here, and no doubt I will return to them soon.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Jan 08, 2012
| Jan 12, 2012
|
Jan 08, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0072565632
| 9780072565638
| 3.58
| 53
| 1992
| Aug 01, 2003
|
This was the text book that we used for American History at university. It was a little surprising now that I think about it considering that our lec...more
This was the text book that we used for American History at university. It was a little surprising now that I think about it considering that our lecturer was a huge critic of the United States yet he selected a text book that has a happy ending. He did actually discuss this aspect in one of his lectures, indicating that the books that do not have a happy ending are generally not all that popular within the American educational system. However, this is not America but I suspect there may be some pressure from the powers that be to use such text books. Now, unfortunately I did not take any notes as to these specific text books that he referred to but I could imagine that such authors would be the likes of Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. The problem with those two is that their writings generally cannot be used as a text book for an American History course. Chomsky doesn't write text books, but rather writes books dealing with various topics that fire him up. In his books he also tends to jump around American History to explore ideas that ultimately support the argument that he is making. While he might reference the events on the 1800s, he tends to focus more on post-Vietnam America, and also has a strong interest in the Israel-Palastine conflict, so one again his writings tend not to be directly related to American History. Howard Zinn is a lot different in that he is an American History lecturer (Chomsky is also an Academic, but he is a linguist as opposed to an history) and he has written text books (The People's History of the United States) however his focus tends to be much more on the little people than the movers and shakers. He will look a various periods during the history of the United States but look at them from the bottom up as opposed to the top down, and explores the many minority groups within the United States. For instance, with regards to the American Rebellion, he will look at it from the view of the ordinary soldier who has been conscripted into the army, and then forced to fight a war that benefits the wealthy land owners. His suggestions is that the rebellion came from the top and was a war of the proportied classes rather than any real desire of the people to live in a democratic state. Indeed, when the constitution was drafted it was drafted with the male property owners in mind. This text book is much more of a generalist text book, so when looking at the United States' involvement in World War II he is not looking at the soldiers storming the beaches at Normandy but rather the actions of the generals back in England (or at least sitting on their boats in the middle of the channel). He does explore some of the dichotomy's within America, such as the desire to be a land of the free, as long as you are a member of the WASP (White Anglo-saxon Protestant) culture. I clearly remember discussions regarding the Mexicans in Los Angeles during the war. In an effort to clean up the gangs the government decided to ban the Zoot Suit, so anybody caught wearing one (usually Mexicans) would be locked up. This was not the first time they did something like this. Earlier it is alleged that one of the factors leading to the banning of marijuana was once again an excuse to lock up and deport Mexicans. I shall finished off by jumping to the end, the 90s, the era where the United States had won the cold war and now sat at the top of the food chain. Brinkly looks forward to a United States growing stronger and freer and becoming a beacon of freedom to the world. Obviously he could not look through the crystal ball to see September 11, the disputed election of George Bush, and the Iraq War. Nor could he envision the polarisation of the country, and the winding back of the rights of the citizens through wire tapping phones, or mockery of those who hold differing political views. There has always been a fear of Communism within the United States, but we also see that its political spectrum still takes a hard swing to the Right. Even Obama continues to pander to American Corporate interests with regards to his policy making. However, as time has moved on, the failure of the American corporate model has become evident with the complete collapse of the housing market in 2007. (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Mar 13, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0198204183
| 9780198204183
| 3.75
| 4
| unknown
| Sep 03, 1998
|
This was one of my textbooks from University and surprise, surprise, it was written by the Professor that took a couple of my classes. Sometimes I wo...more
This was one of my textbooks from University and surprise, surprise, it was written by the Professor that took a couple of my classes. Sometimes I wonder if lecturers write textbooks specifically for their classes (normally because none of the other text books around either do not cover the topics that they wish to cover, or do not reach the conclusions that they wish us to reach). This textbook deals with the rise of the British Empire between 1660 and 1815, that is between the restoration of the monarchy after the republican period led by Oliver Cromwell, and the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Our course, however, dealt with the period between 1789 (the Glorious Revolution) and 1900 (the death of Queen Victoria). It is difficult to really pinpoint when Great Britain began to develop into the empire that would dominate the world in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Some point to the Act of Union between England and Scotland that laid the foundations of Great Britain, while others point to the Norman Conquest of 1066 which began to move England from a backward island of the coast of England to central player in European politics. However, as we look through this era, we see a number of important events, which include the Magna Carta which established parliament and a a rule to law, the rise of Henry VIII, who broke England away from the rule of Rome, to numerous other events in her history. However this particular book looks at the period between the end of the Civil War and the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The civil war strengthened the rule of parliament and began to put restraints on the power of the king, however despite the failure of the Republic, when the Stuart dynasty returned to the throne, it was clear that they had learned nothing from the failure of their predecessors. This lead to the Glorious Revolution (a very important event in the history of the British Empire), a bloodless revolution which resulted in the removal of the Stuart dynasty and the establishment of William of Orange as king of England. By this time, the powers of the king had been defined, and a system of government involving three arms of power (the Executive, being the King; the legislature, being parliament; and the judiciary, being the courts). It was said that this system worked very effectively during the 18th century, and in this time we begin to see the agricultural revolution, and then the economic revolution which thrust England towards the industrial revolution in the 19th century. However everything wasn't as wonderful as it seems, because there was still a lot of development of the modern democratic state through this period and into the 19th century. The whole struggle between parliament and the king had a lot to do with the struggle that began back in the days of King John, and that being the development of the idea that the king does not hold all power, and that there is a recognition of human rights. However much of these rights, at this time, had more to do with economic rights, that being the right to develop one's business and one's fortune. However, during this period much of this was still restricted to the aristocratic class. The members of parliament were still required to be property owners, and there was a qualification of the value of the property as well. Further, a number of electorates were unevenly distributed, enabling certain people to always sit in parliament. However, while England was slowly moving towards liberalism, France was drifting towards absolutism. The American Revolution occurred during this period. Despite criticism of this historical event (as I do) we must remember that this was a decisive shock to the European World. The rebellion effectively destroyed the class structure that was dominant in Europe, and the effects of the revolution would have significant effect upon the development of Europe. While the US was fighting against absolutism, the French foolishly chose to send troops to help the Americans, simply because they were fighting the British. However, the unexpected consequence of this was that the ideas of freedom and democracy was taken back to France, and within a decade, the French government had collapsed into revolution. England wasn't immune from this as well as despite being on the losing side of the Rebellion, the ideas from the rebellion floated back into England, and with France in revolt on their doorsteps, it was not going to be long before England was going to be facing the threat of revolt (which it did in 1795). However, unlike the French, the English had a very effective parliamentary system, and was able to slowly introduce reforms to cool the population. That was not to mean that this was going to be the end of any reforms. Push for reform continued into the 19th century and even into the 20th century, however it was during the 19th century that the modern state would develop into the form that we know. However, the book ends in 1815, which once again, is a significant date as it heralds the end of the Napoleonic Wars, in which England emerged victorious. Despite defeat in the United States, the English emerged victorious from what truly be considered the first world war. The end of the wars heralded a period of 100 years of peace known as the Pax Brittania. However, despite there technically being no wars, it did not mean that the British were not involved in conflict. What differed was that most of these battles occurred on the fringes of the empire. However, while there has not been another 'world war' since the Second World War, many commentators consider that the United States is still mired in some form of perpetual war. It is as if the empire itself cannot exist unless it is at war. This, I propose, was the same with England.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Mar 14, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0143035134
| 9780143035138
| 3.95
| 757
| 1973
| Oct 05, 2004
|
My sister bought me this book for Christmas once since she knew that I liked the ancient world, though I must admit that this period is a little late...more
My sister bought me this book for Christmas once since she knew that I liked the ancient world, though I must admit that this period is a little later than what I generally am interested in. However my sister is an accountant so she is not to know the specifics of my interests in the ancient world, and that my interest generally begins to wane after the death of Socrates. It is not necessarily true though, as this intervening period sees the rise and decline of Helanism and the rise of the Roman Empire. Alexander the Great is very much an important person in the development of the Western World. He is one of the very few people that have earned the moniker 'the Great' though one should not be too proud of such a moniker. Granted there was Frederik the Great of Prussia, who began the road that led Germany to become a superpower at the turn of the 20th Century, but there is also Herod the Great. I once asked somebody why he was earn the moniker 'The Great' when the most famous thing that he did was slaughter all of the children under the age of 2 in the region of Bethlehem. There were a few reasons, but as far as I am concerned they really do not cover up the fact that this man killed babies. However, we are looking at Alexander and not Herod. Alexander's claim to fame, as I hope all of you are aware of, is that he pretty much conquered the Middle East in a very short space of time. Okay Hitler did the same with Europe, but the difference was that Hitler had tanks and planes, whereas Alexander was limited to horses and chariots. There was no real advanced technology with Alexander, but what there was was a change in the nature of military forces and also tactics that he used. One of the differences was that Alexander had developed a standing army. This was rather new in this period. While other powers, such as Persia, could raise a large army, they were not professional soldiers. Many of them were conscripts that were taken from their lands, given weapons, and told to fight. The same was in Greece, and even with Sparta, their army was not a standing army, but rather a city of citizens that are trained as warriors from a very young age. However Alexander's revolution was to create the professional soldier, and in doing so, his army would be properly trained, but also he did not have to worry about soldiers deserting come spring time, to return home to plant their crops. Fox is quite a good author, and after reading this book, when I found another book he had written (The Classical World) I immediately bought it and moved it to the top of my reading list. I have tried a number of books that novelise ancient events, and in many cases have not been to thrilled with them. There was one I read about the Persian Wars and another about the Tyrant of Syracuse. A third one I read was about the first Punic War. However while the history was interesting, I could not