Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.
Start by marking “المشهد التاريخي: كيف يرسم المؤرخون خارطة الماضي” as Want to Read:
المشهد التاريخي: كيف يرسم المؤرخون خارطة الماضي
Enlarge cover
Rate this book
Clear rating
Open Preview

المشهد التاريخي: كيف يرسم المؤرخون خارطة الماضي

3.75  ·  Rating details ·  1,258 ratings  ·  111 reviews
يقلب كتاب المشهد التاريخي الجدل القديم بين العلم والتاريخ رأسًا على عقب ملقياً نظرة فاحصة على مهنة المؤرخ وإشكالاتها ومقيماً الحجة على أهمية الوعي التاريخي وضرورته في عالم اليوم.

يجادل جون لويس غاديس بأن المنهج التاريخي أعقد بكثير مما يدركه حتى المؤرخون أنفسهم مع أنه لا يصعب فهمه أو تفسيره. فكما يرسم علماء الخرائط المشاهد الجغرافية مكانيًّا يتمثل المؤرخون ما لا يستطيعون
...more
200 pages
Published 2016 by منتدى العلاقات العربية والدولية (first published November 14th 2002)
More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about المشهد التاريخي, please sign up.

Be the first to ask a question about المشهد التاريخي

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30
Average rating 3.75  · 
Rating details
 ·  1,258 ratings  ·  111 reviews


More filters
 | 
Sort order
Start your review of المشهد التاريخي: كيف يرسم المؤرخون خارطة الماضي
Riku Sayuj
Jun 19, 2018 rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
Gaddis proposes to show the nitty-gritty of history writing - the blueprints of how a historian constructs his structures, and promises to use an over-abundance of crazy metaphors to do this. Who can resist that proposal? The aim of the book is to look at the process of creating and comprehending history - as an act of creation, with its own processes, flaws and compromises. To illustrate this Gaddis suggests two contrasting positions for the historian - if you think of the past as a kind of ...more
Guy
Jun 01, 2008 rated it it was ok  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: history
For most of this book I found myself thinking, "This is a perfect example of the sort of discursive fluff that emeritus professors grant themselves license to write, but which they would have fiercely criticized if they had read while younger."

Gaddis attempts to illuminate the work of the historian with references to time machines, black holes, number theory, fractals, chaos theory, quantum physics, consciousness, ecology, and God knows what else, all the while displaying that he doesn't have
...more
Joseph Stieb
Jul 15, 2016 rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
Another excellent work from my favorite historian, this time about how historians think and how they differ from social scientists and scientists. One of my favorite points in the book was his discussion of social science, history, and non-laboratory sciences (geology, evolutionary biology, some fields of physics etc). In a weird way, the non-lab sciences do something quite similar to historians: they look at structures and phenomena that exist in the present (the equivalent of sources) and ...more
Marc
John Lewis Gaddis builds on the work of Marc Bloch and E. H. Carr, two renowned historians that have eloquently put into words where the writing of history actually stands for, what its own epistemological criteria and methodological rules are. Fortunately, Gaddis has integrated - 50 years later - the profound changes that have happened in the meantime in historiography and in the sciences in general.
This is, in the first place, postmodernism and especially the "cultural turn" of Hayden White
...more
Sense of  History
Two things I appreciate about this book: Gaddis' pragmatism and his attempt to put the writing of history back on the scientific map.

His pragmatism builds on a very post-modern vision of history: the past is a foreign country, we can only represent it, by giving meaning to the remnants of the past in terms of what they explain; it's like making a map of a landscape: also a selection there, but a quite useful one; just as there can be different maps of the same landscape, there are also different
...more
Allison
I just started my graduate degree in History, having switched to the major for my MA after some quick and creative efforts were required for me to stay at the same university and apply for a new program fairly quickly. As such, I am relatively new to the field and appreciate that my first required book was an explanation of how the study of history works and why it should matter.

The Landscape of History is, for all of the ideas and theories that it contains, a fairly easy read, loaded with pop
...more
Sycamore
Jun 25, 2012 rated it did not like it  ·  review of another edition
The Landscape of History is a short work whose prevailing tone is that of an old scholar passing wisdom on to a young one. Gaddis is enthusiastic about the nature of history and its problems, and his well intentioned disposition are everywhere visible in the book. It is hard not to like Mr. Gaddis for his good faith and honesty. I did not get much more out of the book than that.

