What are you currently reading?

[Karl Henning]

I read the first few chapters of this book last night, and frankly Frangopan comes across as a highly politicized, somewhat meretricious writer.

For instance, he blames the movement of nomadic tribes in Central Asia which helped catalyze the "barbarian" invasion and overrunning of the Western Roman Empire on climate change, and only climate change, ignoring all the other factors involved, and totally ignoring the complex connections the "barbarians" had with the Roman Empire to begin with (most importantly, the barbarians were not so barbarian and the invasion was not really an invasion, since many of the "barbarians" served as the core of the Roman army and were already settled in the Empire, or on its borders, long before Rome "fell").   

Second instance: he wants to depicts Islam as tolerant of other faiths.  So having made sure to fully describe Christian persecution of heretics and Zoroastrian persecution of Christians and Buddhists, and inserting the one lone episode of Jewish persecution of Christians (in pre-Islamic Yemen--admittedly, the main reason this was the only example is the fact that this is probably the only instance in history in which Jews were in a position to persecute Christians), he then describes in not quite glowing terms Mohammed's original treaty with the Jews of Medina--and then makes no mention of the expulsion/massacre which Mohammed inflicted on those Jews of Medina several years later.  Then he airbrushes over the Sunni-Shia schism (trying to make it sound like it was simply a political struggle with no religious implications), talks about Islamic rule of non Moslem populations in general terms, and makes no mention of Moslem intolerance other than a reference to the Taliban's destruction of the giant Buddhist statues in Afghanistan--and even there he adverts to a Christian parallel, the iconoclastic outbreaks which were sparked by the Protestant Reformation.

A more honest account would acknowledge the contrary evidence and give explanations that would fit into the basic theory.  He just pretends the contrary evidence doesn't exist.


When not trying to overtly push an agenda, he tells an important story, but the tendentious treatment of material on political grounds is a deep structural flaw.  I have not yet returned this to the library, but I doubt I will read further from it.

Ugh.

[SimonNZ]

[Christo]

Thanks for this. Extremely helpful review. I'll pass.

Ugh.

Plaise wait, will respond later. There's more to be said. 

[Ken B]

Plaise wait, will respond later. There's more to be said. 

No doubt. And the WaPo says more!

In chapter after chapter, Europeans emerge as the villains. Heaven knows, there is much to justify this view, and we have scores of excellent studies that detail heinous actions by Europeans in the Middle East, Africa and the New World. But Frankopan is not content just to retell this story. Instead, he preaches endlessly about how the modern states of Europe arose as "the strong [i.e., the West] devoured the weak," how they prospered through "consolidation and covetousness," how overall the West succeeded in placing itself in the center of the world thanks to its "entrenched relation with violence and militarism." Lest we somehow miss the point, he concludes that "Europe's distinctive character as more aggressive, more unstable, and less peace-minded than other parts of the world now paid off."

Having worked himself into a rage, he dismisses European art of the 17th and 18th centuries as having been "forged by violence," a mark of opprobrium he withholds from most of the art produced under tyrants of the Eastern world clear to the Mughals in India.

Tendentious virtue-signalling is what it sounds like. The Guardian complains of factual errors, as well as the tendentiousness -- especially about Islam, as JS noted. Both reviews praise its readability, say it has lots of fascinating stuff, and applaud the idea of forefronting this history. But I suspect my tolerance for being told what to think, even when I know better, is no greater than Jeffrey's. I'll still pass

[Brian]

The best history books are judgmental about the past and happy to assign credit and blame as a natural part of the lesson-learning process.

But so are the worst.

[bwv 1080]

A very good book, that avoids the PC BS noted above, sparing neither the Comanches, Mexicans, Texans or Americans



The Comanches weren't monsters or noble savages, just raiders who acted no better or worse than Mongols or Vikings did back in their day.  Fascinating story of how in about 200 years with the introduction of the horse, the Comanches went from pitiful root-grubbers in Wyoming to the most militarily dominant Native American group, one that took nearly 50 years to subjugate

[kishnevi]

The best history books are judgmental about the past and happy to assign credit and blame as a natural part of the lesson-learning process.

But so are the worst.

My problem was not with assigning blame. It was with skipping over important data that did not fit easily into his thesis. He was dishonest.

To take the massacre/expulsion of the Jews of Medina, for example:. Muslim sources say the Jewish tribal leaders broke the treaties and started helping Mohammed's enemies, and that Mohammad's treatment of them was in response to that, which he took as an act of betrayal. Frankopan could have easily used that explanation without detracting from his presentation of Islam as a generally tolerant religion.  He could have admitted to Moslem persecution of minorities while pointing out that Christian Europe was far less tolerant. There were some episodes like the Almohads in Spain, but far less often than what occurred in Europe. There was no real equivalent of the Albigensian Crusade, the Inquisition or the religious violence of the Reformation in Moslem history.  And there is a reason Jews often found a haven from Christian persecution in Moslem lands.
But Moslems did persecute minorities and burden them with various legal disabilities. A good advocate would have acknowledged that and explained how it did not weaken his case.  A bad advocate tries to pretend inconvenient facts do not exist, and that is what Frankopan did.

Ken B

Both reviews praise its readability, say it has lots of fascinating stuff, and applaud the idea of forefronting this history.

That it least is perfectly true. It could have been an excellent, even necessary book. As it stands, it is a useless book.

[bwv 1080]

There was no real equivalent of the Albigensian Crusade, the Inquisition or the religious violence of the Reformation in Moslem history.