find myself getting immersed in the story. However Fox writes as an academic, outlining the historical beliefs of the period, and drawing together a story that way. In many ways it is a story outlining the conquests of Alexander and exploring many of the themes behind it and also exploring the character of Alexander. Alexander had very big ambitions, but his conquests in many ways were little more than a continuation of the Persian Wars that began with the Ionian Revolt (thought it is funny that Anatolia is referred to as Ionia when in reality Ionia is on the other side of Greece near the Adriatic Sea). While there was quite a long interlude between the defeat at Platea and the conquest of Alexander, there was always a tension between the two powers. Greece had stood up to and defeated the Persians, and while the Persians had backed off somewhat, there was always that ongoing influence in Greek affairs. In a way that threat had to be put out of the way for good and thus instead of simply defending the Greek civilisation from Persian incursions, Alexander went out to put an end to the threat for good. However, one could also consider that it was a lust for conquest. Phillip of Macedon, Alexander's father, had united Greece, but was assassinated. Alexander took the throne, consolidated his kingdom, and then went out as a conquerer to conquer. However he went east, not west. Sometimes there is speculation as to what would have come about if he went west, but he didn't, so we do not need to worry. What Alexander's conquests did was to spread the Greek culture across the Middle East, and this also opened up the lands to the exotic realms beyond the desert, such as India. Even today Alexander is held in reverence among the people of Afghanistan. India became a part of the world, and the Greek language became a universal language. In another way Alexander laid the foundations for another conquerer, Rome, to come and take over. However, for a long time, the Middle East was purely Greek, had Greek culture, and spoke Greek. In doing so, Greek became the lingua franca of the region, and resulted in the New Testament being written in the common tongue.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Mar 31, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0192838792
| 9780192838797
| 3.44
| 34
| Jun 22, 2000
| Jun 22, 2000
|
This book is a collection of essays that pertains to looking at some of the problems that arise from Shakespearian plays, though the conclusions of m...more
This book is a collection of essays that pertains to looking at some of the problems that arise from Shakespearian plays, though the conclusions of most of these essays tend to come down to the fact that there actually isn't a problem if only we understood the way the play was written and Shakespeare's original intention. However, to me, this sounds like the authors seem to think that Shakespeare can do no wrong, and any problems that arise from his plays have more to do with our limited understanding than with any internal flaw. My response to this is simply that Shakespeare is human, albeit a very talent human, but still a human. In this commentary I won't so much comment on their essays but rather touch on some of the problems that appear to have arisen. The main reason for this is that it has been a while since I read this book, and with the bulk of books for me to read and to reread, unfortunately this book will not be one of them. The first topic is whether Henry V was a war criminal. This argument is flawed on so many ways that to even consider simply is anachronistic. Look, in today's world, he mostly would be, but remember, he lived over 500 years ago at a time that England was still technically living in the middle ages. Many people do not attribute England's entry into the modern world until after the end of the wars of the Roses. Further, we may label Henry V as a war criminal, but weren't all the other kings and generals the same at that time. While there was a basic understanding of the rule of law and of human rights, he did not have a Geneva convention. Anyway, remember that history is written by the winners, and in this particular period Henry V was the winner. There is also a essay about the ages of some of the characters, such as King Lear and Juliet. I actually wonder what the point and purpose of this essay is. Why should we concerned about Lear's age or Juliet's youth. I suspect that Lear was probably quite old, and the character seems to play this out quite well. He has elements of depression (and I actually wanted to run a depression test over him to see if we could diagnose Lear as such). He also has elements of dementia, and spends most of the play wracked in insanity. As for Juliet, my immediate guess would be that she would be in her early to mid teens. The reason I say that is because that is the age where well born women would be married. Then there is the essay on Hamlet, though from the title I am not sure whether they are referring to Hamlet as being stupid, or the ghost, however I would suggest that the stupidity is resting with Hamlet. This is actually a good aspect of the play to look at, and it is something that I have considered as well. In those days, though I suspect that the original Hamlet (Hamleth) was during a pre-christian period. However, it is clear that the play is set after Denmark became Christian, so the question is, why did Hamlet listen to the ghost despite Christian doctrine warning us away from such spiritual entities. My immediate response is simply that the ghost, demon or not, appeared to Hamlet as his father. Further, Hamlet doesn't immediately trust the ghost, and decides to actually test the truth of the Ghost's accusations. That is why he staged the play, and was also hesitant in killing Claudius. It is only when he overhear's Claudius confessing his sin, that he knew that the ghost was telling the truth. Finally, I will look at the question of whether Cleopatra was a dead-beat mum. I have just finished reading Antony and Cleopatra, and my immediate answer would be yes. As I suggested in my commentary on the play, Cleopatra seems to play the role of a serpent who wraps herself around Antony and tries to bring him into her power, to be her king and emperor, and to raise herself to the position of emperess of the world. In was the battle between Ceaser and Antony outside Alexandria that set the course of the future empire, and it was Ceaser who won. I would not necessarily say that Cleopatra threw her lot in with the wrong person. No, Antony was maleable, and exposed to her wiry charms, and it seems that he defeat and failure was pretty much predestined.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
May 19, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0156027615
| 9780156027618
| 3.66
| 157
| 1928
| Nov 04, 2002
|
This is not an historical text book per se but rather a telling of the story of the relationship between the Earl of Essex and Queen Elizabeth I in a...more
This is not an historical text book per se but rather a telling of the story of the relationship between the Earl of Essex and Queen Elizabeth I in a way that rings like a romantic tragedy. It is difficult to tell the accuracy of many of the accounts in this book namely because he does not source it in the traditional sense. I am not sure of when many of the modern books began to reference their material (and many of the factual novels that are released these days include references, and even footnotes on the more obscure references in the text). Having references is actually quite helpful, particularly when you wish to explore the subject further. I was never really aware that Queen Elizabeth had any romantic relationships and it is suggested (including in this book) that she was actually unable to have sex because of a physical deformity. I am not entirely sure of the accuracy of this because I am doubtful that Elizabeth would have had a tell all attitude. In fact she comes across as the type of leader that would hold her cards very close to her chest, and was reluctant to reveal any weaknesses in her character. We must remember that Elizabeth was a woman doing a man's job in a man's world, and no doubt there were a lot of conservatives around that would balk at the idea of a woman on the throne. England was actually quite an unusual country for Western Europe namely because there was generally no issue with a woman on the throne. Elizabeth wasn't the first, and definitely not the last, however from memory I do not really recall any sole female rulers prior to Queen Mary (Elizabeth's sister). The same system operated in Scotland (which was independent of England at the time). It should further be noted that a female monarch would assume her position on the throne if the woman was the next in line (it is unclear whether a younger male would succeed her, but in both Mary and Elizabeth's case, there wasn't one). I have always admired Queen Elizabeth not simply for being a woman doing a man's job but for doing it quite well. When we look back at that period of English history we almost see an England that is coming in on its own. Elizabeth was sympathetic towards the idea of a national church, however wasn't willing to go as far as some of the radical reformers wanted to (and this happened during the English civil war and the period of the Republic afterwards). In a way she was satisfied with the split from the Catholic Church (which was the opposite of her predecessor) however was satisfied with not going too much further than her father Henry did. We also see under Elizabeth a flowering of English literature. Many of the great names of the English renaissance appeared during Elizabeth's reign, people such as John Donne, Kit Marlowe, Edmund Spencer, and of course William Shakespeare. That is not to say that this was the high point of English literature since there were more to come during the 17th century with poets such as John Milton, John Bunyan, and Thomas Hobbes, but we can clearly see that Elizabeth brought about the completion of England's movement from the medieval past to the modern future. Elizabeth had her fair share of battles and struggles, particularly early on in life where she was imprisoned and almost executed by her sister, but also during her reign. He supporting of the English reformation meant that she had made enemies both at home and abroad, though many of the local enemies, particularly those connected to the church, were forced to flee to the continent. However, we cannot forget Mary Queen of Scots, who spent much of her later life imprisoned in numerous castles around the country, only to be executed for fear of undermining her Aunt's reign. Then there is the case of the Spanish Armada, which one suggests that England was lucky to defeat. However the defeat was not a touch and go one but pretty much a decisive victory. After a battle that England was expected to lose, the Armada pretty much turned around (namely by encircling England) and limping back home. Many of the ships that survived the battle, were lost of the circuitous route home. I find English history to be fascinating, and I find the life of Queen Elizabeth just as fascinating. It is a shame that I have not yet seen the two movies that were made about her, and I think I should make an effort the next time I am in the video store, to locate them, hire them, and watch them. (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Jun 14, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 063121500X
| 9780631215004
| 3.44
| 9
| unknown
| Apr 07, 2000
|
This book pretty much read like my Medieval and Renaissance subject at university, though it was set in a much tighter period than the course that I...more
This book pretty much read like my Medieval and Renaissance subject at university, though it was set in a much tighter period than the course that I studied. The period is around 1300 to 1450, to the period that is covered is the later medieval period, the Renaissance was just beginning in Italy, the Byzantine empire was in decline, and during this period the city fell to the invading Turks (who had surrounded the city). The Iberian Peninsula had been liberated from the Moor occupiers, but was not yet modern Spain (rather it was the two kingdoms of Aragon and Castille), however by the end of the period, they had merged to become the Kingdom of Spain. This was also the period of the Spanish Inquisition (which is not surprising since the idea was to remove the remaining non-Christians on the peninsula). Meanwhile, England and France were at war, and would remain so for the entire period, and at the conclusion of the war (which was the 100 year war) England would have been expelled from the continent. So, that was the run down of the period, I guess we should consider what important events occurred during the period, and how did it change history as we know it. Well, the most important invent at this time was the fall of Constantinople. Well, actually, I the book ends three years before the actual fall, but it was during this period that we begin to see the migration of the orthodox church from Greece and Anatolia over to Italy, which in turn began to usher in the Renaissance. However, the Turks had already had the city surround, and were beginning to push into Greece and the Balkan Peninsula (and they would continue to invade over the next 200 years). Constantinople was already in its death throes, and had been since the Venetians sack the city in 1204. It is also during this period that we begin to see the decline of the Catholic Church which in the next hundred years would usher in the Reformation. While there were a number of mini-reformations before Luther, many of these (such as the Hussites) ocurred after this time period. The important event that happened during this period was what was known as the Babylonian Captivity. I cannot say too much about this particular event, except that at this time there was numerous disputes as to who was Pope, and the struggle between the church and state was coming to ahead. The Babylonian Captivity, called after the period of 70 years that the Israelites were exiled to Babylon, involved the papal seat being moved to the French city of Avignon. During this time Rome had become little more than a ghost town. Germany didn't exist per se, but was rather a large collection of principalities and city states headed up by the Holy Roman Emperor. This position wasn't like your typical king, in that you would inherit the position from your father, but rather you would be elected for life. This was not democratic at all namely because the only candidates were nobility and only the nobility could vote, in fact only the heads of the German states could vote, however this was before the Hapsburgs came onto the scene. The Hierarchy in the title referred to the semi-fuedal system that was evident at this time, however we do see the decline of the fuedal system in this period as the normal people become more mobile, however politically it simply did not exist, politically there was still a strict hierarchical structure that was dominated by social position as family ties. People still worked the land and still did not travel much beyond their villages, however merchantile trade was beginning to develop, and we begin to see the foundations of the modern banking system appearing in Northern Italy, as well as the development of Merchantile Republics (such as Florence and Venice). The revolt in the title has nothing to do with revolt against governments, that wasn't to begin happening for another two hundred years, but rather it was the revolt against the church. The period of the twin pillars of Chrisendom was coming to an end, particularly since many of the kings were becoming very annoyed at the Pope's constant interference in their affairs. This event, as mentioned, opens the door for the reformation, particularly where a number of princes rallied behind Luther and protected him from the agents of the Pope. This could never have happened if the Pope still held ultimate authority over Western Europe.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Jun 17, 2012
| Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
| 0140449523
| 9780140449525
| 3.89
| 778
| 1962
| Nov 30, 2004
|
I suspect that Vermes is probably the foremost expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls since it seems that every book about it is either written, or edited, b...more
I suspect that Vermes is probably the foremost expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls since it seems that every book about it is either written, or edited, by him, but then that is simply an observation that I have made. For those not familiar with these ancient documents, they were found hidden in a cave by the Dead Sea in about 1947 by a young shepherd and they have been classified as one of the most significant archeological finds of the last century. Basically they are a collection of scrolls written by a Roman era Jewish sect known as the Essenes, and among the many non-biblical scrolls, they also contain a complete copy of the book of Isaiah and pretty much sections of every other book of the Old Testament, and most importantly, some of these scroll date back to at least 100 bc. In fact, other than the Babylonian tablets, and the Egyptian wall writings, they are probably some of the oldest texts that we have. The Essenes were an isolationist Jewish sect that had become disgusted with both sides of Jewish politics, being those collaborating with Rome and those rebelling against Rome, and took the third option, leave society and go an establish your own, pure society, in the middle of the desert. These scrolls actually contain details of their cleansing rituals as well as admission requirements for new members. In fact, they appear to be very cultish, effectively rejecting the world of the day and having pretty much nothing to do with them. They world be very similar to some of the isolationist Christian cults that we see around the place, though probably closer to say the likes of Branch Davidian than some of the cults that actually abide by the rules of society, while living separate from them (remember, the whole Branch Davidian fiasco really came down to the fact that they we so isolationist that they refused to pay taxes, which is why the FBI came down so hard of them, they were not terrorists like the Jewish Zealots were). These scrolls also give us an insight into the ways that the Old Testament books were written, in that we have a number of scrolls which contain merely outlines of the books rather than the complete text it self, as well as commentaries on various aspects of these books. The Essenes were very Jewish, so the scrolls really only contain literature that relates to Jewish Literature than they do to any of the foreign influences that we find in the Gnostic Gospels. The Jewish mind set of the day was generally to reject anything that was not Jewish (unless you were a collaborator, and then all bets were off). These scrolls are pre-Christian, and in fact pre-Christ, so despite suggestions to the contrary, there are no New Testament documents among the collection. However, we do have glimpses of the idea of the Messiah in these texts and what the Essenes at least were looking for. However, it appears that they were not looking for one, but two separate Messiahs, one being a teacher and another being a ruler. Many of the fundamentalist Jews of the day were expecting a warrior King, along the line of David and Joshua, rather than a king of Wisdom, along the line of Moses and Solomon. This also comes out amongst the scrolls, particularly with references to the Kittim, which we understand as being the Romans. Remember, things were different in those days in that it was a lot easier to isolate oneself from society that it is now. Despite the vast tracks of emptiness that cover the world, it is difficult for us Westerners to live a self sufficient lifestyle, the government will always intrude. Now I do not necessarily consider modern government to be a bad thing, but I am not all in favour of the current practices either. In a way I consider that governments are a necessary evil. It differed for the Jews than to me though because I am a citizen of my nation-state, whereas the Jews were an occupied people. Whatever freedoms they had were always dictated to them by the Roman legate.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Sep 14, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 1581821182
| 9781581821185
| 3.65
| 34
| Sep 20, 2000
| Sep 20, 2000
|
There are somethings that I agree with this book and somethings that I don't. The main thing that I agree is that history is far more than dates and...more
There are somethings that I agree with this book and somethings that I don't. The main thing that I agree is that history is far more than dates and dead people, but instead it is a story that is moving from one point to another (teleological as opposed to cyclical) and that there are so many small interelated events that end up making a large impact upon the story. What I do not necessarily agree with is the fairly Christian Fundamentalist interpretation of history, in that we have a definite seven days of Creation and ending with a tribulation. While I am a Christian and I do believe that the world is moving from creation to the second coming of Christ, I do not necessarily accept a literal seven days of Creation. Personally it could have been, but since time is relative (particularly where God is concerned) it is difficult for me to take such a dogmatic view of the world. However, I believe that it is important, particularly for Christians, not only to have a good understanding of History, but also where history sits within the grand story. Unfortunately, too many Christians today only restrict their understanding of history to what is in the bible, and even then simply turn the biblical stories into fables that end with a moral lesson. I do not believe this is how history should be view, and in particular, we need to understand history, not just within the bible, but with the events that surround the bible as well. For instance, we have a lot of literature from Ancient Rome and Greece, as well as a lot of archoelogical understanding of many of the ancient cultures. Should we neglect this to simply focus only on the bible? I don't think so. For instance, let us consider the death and resurrection of Christ. In the bible we have a multitude of prophecies which are all fulfilled in Christ, but in archeological we have a multitude of cults centered around a dying and resurrecting God king. Surprisingly these cult appear right up until Christ, but then moved to the wayside when Christianity came to the forefront. It is as if these cults where the prophecies to the gentiles regarding Christ. Let us also consider Zorastianism. We have a very ancient monotheistic cult arising in Ancient Persia, dated to about 1200 bc. Surprisingly enough by the time the Persians had conquered the Babylonian empire, the Zorastrian religion was very popular among the empire, and it was about this time that Cyrus also ordered the Jews to return to Israel. It could be that the Jews picked up monotheism from the Persians, but it could also have been that the Persians showed sympathy to another Monotheistic culture, particularly when they were surrounded by polytheistic cultures. The Reformation (coming to a more modern event) is something that transformed the world in which we live. No longer were we forced into a single church and forced to believe a doctrine that we may have considered questionable. In fact, by breaking the back of the Catholic Church, society was able to begin to advance again, throiugh science and economics. If we look at Europe now, we note that many of the Catholic nations are still quite backward, while many of the protestant nations have move forward in leaps and bounds. However, most importantly is that history teaches us lessons. Not only do we learn moral lessons from the bible, we can learn it from history as well. As with our parents and our elders we can learn how living a certain lifestyle can be dangerous and hurtful, we can also on a national level, learn that going down a certain track can be quite harmful to our society as a whole. The events of 2008 with the stock market crash, have been compared in many ways to the events in 1939. In fact, what happened in 2008 was very similar to the collapse of LTCM, where so called mathematical geniuses developed a system for predicting the price of options, and then pretty much losing all of their money after the unexpected event (the Russian default) occurred.(less) | Notes are private!
| Koorong
|
1
| May 2001
| May 2001
|
Dec 24, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 3.98
| 93,358
| Jan 01, 1997
| 1998
|
This is one of those books that tries to ask the question of why the European civilisation managed to succeed where as all the other world civilisati...more
This is one of those books that tries to ask the question of why the European civilisation managed to succeed where as all the other world civilisations have failed. His conclusions are interesting, however we must remember that even now, fifteen years after this book was completed we are seeing an economic collapse in the west while we are seeing a economic resurgence in China, India, and Brazil. One of the ideas that he had was because of the axis of the continents. The only continent on a horizontal axis is the Eurasian mega-continent, which means that the entire continent is located in the temperate zone, however I find that idea to be a little dubious. Okay, granted, major civilisations arose across the continent, being Europe, Arabia, India, and China, and trade existed among these four civilisations, however it does not really account for the rise of Europe to the exclusions of the rest. One interesting reasons I would suggest would have to be the Mongol hordes that smashed across Asia and the Middle East. In a way the Middle East never actually managed to recover from that invasions, and China was knocked back hundreds of years, but Europe, by pure chance, managed to be spared this invasion, which meant that they were able to continue to develop, and in turn develop shipping which enabled them to take control of the Arabian Sea from the Arabs. The idea of trade along a horizontal axis is interesting, but we note that there was not much trade between the civilisations of America, and even then simple trade is unlikely to be hindered by tropical conditions. One thing about the American tribes is that they never developed shipping, which would have been something that prevented them from trading. In Africa we don't see much in the way of trade either, and the closer you get to the equator, the less developed the nations become. The concept of germs is interesting, in that disease is a barrier to development. With malaria in the tropics, it makes development of civilisation there difficult at best, and this can also prove a hinderance to trade, but Malaria is a disease that does not thrive well in colder climates. We also note that the common cold wrecked havoc in the Americas, where as the only disease we inherited from the new world was Chlamydia, which is a sexual transmitted disease (where as the common cold is airbourne). However, that does not mean that Europe has been spared its devastating diseases, as the black plague ran rampant across Europe for over five hundred years, and accounted for the death of up to a third of the population at its height. Guns and steel are more to do with technological development. The Eurasian civilisations had steel, and guns were imported from China over to Europe, but some suggest that the Chinese never used gunpower for weapons. That is rubbish. The Chinese had developed and were using explosives and rockets, but that did not save them from the Mongol Hordes. Even then, guns were are pretty poor weapon up