Gaddis deployment of endless metaphor, usually for things that are easily described and understood without metaphor,
...more
Michael Kleen
Aug 23, 2018 rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
History and the social sciences are very different academic disciplines, and John Lewis Gaddis, in his book The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past (2004), explains why. Gaddis is the Robert A. Lovett Professor of Military and Naval History at Yale University and is best known for his work on the Cold War. In The Landscape of History, he argues that both history and the social sciences are scientific, but what the disciplines are concerned with differs.

In simplistic terms, social
...more
Michael
Jun 21, 2010 rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: history
Ah, historiography. I read this for the sheer intellectual pleasure--and challenge--of grappling with difficult concepts, ideas, and material. The author compares the writing of history to both the hard sciences and the social sciences, and arrives at the surprising conclusion that history is much more like the former than the later. There was a lot of talk about fractals, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and chaos theory, for example. There were some ruminations about epistemology (and you ...more
Ann
Jul 06, 2009 rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition
I picked up this book because, as a geographer, I can't resist anything with the word in the title. In fact Gaddis uses quite a few cartographic and geographic metaphors. The book is full of metaphors. I guess that's his lecturing style. This was originally a series of lectures in Oxford.
I enjoyed his chortling over attempts in the social sciences to be "scientific" and the way he pointed out that the search for independent variables was only really appropriate if you want to make predictions.
...more
Andrew Carr
Apr 15, 2018 rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
A wise little meditation on what history is from one of the giants of the field. I particularly liked the critical dissection of the limited and artificial view of science held by many in the field of 'social science'. Instead, Gaddis argues that History as a discipline is methodologically and epistemologically closer to what modern 'hard' sciences try to do, especially fields such as Geology and Astronomy. Around this argument he discusses the historians task, responsibility and sensibility. I ...more
Sam
Nov 01, 2012 rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
What is truth? What is objectivity? Can we know anything?

Although the questions may resonate as cliche college bull session talk, there's a reason that they keep coming up, over and over and over again. The pursuit for objective truth has incited doubt, despair, and even severe depression for many over the course of human existence. However terribly the doubt can wreck someone's life, it also provides, on a broad scale, a deeply humanizing element, which is doubt itself.

The objectivity
...more
Jay
Dec 21, 2018 rated it it was ok  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: audiobook
A historian analogizes the practice of writing history. Its like making a map, where the mapmaker gets to decide what to feature, and how to measure, and level of detail. Later, its like something else. I found this interesting for a bit, but found the intellectual navel gazing, while very well written in non-academic prose, still couldnt hold my interest beyond the first change of analogy. The style of writing was interesting enough that I would look for other books by this author on actual ...more
Mike
May 19, 2018 rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition
This was a somewhat interesting look into the craft of how to write about history. Ok that is not a great description - it focuses more on how to think about how to write history. Honestly, it was a difficult book for me to get through and that was disappointing because I really enjoyed the last Gaddis book I read called On Grand Strategy. Gaddis is a deep thinker, but I felt he was repetitive and not all that engaging with his arguments. There were parts here and there that I enjoyed, but I ...more
Reed
or, as I think it should have been called: "I Am A Smart Man So I Must Talk Like A Smart Man So You All Know How I Am A Smart Man Did I Smartly Mention I Am A Smart Man?"
Pete Welter
Apr 29, 2013 rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
I read this book after an intriguing reference to it from The Success Equation. Although history has always been a love of mine, beyond the concept that any history embodies a viewpoint, I never reflected very deeply on the process of creating histories. This book of course represents a single historian's view, Gaddis', but the breadth of his discussion can lead one to open up their own thinking, whether they agree with him or not.

Given my interest in complexity, the topic I found most
...more
Michael Loveless
The book was written as a series of lectures on how historians think. He attempted to write a modern book that would serve the same purpose of introducing the study of history that Mark Blochs, The Historians Craft and E.H. Carrs, What is History did for earlier generations of students. The book is philosophical in outlook. It attempts to answer questions about history like, Why is it important to study history? (It enlarges our experience.) Why is historical study better than time travel? (It ...more
Tim C
Jul 31, 2013 rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: history
History is a construct, a matter of perception; it's also personal and fixed firmly in our particular present. And, according to the reviews which I've read here, the same seems to apply to people's perceptions of the merits and faults of this book.

I found it entertaining, engaging, and effortlessly readable - but then I am intrigued by works which ruminate or pontificate on 'how' and 'why' we 'do' history. It reads rather like having a chat with your favourite college professor (perhaps after
...more
Javier
Jun 08, 2010 rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition
I couldn't help but recall while reading this book a conversation I had a few years ago with a friend who was double-majoring in history and philosophy. He was quite mild-mannered, so I was surprised to see him worked up into near anger one day after a history seminar. "When I challenge them on something methodological, they say they're just doing history, but half the time they're actually doing shit philosophy," he said. "If they want to do philosophy, they should come on over to a philosophy ...more
Alexander
Sep 02, 2017 rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
Absolutely fascinating book! Completely changed my mental construct of history and how to apply it to my view of the present. Very well articulated and at times forced me question my beliefs on the use of history to explain the present. He draws on his wealth of knowledge to explain how professors /or students of history can scale and portray the functions of history. Recommend this book to anyone looking to see history in a different light or at least reinforce their belief in the importance of ...more
Kyle Rapinchuk
Jan 16, 2018 rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
Gaddis work is an excellent introduction to the purpose and task of the historian. Employing a variety of helpful metaphors, Gaddis shows how history, because it does not presume to know the future, better embodies a scientific approach than the social sciences. Gaddis also shows how multiple perspectives on historical events does not entail postmodern ideas of unknowability. Gaddis provides a reasoned, well-articulated, and helpful summary of the value and methods of history. ...more
Elizabeth
Mar 28, 2012 rated it it was ok  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: historiography
Ugh. Spoiler-Summary. A map of the earth is not the same as the earth itself, therefore history is not the same as the past. QED. Ugh.
Usually, I love analogies, but that was before I read this book entirely made of analogy, not examples, no, analogies.
I, personally, do not believe that historians are inherently artists, scientists and/or cartographers.
I am inclined to believe Gaddis considers himself the Monet of historians, but, in reality, he's Jackson Pollock.
Ugh.
Jared Nelson
Mar 15, 2013 rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
Most excellently written. A historian's perspective about historians. I like the soft, introspective writing style and the relevance in my life since I read almost exclusively non-fiction.

Highly recommend
Katie  Hanna
Feb 02, 2017 rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
This book was fantastic and I loved it. People have said Gaddis rambles a lot, and that's true; but he's also incredibly insightful and quite wickedly funny. Highly recommended to anyone who's interested in learning how historians really think.
Christopher
I am in no way qualified to comment on this book, though I enjoyed it for the nothing that is worth.

I found this as recommended reading from AskHistorians, who are way more qualified to say what is a good book on history.
Jonathan
Jan 22, 2020 rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: reviewed, 2020
7/10

History does not change, only our means of measurement.

This is an introspective, meta-analysis of the state of history as a discipline, that in practice is just Gaddis thoughts on the subject, primarily aimed at other historians. He sees the importance of history as a compression at its core, a distilling of the skills and experiences of the past generations onto that of the next. History is not just the rote list of facts then, its used to transmit knowledge, so the historian finds himself
...more
Matthew Russell
His claim that like J.R.R. Tolkiens hobbits, [historians] are for the most part content to remain where they are, and are not much interested in what goes on around them, is patently insulting to anyone engaged in historical study. For those researchers, those amateur biographers, those teachers in the classroom - each has an understanding of how difficult it is to be a historian, to be between schools of science in our own world, to be a part of rhetoric and social science and geography and ...more
Phoenix
Sep 30, 2018 rated it liked it  ·  review of another edition
Shelves: history
Between an Art and a Science

Based on a series of lectures given at Oxford , Gaddis uses metaphor and references the seminal historiographies of E. H. Carr and Marc Bloch in order to describe what the project of History is about. The metaphors reference literature, art, map making, movies and the mathematics of chaos theory.

However I was disappointed that Gaddis failed to define any particular methodologies for historians much beyond William MaNeils remark I go back and forth like this until it
...more
Shah Husain
Sep 22, 2019 rated it really liked it  ·  review of another edition
This book is a perfect illustration of what would, some would even say predictably, happen if a historian were to write a book on the philosophy of science. Gaddis writes about a frequently misunderstood or, at the very least, under-discussed issue: namely, what is it that historians do and how do they do it?

The bad: frequently repetitive, the book assumes an air of self-importance that can put some off. Reads, in many ways, as if a philosophy paper were written like the write-up of a history
...more
Keith Weaver
Jul 04, 2018 rated it it was amazing  ·  review of another edition
This book presents a statement of what the study of history is and what is its purpose. The book starts from two other texts by well-known historians: The Historians Craft by Marc Bloch, and What Is History? by E.H. Carr. Many references are made to the work of other historians, for example The Practice of History by G.H. Elton, and particularly The Idea Of History by R.G. Collingwood.

Gaddis covers many topics, the most important to me being
o the role of historian as both liberator and oppressor
...more
« previous 1 3 4 next »
There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Readers also enjoyed

  • What Is History?
  • The Historian's Craft: Reflections on the Nature and Uses of History and the Techniques and Methods of Those Who Write It.
  • Historiography: An Introductory Guide
  • History: A Very Short Introduction
  • Silencing the Past
  • The Houses of History: A Criticial Reader in Twentieth-Century History and Theory
  • From Herodotus to H-Net: The Story of Historiography
  • The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge
  • What is Cultural History?
  • Historiography: An Introductory Guide
  • The Return of Martin Guerre
  • Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War
  • The Idea of History
  • In Defence of History
  • That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession
  • The Pursuit of Power: Europe 1815-1914
  • The Marshall Plan: Dawn of the Cold War
  • American Slavery: 1619-1877
See similar books…

Related Articles

Need another excuse to treat yourself to new book this week? We've got you covered with the buzziest new releases of the day. To create our lis...
41 likes · 10 comments
“Historical consciousness therefore leaves you, as does maturity itself, with a simultaneous sense of your own significance and insignificance. Like Friedrich's wanderer, you dominate a landscape even as you're diminished by it. You're suspended between sensibilities that are at odds with one another, but it's precisely within that suspension that your own identity--whether as a person or a historian--tends to reside. Self-doubt must always precede self-confidence. It should never, however, cease to accompany, challenge, and by these means discipline self-confidence.” 13 likes
“. . .biographers tend to regard as character those elements of personality that remain constant, or nearly so, throughout. . .Like practitioners of fractal geometry, biographers seek patterns that persist as one moves from micro- to macro-levels of analysis, and back again.
. . .
It follows from this that the scale across which we seek similarity need not be chronological. Consider the following incidents in the life of Stalin between 1929 and 1940, arranged not by dates but in terms of ascending horror. Start with the parrot he kept in a cage in his Kremlin apartment. The dictator had the habit of pacing up and down for long periods of time, smoking his pipe, brooding, and occasionally spitting on the floor. One day the parrot tried to mimic Stalin's spitting. He immediately reached into the cage with his pipe and crushed the parrot's head. A very micro-level event, you might well say, so what?

But then you learn that Stalin, while on vacation in the Crimea, was once kept awake by a barking dog. It turned out to be a seeing-eye dog that belonged to a blind peasant. The dog wound up being shot, and the peasant wound up in the Gulag. And then you learn that Stalin drove his independently minded second wife, who tried to talk back to him, into committing suicide. And that he arranged for Trotsky, who also talked back, to be assassinated halfway around the world. And that he arranged as well the deaths of as many of Trotsky's associates that he could reach, as well as the deaths of hundred of thousands of other people who never had anything to do with Trotsky. And that when his own people began to talk back by resisting the collectivization of agriculture, he allowed some fourteen million of them to die from the resulting starvation, exile, or imprisonment.

Again, there's self-similarity across scale, except that the scale this time is a body count. It's a fractal geometry of terror. Stalin's character extended across time and space, to be sure, but what's most striking about it is its extension across scale: the fact that his behavior seemed much the same in large matters, small matters, and most of those that lay in between.”
4 likes
More quotes…