The Muslim invasions of India at least equivalent - unlike Christians or Jews, Hindus were considered Pagans and subjected to persecution as bad as any dealt by Medieval Christian groups
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India#Pre-colonial_India

[kishnevi]

The Muslim invasions of India at least equivalent - unlike Christians or Jews, Hindus were considered Pagans and subjected to persecution as bad as any dealt by Medieval Christian groups
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India#Pre-colonial_India

Thank you, I had forgotten about that. Possibly a result of the Eurocentric viewpoint Frankopan campaigns against.

[Ken B]

A very good book, that avoids the PC BS noted above, sparing neither the Comanches, Mexicans, Texans or Americans



The Comanches weren't monsters or noble savages, just raiders who acted no better or worse than Mongols or Vikings did back in their day.  Fascinating story of how in about 200 years with the introduction of the horse, the Comanches went from pitiful root-grubbers in Wyoming to the most militarily dominant Native American group, one that took nearly 50 years to subjugate

Merci. I have wanted a book on this period, but don't trust anything written after 1970 , or before 1970, on this kind of thing.

[Florestan]

Europe's distinctive character as more aggressive, more unstable, and less peace-minded than other parts of the world

Oh yes, the world would have been far more quiet, stable and peace-minded, and generally a far better place, without Europe.

What a wanker.

[nodogen]

Oh yes, the world would have been far more quiet, stable and peace-minded, and generally a far better place, without Europe.

What a wanker.

Couldn't have put it better myself. 👍

[Florestan]

[Peter Frankopan] dismisses European art of the 17th and 18th centuries as having been "forged by violence," a mark of opprobrium he withholds from most of the art produced under tyrants of the Eastern world clear to the Mughals in India.

This guy is either a dimwit or he has a heavily ideological axe to grind. Either case, definitely not worth my time. I'll pass too.

[Ken B]

Oh yes, the world would have been far more quiet, stable and peace-minded, and generally a far better place, without Europe.

What a wanker.

Couldn't have put it better myself. 👍

Note my tag line!

[Jo498]

He could have admitted to Moslem persecution of minorities while pointing out that Christian Europe was far less tolerant. There were some episodes like the Almohads in Spain, but far less often than what occurred in Europe. There was no real equivalent of the Albigensian Crusade, the Inquisition or the religious violence of the Reformation in Moslem history. 

I have heard people arguing that rough equivalents of the religious conflicts following the Reformation are taking place NOW in the islamic world. I have heard orientalists and historians speak of the near/middle east situation as similar to the 30 years war. Of course, like around 1600 religion is only one factor among many; there are external forces and interests as well (like France and Sweden in the 1630s who became more powerful while Germany/Bohemia etc. were plundered and devastated for decades).

This may not concern the Silk Road region but while "the crusades" are mentioned all the time, it is frequently not mentioned that the crusades were preceded by 400 years of islamic expansion, capture of the Iberic peninsula and virtually constant harrassment of southern Europe, up to the Alps by islamic raiders and pirates. Even long after the crusades and the Spanish reconquista, the Ottoman Empire was a real danger for Europe and the Barbary coast pirates even more so. It is estimated that from the 16th to the late 18th century more than a million Europeans (mostly from captured ships, so not only from the Mediterranean region) were captured and sold as slaves by the barbary pirates. (The maltese knights and others did some raiding, capturing and slaving of their own but on a far smaller scale.) Mozart's Abduction comes at the tail end of this period but it was by no means an outlandish scenario.

These were hard conflicts that lasted centuries and only because the West "won" after centuries of such struggles in the early 19th century (the barbary coast piracy only stopped when France began conquering Algeria in 1830) it does not at all follow that this was due to special ruthlessness or unilateral aggressive expansion of the "West". (The reason for the West winning in the Mediterranean was probably more overextension of the Ottoman Empire that had been on the decline since the late 17th century.)

[Jaakko Keskinen]

[Karl Henning]

"An unparalleled achievement of imagination"?  Some days, I feel that such hyperbole is practically a catalogued allergen.

[nodogen]

Note my tag line!

Well, I'm shocked.

[Florestan]

while "the crusades" are mentioned all the time, it is frequently not mentioned that the crusades were preceded by 400 years of islamic expansion, capture of the Iberic peninsula and virtually constant harrassment of southern Europe, up to the Alps by islamic raiders and pirates.

Bravo, bravissimo! Hear, hear!

Islamic violent and brutal expansion, let the truth be told.

The Crusades, for all their faults and crimes --- which were actually neither greater nor lesser than those of the non-Christians of that time --- were originally a defensive move taken only after centuries of Islamic aggressive expansion in Christian / Jewish territory.

Even long after the crusades and the Spanish reconquista, the Ottoman Empire was a real danger for Europe and the Barbary coast pirates even more so.

Once again: bravo!

People like Frankopan and their ilks, who in the protected privacy of their homes write works freely printed and distributed, much to the applause of some academic corners, can and will never be grateful enough to those "aggressive", "violent" and "war-minded" Europeans such as the Romans (aka the Byzantines), the Austrians (both Spanish and Germans), the Venetians, the Wallachians, the Moldavians and the Poles who valiantly and nobly fought the Islamic expansion towards the very heart of Europe. Without these people and their determination and sacrifice, Frankopan and the likes would have been today no more than some dhimmi kissing the feet of the Sultan as a token of gratitude for being allowed to practice their religion and trade; as for writing peer-reviewed, academically praised books, that would not have happened even in their wettest dreams.

[Ken B]

The Crusades, for all their faults and crimes --- which were actually neither greater nor lesser than those of the non-Christians of that time --- were originally a defensive move taken only after centuries of Islamic aggressive expansion in Christian / Jewish territory.

They were particularly daft. The 4th especially was self-destructive ...

They were a much bigger deal in Europe than in the Islamic world, where they were a large scale nuisance rather than a serious threat.