until the eighteenth century, and even then still quite inaquate. It wasn't until the 20th century that their truly devastating power comes to play. There is also the idea that the balkanised nature of the European states also have something to play, and there is a point in that because there are all these competing countries all trying to get one up on the other, so there is a perpetual arms race to try and get the better of one's neighbour. That did not happen in China because the Chinese government pretty much controlled the entire region. However, that does not account for the fact that such balkanisation existed in the Americas and also in Africa. It did to an extent in the Middle East and in India, but both of these regions, for a long time, have been under the dominant power of a single empire (the Ottomans in the Middle East and the Mogols, and later the British, in India). To me, the only real answer to this is that not only was Europe spared the ravaging of the Mongol hordes, but that we Europeans are in reality a sadistic and savage lot, who are always looking for faster and more sophisticated ways of killing each other. It is not that the Native Americans lived in peace, they didn't, it was just that they were satisfied with using basic weapons, but even then, when they did have access to guns, the took them and then turned them on each other.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Nov 2004
|
Dec 27, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||||
| unknown
| 3.87
| 63
| 1926
| 1966
|
It is interesting to chart the rise of the modern state, which in a way began back in the Renaissance and the period in European history known as the...more
It is interesting to chart the rise of the modern state, which in a way began back in the Renaissance and the period in European history known as the Babylonian Captivity (when the Papacy was moved from Rome to Avignion) to the modern day, and to see how all of the events are interconnected with each other. This book, though, probably should have the title of Protestantism and the rise of Capitalism, namely because it was through the Protestant Reformation that the individual gained the freedom to make their own choice as to how to and where to (and whether to) worship God. I don't necessarily believe that Capitalism is in and of itself a Christian concept, and in particular the Capitalism that is practised today is far from it. The Bible constantly exhorts us to consider and help the poor and the disadvantaged, and Jesus even says 'what you do for the least of these you do for me'. It is hard though, living in a wealthy and industrialised society, yet being a member of the middle class where we still need to work and we have to save for all the goodies that we want, to actually understand the plight of the poor in the developing world. What the Reformation did though was to break us from the rules and the strictures of the Catholic Church, and one of them was the rule against lending at interest. However, it was not lending at interest that was bad, but lending at interest to a fellow Christian (which is what Urusry is). In the same way it is not bad for a Muslim to sell alcohol, just to sell it to a fellow Muslim. What the removal of Ursury did was to create a means for individuals to be able to borrow funds to invest in business projects, though in those days the risk was still very high. For instance, there was a film I saw a while ago called Rob Roy where a Scottish farmer borrows money to trade livestock, only to have the baron from whom he borrowed money from set him up so that he would lose all of the livestock and then land up in debt. While such dubious schemes were not done away with immediately, what the Protestant religion has done is that it has influence Western society to make us think more about acting ethically and consciously for the good of others. William Wilberforce brought an end to slavery in the British Empire, which had a knock on effect in the United States. While the French revolution was purely a secular event (since the French had nipped the Reformation in the bud during the St Bartholemew's Day Massacre) this revolution had a knockon effect in England where Parliament was forced to continue to reform. The same goes with many of the left wing agitators in Britain and Germany, which forced the conservative government to invest in private education and healthcare, and when the Russian revolution occurred, this strengthened the Unions and the Labor parties to encourage those countries to provide better services for the underpriviledged classes so that there would not be a similar revolt here. However, I would not say that Capitalism is itself Christian, and in a way it is moving from the days where people were forced to change or die back to a fuedal system when governments and sidelined and corporations are taking the role of the new lords. A man borrows money from a bank to start up an enterprise, only to discover that the corporate lords have raised the barriers to entry. In fact, family businesses are being destroyed by low cost retail, and many of these people who would live comfortably on their own business are being forced into bankruptcy and then into the ranks of the poor. Also many Christians are taking the mantel of personal responsibility on board suggesting that if somebody is in trouble then they must have done something wrong to do that. Further, there is also the idea of dependency, such as the cartoon with Jesus standing before the five thousand and saying 'we can't feed them, it will only encourage dependency'. The idea is that we cannot help the poor because if we help the poor, they will only become a greater burden to us, and thus they must pull themselves up by their own effort, particularly is another has managed to do that. However the idea is trumped by the statement that these people don't need a handout (and many of them do not want a handout) but rather a hand up. In many cases the only reason the poor are forced to rely on handouts is because nobody is there to give them a hand up. As cuts are made to healthcare and education, many people are getting left further and further behind. People are caught in Westernised slums where they cannot get a job because of the belief that all people from that area (such as Elizabeth in South Australia) are all the same and are not employable. To be honest, one of the major aspects as to whether you get an interview or not is your postcode.(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Sep 2008
|
Dec 28, 2012
| Mass Market Paperback
| ||||||||||||||||
| 2.00
| 3
| 1967
| 1967
|
I guess this book is okay if you want to learn more about pre-revolutionary Russia, and the events that lead up to the two revolutions of 1917 (and t...more
I guess this book is okay if you want to learn more about pre-revolutionary Russia, and the events that lead up to the two revolutions of 1917 (and to be honest with you, who wouldn't). Basically this book is about a period during the reign of Alexander and sort of deals with the radical groups that were around at that time, in particular the Nihilists. My first exposure to Nihilism was back in university and I thought it was cool because my understanding was that nihilists were so dark and bitter and that their major belief was that they universe was pretty much out to get them. I remember that my email tag (do people still use email tags, or is that just too nineties?) said 'I am coming to appreciate nihilism because life without God is meaningless'. Maybe my appreciation of this also had something to do with the idea of the meaninglessness of life that it seemed to be outside of Christianity. Okay, at that time my mind was being filled with a lot of dogmatic ideas about how one cannot exist without God, and in many ways I still accept that. It is not so much to do with a reward in the afterlife, but rather life having some meaning above and beyond the collection of material goods, or making a name for oneself. In a way, that is something that we can have little control over, and in some cases, the collection of material wealth can also be a bit like living like a flagilent, and that is denying oneself an enjoyable life for the possibility of a reward in the afterlife (or having a good retirement). However, this who Russia thing was somewhat different, and had much to do with the backward nature of the Tsarist regime. While much of Western Europe had moved ahead both politically and industrially, Russia was still an agrarian society with a class of peasants that were tied to the land. What many of these organisations were wanting was something better, however by looking at Western Europe, and in a way the failures of industrialisation, they were looking for a way beyond that. Which is why you had anarchists, which were not necessarily people who simply wanted to smash things, but people who believed that a big and central government was the root of evil and inequality, and believed that by getting rid of that and returning to a tribal life would make like for them at least better. However, as we know, Russia's experiment with extreme socialism pretty much failed, and despite the wars against the west, and the attempted experiment, by 1925, with the death of Lenin, Russia had returned to a dictatorship ruled by a single man, and it remained that way until 1989 when the Soviet Union collapsed. Even after that the so called democratic miracle never arose because the collapse of communisim brought about the rise of the oligarchs, where were not necessarily unconnected with the previous regime (Yeltsin was president of the Russian Republic), and since then, with Putin in power, we see a return to the old soviet model with, guess what, an ex-KGB official as president.(less) | Notes are private!
| University
|
1
| not set
| Jun 2008
|
Jan 18, 2013
| Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||||
| 034053494X
| 9780340534946
| 3.00
| 3
| Jan 01, 1990
| 1990
|
This is basically a highschool textbook that covers the French Revolution from the origins which arose from the monarch to just before the rise of Na...more
This is basically a highschool textbook that covers the French Revolution from the origins which arose from the monarch to just before the rise of Napoleon. While it is difficult to put a start date on many of these things (the revolution itself began in 1789, but had it roots in events that went back hundreds of years) the finish is basically 1800, the year that Napoleon crowned himself emperor of France. My first exposure to this book was when I was doing year 12 history, and one of the reasons I did it was because I wanted to not only learn about history, but I wanted to write a good essay. I am very grateful for my history teacher for her patience and instruction in helping me write an essay. The other thing about the course was that I actually began to learn about European history outside of the twentieth century. In a way until I went back to high school I have only vague knowledge of a revolution in France and some guy named Napoleon who had gone rampaging through Europe and that some christians referred to him as the first anti-Christ (with Hitler being the second). What this course taught me though was that we cannot necessarily label Napoleon as a bad guy in the way we labelled Hitler. Much of the demonisation regarding Napoleon comes from the British, who were on the other side (and also the victors). Go to France though, and you will discover that Napoleon is still a hero, and you can even visit his tomb (which is an absolute must the next time I am in Paris). As for the French Revolution, that is one event in history that does fascinate me because it actually demostrates what will really happen if there was a bloody revolution. After the monarchy was overthrown, Frances problems weren't solved, and while there was the issue of the other European Monarchies all ganging up on France to restore the monarchy (for fear that the whole revolutionary idea would spill over into their borders, which by they way, it did), there was also the issue of protecting the revolution. Once a new system as been established, there is always the danger that the conservatives will want to revert back to the old, more familiar days, which is one of the reasons that there was a terror, where blood would run through the streets of Paris. It was, in a sense, to protect the revolution, and to get rid of those who threatened to take France back to the old days (which it ended up going back to anyway). One thing that seems to be rarely mentioned is the major event that precipitated the French Revolution, and that was the American Revolution. Remember that French troops fought in the United States against the British, and it was unlikely that the ideas and the theories that arose over there were not going to be brought back by the soldiers. Also influencing the thoughts and minds of the people were the writings of the Enlightment, with people such as Descartes and Rousseu, but this was an impact, and made people think, but in the end the whole revolution came down to one thing, money. Basically France was bankrupt, and the aristocracy needed money to be able to continue to live their extravagant life style, but did not want to pay for it, so they would tax the third estate (there were three estates in pre-revolutionary France, the first estate being the aristocracy, the second estate being the church, and the third estate being everybody else, but dominated by the merchants and the bourgeoisie because the peasants were too stupid and poor to participate in government). However, the third estate resented that, but by themselves the bourgeoisie could not revolt, and they needed the help of the peasants (which did end up happening mind you). Further, it was not an organised thing, but rather more of an organic event that was triggered, much like a bush fire, by a single spark.(less) | Notes are private!
| My
|
2
| not set
| Jan 2009
|
Jan 18, 2013
|
Loading...
