Well, Aster, Helmut Koenigsberger is of the A. J. P. Taylor generation and he threw a rather wide net as synthesizer rather than original investigator. Of course, I am prejudiced in that I am a Cultural Historian and H.G.K. was a little too political and institutional in the traditional sort of way while rambling from one country to another. What is worse, his writing is atrocious and guaranteed to bore. I have never heard of a Lotheringon, and I was not certain whether you meant the Tudor historian John Lotherington--as for Charles Clarke, I trust nothing written on Germans by the English! But then, I am prejudiced against the "English" perspective on anything unless the author is highly articulate and outlandish so as to give a good read...
Christopher (sorry - I got the name wrong!) Clarke is an Australian historian. I case you're wondering about my randomly quick leap into this forum from my mainly classically and hellenistically oriented focus, it's because I'm doing an early modern history course at college (to you Yanks, high school) and have always found the era to be my third favourite area of history. Also, I forgot to mention that Lotherington was merely the editor the book, and many of the sections in it were actually done by some more prominent names in the field. ...Also, the English persepective on "Anything"? That really is - no offense - a little biggoted.
Well, Aster, I am sorry if I ruffled your feathers with regard to my perspective on English historiography, but--alas--I readily admit a continental bias against English views of the world ever since they developed a taste for international terrorism back in the XVIth century
But, hey, you are corresponding with someone who has read each and every volume of the Oxford History of England, from the original to the revised texts.
Interestingly, I am surprised you have not gone into the "classic" works in the historiography of the Early Modern Age. For example. Johan Huizinga's The Waning of the Middle Ages (1919, Eng. trns. 1924) remains a watershed and the posthumous collection of lectures by Jakob Burckhardt, Judgments on History and Historians (1929), is impossible to ignore if anyone wishes a sense of what constitutes the "modern".
Likewise, you are jumping forward without orientation for a critical period in which another classic is essential: Fernand Braudel. The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (2nd rev. ed. 1966). You can obtain a perspective on Braudel from the same web site I previously quoted:
Perhaps, I am being unfair in pushing you a bit past your educational level by emphasizing these three figures in historiography, but they do represent the critical nexus in interpretation for everything that comes afterwards with regard to the writing of good history with contemporary relevance rather than the dry recounting usually encountered. Further, these authors are so refreshingly free from the usual nationalist biases that students should be exposed to them as quickly as possible. In this same vein, perhaps, you should turn to a little tome written by Jacques Barzun back in 2000: From Dawn to Decadence (a literary essay fully determined to antagonize the proponents of current "modernism"), whose principal merit lies in the dissecting of the world of ideas that sets Europe apart.
By the way, I am not a "Yank", and my ancestors like Banquo's ghost call out for vengeance over that travesty. I am an infamous "Don" in more ways than you can imagine.
Oh no! Don't worry about your recommendations - I want to be pushed and avidly enjoy many areas of history. Early Modern history is an area that I intend to pursue in much more detail, as I have mainly been concentrating on the classics. Unfortunately, I probably won't have much time at university to read up too much on early modern history 'cause I'll be doing Ancient Medditeranean history, but I still would like a good, intense all-rounded view of the early modern period. What I find difficult to grasp are some of the major differences in the method and historiography in early modern history from ancient history - the gap is simply so huge! As for acedemic books, I'm not being arrogant but I believe that I am reading quite high-level stuff for my age about the ancient world (journal of cuneform studies, some of routledge's classic works, ancient historiography, etc) and so I think that I could, hopefully, do the same with early modern history. What I essentially want to know is enough to-
A- to be able to pass my course (obviously!)
B- to be able to intelligently debate the topic on Allempires (It's actually very hard to get into anything on AE unless you have a good, clear knowledge of the period)
C- to be able to just basically have a clear understanding on all the major points of the era, from the renisannce to the war of the Spanish succession.
But, hey, you are corresponding with someone who has read each and every volume of the Oxford History of England, from the original to the revised texts.
...Now I can't compete with that Are you a PhD or something? I should imagine so, because I think the term "you know what you're talking about" probably wouldn't do you the slightest bit of justice
I'm one of those sad, sad people (at least according to my peers...) who is completely immersed in their subjects and intends to take them to a high level at university, so I don't mind how much you push me, teach me more, moooreeee!
...Also - and I hope I'm not being too judgemental here - do you actually have some problem with Britain as a nation? I'm not overly sympathetic to the current attitude of my countrymen and government, but I don't have anything against any nation as such. What do you mean by "international terrorism?"
Quite a mouthful this statement from your essay on the Roman Imperator, Aster:
"The Romans, as can be seen from the above paragraph, were generally not great contributors of political developments to the world (at first relying instead on Greek systems which were not suited to its situation), but it was the development of emperor which would combine centuries of both Greek and Roman political development together, which represents the political genius of the ancient classical civilizations."
Would it surprise you that in terms of our own day and the political philosophy of the 18th century, which essentially laid the foundations of Modern Europe and its political institutions, you seriously underestimate the Roman and give unmerited kudos to the Greek! Not only did the ethos of Rome and Empire haunt Europe throughout the Middle Ages and well into the Early Modern period, but the political philosophers of the 18th century did not look to Greece but to the Roman Republic with regard as to what constituted political virtue. You can not turn a single page in Gibbons without realizing this connundrum. In terms of contemporary historiography this point is touched upon again and again by J. G. Pocock in his many astute titles. Yet, I can understand the source of your confusion in terms of contemporary exigencies and the repeated palaver over democracy. Everyone forgets that the very word brought chills to the spine of Aristotle. Likewise, few people grasp that the public and political virtues celebrated by Western culture are those of Rome and not Greece, which still retains the aroma of decadence and treachery. The very words justice and liberty derive directly from the Roman political virtues of Iustitia and Libertas as does equity or Aequitas, the sense of fair dealing not only in and by government but between people.
In your discourse on Imperator you did not touch upon the operative word imperium or the exercise of authority, another term with Roman roots in the category of virtues, Auctoritas or social standing as a function of experience within the ambits of dedication (Pietas) and hard work (Industria). There is more to the Cursum Romanorum than meets the modern eye.
Please do not be discouraged by what I wrote above given that your curiosity and attempt at explanation is admirable--hopefully you might even be practicing your Latin [a habit still part of the historian's curriculum in my day along with Greek (thought it an awful chore then yet look back upon it with thanks)--certainly your choice of quotes were good. The one from Valerius Messala would have been most instructive in Latin because the salutation involves a recitation of public virtues and how these in the person of Octavian would also be those of Rome by his holding the title Pater Patria. By the way, Imperator and imperium had military connotations long before the Augustan Age as to final say in the exerices of power. It's introduction into the civil life of Rome by Augustus was a statement on ultimate authority over all the armies of Rome. Yet, Octavian was not the first proclaimed imperator for that honor belongs to Lucius Aemilius Paullus in 186 BC and in a similar capacity it also was used by Gaius Julius Caesar. Octavian adapted this honorific as a praenomem to his cognomen by adoption, Caesar. It illustrated command and not rule, for in Latin the latter is signalled by the title Princeps!
Thanks for your feedback - most helpful. I was aware of the govermental measure of "imperium" in the republic, but I decided not to go into the issue of "Imperium" in too much detail (I think I mentioned I in passing...) because it was, to my knowledge, a senatorially-endowed period of complete control over all matters in the field (...when a consul was out campaigning) but was so far away that they could not effectively recieve news from Rome as to how to proceed. I reckon that, now that you mention it, the use of a democratic title - Imperator - from the republic isn't merely another way of saying "king" (as most people would think), but it represents in it's entirety the very essence of the emperor. Since imperium was traditionally a democratically-endowed governmental emergency measure, and imperators were given such powers in the republic for the purposes of defending the republic of Rome and it's people, then it would have certainly been a fitting title to describe the Princeps, and is suppose the word for the Roman would have similar conceptions.
you seriously underestimate the Roman and give unmerited kudos to the Greek!
"The Romans, as can be seen from the above paragraph, were generally not great contributors of political developments to the world (at first relying instead on Greek systems which were not suited to its situation), but it was the development of emperor which would combine centuries of both Greek and Roman political development together, which represents the political genius of the ancient classical civilizations."
I merely echo the opinions of prominent scholars in this matter - I am fully aware of the genius and originality of the Roman civilisation. Take note that I did mention at first (by which I mean monarchial Rome - early Republican Rome) Rome used Greek systems, and that by definition doesn't mean for the majority of the Ancient Roman civilisation's existence. Of course the Romans had to build on what was there before. If you read my article on the Hellenistic 2nd Macedonian war, you will see that I am very much aware of the kudos of the Roman civilisation in contrast to the Greek. Although the Romans were masters of organisation on a superstate wide scale, many of the fundamental political ideologies and practices that they practiced were, fundamentally Greek. Obviously, this cannot be said of the Augustan era, but pretty much before 390/389 BC the Romans were using what were Greek systems. Points taken however, thank your for your time. Most people seem to like it, apart from these little slips!
Edited by Aster Thrax Eupator - 04-Dec-2007 at 23:13
Charles Clarke - Iron Kingdom: a history of Prussia
I am reading the same book!
I have been distracted though, I have only gotten like a hundred pages in, my reading habits being the culprit. (I am one of those people who starts reading more and more books, instead of finishing one before moving on to another, seriously reading like 25 books at the moment)
What are your thoughts of it so far? I think it is quite excellent.
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
Oh - without a doubt absolutely great! The Holy Roman empire is such a hard thing to grasp, but Charles Clarke is doing a great job on one of it's most illustrious states.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum