Tag Archives: History

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Books (8) Felipe Fernandez-Armesto – Civilizations: Culture, Ambition & The Transformation of Nature

Posted on by

Cover 2002 Free Press edition

 

(8) FELIPPE FERNANDEZ-ARMESTO –

CIVILIZATIONS: CULTURE, AMBITION & THE TRANSFORMATION OF NATURE (2000)

 

A book on the suject of human civilization – or rather, civilizations, arranged by environment, consistent with the definition of civilization in the subtitle as the transformation of nature.

The book essentially treats all human societies as civilization, or at least a civilization – eschewing attempts at ‘checklist’ of criteria that define a civilization, given the problems of previous attempts to do so for any that are universally agreed, instead looking at human societies in classic Toynbee terms of challenge and response to their natural environments, at least in origin.

While such an approach may have flaws in its lack of distinction between a ‘civilization’ and other human societies, the book does have much to offer from its thematic history of human civilization from a geographic and environmental perspective.

Firstly, it vividly impresses on you the extent to which human history and societies have been shaped by nature, at least in origin – including the most basic or stark features which one might otherwise overlook from a different thematic perspective.

This is most striking when it looks at those environments it groups together as the wasteland, worlds of ice or sand deserts, which can only support the most minimalist societies – minimalist that is, beyond surviving in them, prompting to mind the lines from the poem “Australia” by A.D. Hope, about men whose boast is not “we live” but “we survive”. There’s a similar quality

Perhaps its most insightful feature – which it states in its introduction – was its comparative history of civilizations, “arranged environment by environment, rather than period by period or society by society”, thus yielding comparisons across time and space that might not otherwise occur to the reader.

The evocative part and chapter headings (or subheadings) illustrate those environmental classifications:

  • Part 1: The Wasteland – Ice Worlds & Tundra, Deserts of Sand
  • Part 2: Leave of Grass – Prairie & Grassy Savannah, the Eurasian Steppe (the Highway of Civilization)
  • Part 3: Under the Rain – Postglacial & Temperate Woodland, Tropical Lowlands
  • Part 4: The Shining Fields of Mud (alluvial or river floodplains in the ancient Near East, China and India)
  • Part 5: The Mirrors of Sky – the Highland Civilizations of the New World and the Old
  • Part 6: The Water Margins (Civilizations Shaped by the Sea) – Small Island Civilizations and Seaboard Civilizations such as the Seaboard Civilizations of Maritime Asia or the Greek and Roman Seaboards
  • Part 7: Breaking the Waves (the Domestication of the Oceans) – the Rise of Oceanic Civilizations, the Making of Atlantic Civilization, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific – from the Pacific to the World

I was particularly fascinated by its comparison of grassland societies – prompting to mind, as such things tend to do, whether other grasslands might have produced the horse blitzkriegs that the Eurasian steppes did in other circumstances.

Or its subject of the oceans – how maritime navigation has been shaped by the distinctive currents and wind patterns of each ocean, with the Indian Ocean proving the most ”precocious’ for long distance navigation (indeed from the dawn of human history), the Atlantic being somewhat more tricky, and the Pacific trickier still (Polynesian island-hopping aside).

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (9) China – Qing Empire

Posted on by

The Qing dynasty at its greatest extent in 1760, with claimed territory not under its control in light green – based by Aldermanseven on Albert Herrmann’s map in the 1935 History and Commercial Atlas of China for Wikipedia “Qing Dynasty” under license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

 

(9) CHINA – QING EMPIRE (1644 – 1912)

The last Chinese empire, lasting into the twentieth century with perhaps the most spectacular decline and fall on the world stage in modern history.

Like India, China has seen the rise and fall of numerous empires over millennia that could well be the subject of their own top ten, although Chinese empires are probably better known to general history and more coherent imperial states than their Indian counterparts.

Similarly to India, there are a number of candidates for the top spot among Chinese empires – the Qin and Han empires were its definitive empires (giving their name to China itself and its predominant ethnicity respectively), while the Tang, Song and Ming empires all vie for status as classical Chinese empires or golden ages. The Ming empire is particularly reputed for being on the threshold of becoming a maritime empire with its fabled fleets and expeditions, before turning back to the usual landbound nature of Chinese empires.

The Yuan Empire – the dynasty of Kublai Khan and China’s Mongol conquerors – could also argue its claim for top spot, and depending on how you reckon it, may well qualify as China’s largest empire.

However, I award the top spot to the Qing Empire. Firstly, it is the Chinese empire of modern history, its last empire that survived until falling in the early twentieth century, as well as the empire that interacted most with European powers as they increasingly encroached upon it.

Secondly, my particular fascination with empires is with their decline and fall – and few things were as spectacular in modern history , or loom as large in the hindsight of a Chinese revolutionary regime succeeding it and adapting its imperial forms, as the decline and fall of the Qing Empire.

And by spectacular, I mean the grand spectacle playing out on the world stage of it desperately trying to fend off foreign powers it previously saw as barbarians or tributaries, but even more so fighting the endless rebellions within itself, until it was ultimately overwhelmed by the final one.

Of course, it didn’t start off that way – like every empire, it had its robust rise, essentially as a conquest of Ming China by one of those northern non-Chinese minorities that bubbled up occasionally to rule China, in this case the Manchus (for which Manchuria is named).

At its height in the 18th and early 19th centuries, it was the largest Chinese empire in history (depending on how you calculate the Mongol Yuan Empire) – and indeed fourth largest empire in history, as well as the most populous state and largest economy in the world.

And then came its decline and fall, in the so-called century of humiliation – usually reckoned to start with its defeat by Britain and France in the Opium Wars, which heralded ever more depredations by foreign powers, as well as ever more dangerous rebellions against the empire.

I’ve heard it said that the Qing Empire literally faced a peasant rebellion an average of every hour or so. I don’t know the truth of that assertion, which probably tallies up the hours in the numerous historical rebellions against the Qing, although I also suspect that many or most rebellions were too limited or localised to have any serious consequence.

Not so the Taiping Rebellion, in which a cult with a leader proclaiming himself the younger brother of Jesus and declaring his own Heavenly Kingdom, slogged it out with the Qing in the bloodiest civil war in history, with casualties to rival the First World War or even the Second World War.

Although it was in the Boxer Rebellion that China’s humiliation by foreign powers perhaps reached its nadir. That or its defeat by Japan in the Sino-Japanese War. It was one thing to lose to European powers – it was another to lose to another Asian state, a former Chinese tributary, that had been in a similar position to China vis-a-vis European powers only a generation or so previously

Qing China finally fell to rebellion or revolution in 1911, which abolished empires in China altogether (even if many of their features were to recur in their successors), with the last Qing emperor abdicating in 1912.

 

DECLINE & FALL

As the decline and fall of empires go, Qing China ranks up there with the most spectacular and tenacious of them, holding the line despite the odds – and when it did fall, at least it fell to internal revolution rather than conquest. Particularly as they did it on a shoestring – apparently they were never able to raise taxes above 2% of their economy.

“There are serious questions as to whether any government could’ve handled the gargantuan tasks the Qing faced, and they managed to survive a civil war that by all accounts should have destroyed them and would probably have taken down most lesser Chinese empires.”

Even then the Qing emperor at least managed to bounce back, although his empire did not – twice, albeit more by that adage of history repeating itself first as tragedy and then as farce. Firstly in 1917, when he was briefly crowned for a fortnight by a royalist warlord in the so-called Manchu Restoration, and secondly in 1932 as “emperor” of the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo

It’s tempting to think what might have happened if the Qing could have pulled off the same trick as the defeated Nationalists and retreated to Taiwan – but unfortunately for the Qing, they had lost Taiwan to Japan in the Sino-Japanese War

If nothing else, they totally had a better flag than any of their successors.

THE QING EMPIRE NEVER FELL

On the other hand, the Qing Empire never fell. As the Soviet Union ironically replicated much of the nature and territorial claims of imperial Russia – with Stalin as the red Tsar – so too did Communist China with imperial China, particularly under Mao as red Emperor

THE SUN NEVER SETS

Although the Qing Empire was confined in physical extent to east Asia, it deserves its status as a world empire – its designation for itself as the Middle Kingdom or heart of the world not too far from the reality as a world unto itself, the world’s most populous state and largest economy

EVIL EMPIRE

While the modern view of Qing China tends to be closer to that of victim to Western powers, it can rank reasonably high as evil empire. Its original conquest of Ming China is estimated to have a death toll of at least 25 million. And it was seemingly indifferent to even higher death tolls to suppress the rebellions against it – although a casual indifference to loss of human life, even in the millions, was not unusual in either its predecessors or successors in China.

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Wars (9) Spanish Conquest of the Americas – Spanish Conquest of the Aztec Empire

Posted on by

The 1521 Fall of Tenochtitlan by Spanish Conquistador Hernán Cortés, from the Conquest of México series – oil on canvas 17th century (public domain image)

 

(9) SPANISH CONQUEST OF THE AMERICAS –
CONQUEST OF THE AZTEC EMPIRE (1519-1521)

 

Remarkable for just how few Spanish forces conquered such a populous empire in such a short span of time (as it was with the conquest of the Inca Empire).

The Spanish Conquest of the Americas – la Conquista by the conquistadors – falls within the broader native American wars. Indeed, it and the American Indian Wars might be regarded as the two poles of native American wars – whereas the American Indian Wars fall at the tail end of them, the Spanish Conquest is at their very head.

It also propelled Spain, something of a peninsular backwater in Europe that had only just reconquered all its territory from Islamic conquest to the first world maritime superpower.

As for which Spanish conquest to nominate for this entry, I’ve gone with the conquest led by Hernan Cortes of the Aztec Empire. After all, it was either that or the close second for the conquest by Francisco Pizarro of the Inca Empire – and the conquest by Cortes was the influence and model for the latter, as well as effectively the springboard of the whole Conquest of the Americas, at least on the mainland.

Population estimates of the Aztec Empire prior to its conquest vary but generally seem to be about 10 million people, while Cortes had 508 soldiers in his expedition.

And he was lucky to get away even with that, as he set sail only just evading the Governor of Spanish Cuba revoking his commission, as it had become obvious that Cortes had something far more audacious in mind than mere exploration or trade. Cortes also famously scuttled his ships after arriving in Mexico, so that his forces could not retreat and had no other option but to fight.

Of course, Cortes’ forces did have some qualitative advantage of technological superiority. It is tempting to see it purely in terms of the first element of Jared Diamond’s titular trinity of guns, germs and steel – guns.

The Spanish certainly had guns, even cannon, and while the latter gave a useful advantage to the Spanish, I’m not sure I’d want to face down a fanatical horde of Aztec warriors in close combat with my inaccurate sixteenth century muzzle-loading single-shot musket, let alone whatever an arquebus is.

Far more useful were the Spanish crossbows and of course the third element of trinity – steel, in their armor and weapons, which the Aztecs lacked. More useful yet were the 16 horses of the expedition, as the Aztecs (and the Americas) were utterly without and therefore unfamiliar with horses, so that the Spanish cavalry had a real impact of shock and awe on the Aztecs. Probably with less impact but fascinating to me was the Spanish use of war dogs.

Another qualitative advantage was leadership. While Cortes had no experience, he proved himself a capable and charismatic military commander, while the Aztec emperor Moctezuma or Montezuma was generally perceived as weak or hesitant, even by the Aztecs.

Cortes was so capable and charismatic, that he defeated the larger Spanish force sent to retrieve him and then talked its soldiers and cavalry around to joining his conquest. However, this expanded Spanish force was still pitifully small compared to the Aztecs, even with its technological and tactical superiority

Which is where the second element of Jared Diamond’s trilogy was probably decisive – germs. The Aztecs are estimated to have lost almost half their population to smallpox from the Spaniards by the last year of the conquest and Cortes’ assault on their capital.

God and the gods also played their part. Faith in God was an important part of motivation and morale for the Spanish and not least Cortes himself in their conquests, coming as they did on the heels of the Reconquista of Islamic Spain.

One factor may or may not have played a part, reported by Cortes himself, was that he was seen as the return of the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl – but it is disputed as to whether or what extent the Aztecs actually believed this, and impossible to know its effect on them even if they did.

Another factor that certainly did play its part was that of the old saying that behind every great man is a woman. Malintzin, a slave-woman “gifted” to the Spanish with her own gift for languages, who became Cortes’ interpreter, diplomatic adviser and mistress – and who might well be hailed as co-conquistador.

Malintzin was an instrumental part in the true reason for the Spanish victory other than disease – that the Spanish force didn’t win it as such, but rather led the much larger winning force consisting predominantly of their native American allies against the Aztecs.

The Aztecs had their own bloody sacrificial empire that was still new and expanding just prior to the Spanish conquest – for which they were absolutely hated by many or most of their imperial subjects, at least some of whom were all too happy to ally themselves with the Spanish to overthrow the Aztecs.

ART OF WAR

Well obviously when your forces of a few hundred (or few thousand with reinforcements) defeat an empire of millions in a few years, you’re doing something right in the art of war.

And partly this would seem to be down to factors you can’t plan or even predict according to Sun Tzu – good fortune, and even more so, the boldness it favors. Say what you will about Cortes but he had cojones.

Of course, partly this would seem to be down to factors you can draw from Sun Tzu – subterfuge, diplomacy or alliances, and capturing enemy leaders or holding them hostage

WORLD WAR

The Spanish Conquest was the decisive landmark in what might be described, in its total scope, of a world war as the powers of one continent commenced their conquest of two others – the world war that started all the world wars of European maritime empires.

Even more as the Spanish conquest extended beyond the Americas to Asia (where the Spanish conquered the Philippines) and Africa, not least in the slave trade to the Americas.

STILL FIGHTING THE SPANISH CONQUEST

While the Spanish empire in the Americas fought for and (mostly) won its independence, the Spanish conquest casts a long shadow in Latin America – with native American resistance persisting even today, as with the Zapatistas in Mexico.

GOOD GUYS VS BAD GUYS

Modern historical perspective tends not to favor the Spanish as the good guys, although this is often disputed as a continuation of so-called Black Legend of anti-Spanish history – with some fairness. On the other hand, of all people the Spanish conquered, the Aztecs qualify the least as good guys, although again often disputed as historical propaganda against them – with some fairness.

Probably the only people who unambiguously qualify as the good guys are the indigenous population of Mexico caught between the two empires as one conquered the other.

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Books (9) Adrian Goldsworthy – How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower

Posted on by

Cover – 2010 Yale University Press edition

 

(9) ADRIAN GOLDSWORTHY –

HOW ROME FELL: DEATH OF A SUPERPOWER (2009)

 

 

Adrian Goldsworthy has risen to the status of my favorite historian of the classical Roman empire, mostly on the back of this book although his 2023 book The Eagle and the Lion: Rome, Persia and an Unwinnable Conflict was a leading contender for my wildcard tenth place entry for best history book of 2023.

 

I’ve used the American title for the book because I prefer it as more catchy – and it also prompts to mind one of my personal highlights of the book in its introduction, dismissing the cliché of comparing the decline and fall of the Roman Empire to the modern United States (a cliché with which Goldsworthy entertainingly relates that he is routinely accosted at dinner parties when he informs someone of his historical speciality).

 

As to the question in the book’s title, in a nutshell Goldsworthy answers that they did it to themselves. It’s a little like the twist in Fight Club, with the Romans revealed as the protagonist beating himself up, to the bemusement of the barbarian onlookers – and their delight when picking up the pieces.

 

I think it’s a solid answer. Goldsworthy does not dismiss the various barbarian invasions as the reason for the empire’s demise but that looks to the question of how they did so, given that the empire’s adversaries were not fundamentally different from when the empire successfully resisted them – and in the case of the various German tribes, so surprisingly small compared to the empire.

 

As Goldsworthy memorably observes, no matter who won their seemingly endless civil wars or wars of imperial succession, the losses were all Roman, weakening the empire as a whole against its external adversaries. Another memorable observation is how the Romans never really left the crisis of the third century, just muted it to fewer civil wars and usurpations.

 

Also, the Romans ultimately played a losing game enlisting German tribes as allies or foederati in its own territory – in that the territory occupied by the Germans was no longer Roman territory, with the Romans losing any revenue from those territories, or any manpower beyond that provided by the Germans. Thanks a lot, Theodosius – you empire killer.

 

As for the history itself, Goldsworthy takes the same starting point as that of Gibbon’s famous History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire – itself following on from Roman historian Cassius Dio who marked it as their descent from “a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron” – the death of Marcus Aurelius and accession of Commodus in 180 AD.

 

However, he pulls up stumps well before Gibbon’s finishing point, wrapping up the book aptly enough with the reign of Heraclius and the empire’s territory lost to the Arabs.

 

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires (10) India – Maurya Empire

Posted on by

India under Maurya rule c. 250 BCE (based on map p. 69 of Kulke, H.; Rothermund, D. (2004), A History of India, 4th, Routledge) by Avantiputra7 for “Maurya Empire” Wikipedia and licensed under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

 

 

(10) INDIA – MAURYA EMPIRE (322 – 184 BC)

The Maurya or Mauryan Empire ranks in top spot among Indian empires, mostly due to my fandom of its emperor Ashoka, held in semi-legendary regard as one of India’s (and history’s) greatest emperors, as well as the first state to rule almost the entire Indian subcontinent (except the southernmost part that consistently held out against other Indian empires except their own and the British).

The Indian subcontinent has seen the rise and fall of numerous empires that could well be the subject of their own top ten, even if most are little known outside Indian history – reflecting that they almost never extended beyond the subcontinent, at least in direct territorial extent. In fairness, the Indian subcontinent has always been virtually a world of its own, particularly as a proportion of world population and economy (the latter at least until the ascent of Europe).

There are a number of candidates for top spot among Indian empires. There’s the Gupta Empire, from the fourth to later sixth century (and therefore contemporary to the declining west Roman empire), often considered the golden age empire of classical Hindu India.

There’s the early modern Islamic Mughal (or Mogul or Moghul) Empire, which might well be considered the height of empire in pre-British India as well as that best known in general history, not least because it gave India its most iconic landmark, the Taj Mahal.

And of course there was the crown jewel of the British Empire that was the British Raj – although that is usually not ranked among Indian empires as such.

However there can only be one empire for this entry and that is the Maurya empire, which one might consider the Roman Empire of India, or at least the equivalent of the rising imperial Roman republic with which it was a contemporary.

And its founder for which it was named, Chandragupta Maurya, ranks almost as highly in legendary esteem as Ashoka – or Rome’s Romulus for that matter – rising from humble origins from a cowherd and essentially to bandit leader to defeat the Nanda Empire (which had faced off none other than Alexander the Great) and forge his own empire instead.

Back to Ashoka, he extended the empire to its greatest extent before, as it is told, being sickened by the violence of the Kalinga War (against the Kalinga state on the Bay of Bengal), he converted to Buddhism and pacifism, thereafter ruling with legendary benevolence.

Although his empire extended only throughout the subcontinent, its influence extended well beyond that through his patronage of Buddhism and Buddhist missionaries, which arguably played the same role expanding that religion as Roman imperial state patronage did for Christianity.

One of Ashoka’s edicts proclaimed the territories “conquered by the Dhamma”, from the Buddhist term Dharma and reflecting the moral law or sphere of influence within Buddhism, to extend to the west through the Hellenistic kingdoms to Greece itself

The empire declined and fell within fifty years of his death, which shows you where pacifism gets you as an empire. In fairness, that was due as much to the subsequent line of succession, although it hasn’t stopped some historians alleging that Ashoka’s pacifism undermined the “military backbone” of the empire – while others assert that the extent or impact of his pacifism was “greatly exaggerated”.

 

Art of the Samath Lion Capital statue for Ashoka – the closest thing to a flag I could find for the Maurya Empire

DECLINE & FALL

Nothing to see here – it all fell apart quickly after Ashoka. That’s where pacifism gets you – I guess it’s a Darwinian world after all

THE MAURYA EMPIRE NEVER FELL

On the other hand, the Maurya Empire never fell – arguably having the most enduring influence of any Indian empire through its patronage of Buddhism.

THE SUN NEVER SETS

The sun obviously set on the Maurya Empire, which was limited in physical extent, as almost all Indian Empires were, to the Indian subcontinent. However, I think it might properly be reckoned as a world empire, particularly in its “territory conquered by the Dhamma” or influence through Buddhism – a world religion on which the sun does not set.

EVIL EMPIRE

One of the few empires, at least under Ashoka’s legendary benevolence, that avoids the tag of evil empire, albeit arguably at the cost of its endurance.

In The Outline of History, H.G. Wells wrote “Amidst the tens of thousands of names of monarchs that crowd the columns of history, their majesties and graciousnesses and serenities and royal highnesses and the like, the name of Ashoka shines, and shines, almost alone, a star.”

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Wars (10) American Indian Wars – Sioux Wars

Posted on by

Custer’s Last Charge – entered according to act of Congress in the year 1876 by Seifert Gugler & Co. with the librarian of Congress at Washington D. C. (public domain image – “Sioux Wars” Wikipedia)

 

(10) AMERICAN INDIAN WARS –
SIOUX WARS (1854-1891)

The wars that defined the American West and ‘manifest destiny’ of the United States. The wars that put the frontier into Turner’s frontier thesis, as its literal frontier – or front line.

In origin they predate the United States itself, extending to the European colonial powers or American states prior to independence (or union). The American Revolutionary War and War of 1812 were also American Indian Wars, as the British and Americans each had their native American allies.

They were of existential importance to the native American nations or tribes, given that they ceased to exist as independent polities outside of reservations or territories within the United States, if at all. They were also of fundamental importance to the United States as well, given its “acquisition” of territory from those same tribes or nations.

Hence the span, scale and scope of the American Indian Wars in total extends for centuries across a continent. So as for which American Indian War to nominate for this entry, I’ll go with the archetypal or definitive entry, particularly from their place in the culture, history and mythology of the American West – the Sioux Wars.

Even those extended for almost half a century from the First Sioux War in 1854 to the Ghost Dance War in 1891 (and through the Great Plains but as also as far as Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado), with the most definitive Sioux War as the Great Sioux War of 1876 fought by two of the most famous native American war leaders, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse.

The Sioux Wars feature the archetypal or definitive image of the American Indian Wars fought by mounted native American warriors as well as many of the landmarks of the American Indian Wars – from Colonel Chivington and the Sand Creek Massacre, through the Battle of Little Bighorn and General Custer’s Last Stand, to the Ghost Dance and the Wounded Knee Massacre.

However, the American Indian Wars take their place as wars within even wider themes – indeed, among the widest and oldest in human history.

Firstly, there is the theme of wider native American wars, which the native American nations or tribes found themselves fighting in for half a millennium throughout both American continents against the European colonial powers or their settler successor states, including my next entry.

Secondly there is the theme of wars against tribal nations or tribes, not only in the Americas but worldwide. I’ve heard it said that the basic political states are empires and tribes (or tribal confederacies). That seems somewhat overstated, but certainly tribes or tribal nations throughout the world found themselves under fire in the same period – in the Americas, in Africa, in Siberia and Central Asia, and in Australasia or Oceania.

Thirdly – and overlapping with the previous theme – is the longest theme or war of all, spanning millennia, the wars of sedentary agricultural societies or states against nomadic hunter-gatherers. And it is a war that, despite setbacks at the hands of mounted nomadic herding tribes, has been overwhelmingly won by agricultural states – riding roughshod over the nomadic hunter-gatherers at their frontiers, through their weight of numbers and the things that come with it, the titular “guns, germs and steel” of Jared Diamond.

Even the ghost dance falls within those wider themes over millennia – and millennialism. Of course, I tend to think of all religion as a ghost dance, but particularly so when societies face overwhelming material odds against them and essentially resort to magic to win wars.

And it’s not always tribal societies. The Boxer Rebellion was essentially the Chinese ghost dance – as was the Taiping Rebellion before it, a conflict that tends to be strangely overlooked in history, despite more casualties than the First World War. Of course, the Taiping or Boxer Rebellions show that the ghost dance can get a few good punches (heh) in before it goes down, but it is almost universally doomed to go down, except in fantasy.

Although occasionally even in history the ghost dance wins its weird victories. One tribal confederacy or kingdom that popped up during a power vacuum in its region, but then found itself progressively overwhelmed by successive empires until it existed at the whim of a final one, also resorted to a ghost dance that increasingly substituted heavenly victory for an earthly one.

That of course was the Jewish tribal confederacy or kingdom and its great messianic ghost dance, existing at the whim of the Roman Empire. The Jewish kingdom itself did not survive the Roman Empire, but its ghost dance did – ultimately succeeding first to the imperial cult of the Roman Empire, and then to the remnants of the imperial state itself.

ART OF WAR

The Sioux tactically demonstrated the speed, surprise and shock that is part of the art of war – indeed, similarly to the mounted horse tribes of central Asian steppes that were so effective elsewhere, not surprisingly given the geography of the Plains.

The only problem was they were too little and too late – a few centuries too late, against an industrial adversary that used the true strategic art of war (for winning without fighting) – picking curb stomp battles from a position of overwhelming material superiority.

It also demonstrates something of an issue for guerilla warfare. Guerilla warfare is often touted as the ultimate expression of the art of war – and it often is, avoiding pitched battles to outlast the adversary, but it had one limitation, particularly in pre-modern history.

Mao Tse-Tung wrote that “the guerilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea” – which is all very well unless your opponent is willing and able to drain the sea, displacing or eliminating the whole people (or at least enough of them).

WORLD WAR

Not of themselves, but the Sioux Wars and the American Indian Wars were part of a wider world war in its total scope, the native American wars as one continent descended on two others

STILL FIGHTING THE AMERICAN INDIAN WARS

We’re still fighting the American Indian Wars – or rather their legacy, although in some cases native American wars are still being fought in the Americas. The American Indian Wars persisted in actual warfare until 1924 (!) – and subsequently in the form of the new and more effective ghost dance of political activism.

GOOD GUYS VS BAD GUYS

Ah USA – although it’s difficult to imagine the contemporary United States without the American Indian Wars, it’s equally difficult to see the US as the good guys from our modern perspective

RATING: 4 STARS*****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Books (10) Anthony Kaldellis – The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium

Posted on by

 

(10) ANTHONY KALDELLIS –

THE NEW ROMAN EMPIRE: A HISTORY OF BYZANTIUM (2023)

 

 

My wildcard tenth place entry as best history book of 2023 is this history of the eastern Roman Empire – from founding to fall of Constantinople, with more than a millennium of history in between them.

 

By the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453 AD– on the threshold of the Spanish discovery of the Americas and marking the start of the early modern period – the empire was effectively reduced to the city itself with some spare change left behind in the couch in the Peloponnese.

 

It had come a long way – and fallen so far – from its glorious founding as new imperial capital from the former city of Byzantium by Constantine in 330 AD, reigning as sole emperor over the whole classical Roman empire. From that point the empire was almost inevitably destined to be divided (again) into western and eastern halves, with the latter ruled from Constantinople and almost inevitably destined to outlast the former.

 

The founding of Constantinople and its rule over the eastern empire that became the sole empire once its western counterpart fell prompts consideration of what to call that empire, which is addressed from the outset of the book – and in its title.

 

It was of course, as they considered themselves to be, the continuation of the Roman Empire, but it also had important distinctions from the former classical empire – distinctions that allowed it to endure as long as it did and not merely as a “pale facsimile of classical Rome” but “a vigorous state of its own, inheritor of many of Rome’s features, and a vital node in the first truly globalized world”.

 

Western history has borrowed from Constantinople’s former title Byzantium – as indeed does the book’s subtitle and its author as self-described Byzantist – to call it the Byzantine empire, often to the detriment of the empire’s continuity with the Roman Empire. I guess Constantinopolitan Empire doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.

 

That is something which this book resists, advocating persuasively against that usage. While it is no doubt a term with an unfortunate history of usage, much like the general usage of Byzantine as a pejorative adjective, I think the title of Byzantine Empire may well be too ingrained in common usage to shake.

 

The common alternative has been to call it the Eastern Roman Empire – a usage similar to that of various Chinese dynasties to distinguish their geographical extent at different times, such as the Southern Song dynasty.

 

The book makes a persuasive case for a title as the New Roman Empire but then doesn’t really use that beyond the book’s title and introduction, instead preferring to use Romania – a usage that I don’t think will catch on for potential confusion with the modern nation of that name. Also come on – neo-Roman Empire was right there!

 

As for the book’s history of that thousand-year empire, it’s pretty much summed up by that earlier quote about it as a “vigorous state of its own” – one which endured through “innovative institutions and a bottomless strategic playbook”, the latter including what in modern parlance is called soft power and set out in one of the book’s many engaging points.

 

Another engaging point is that the book plays into my preference for thematic history, not simply chronicling what happened but asking how and why it did – above all, the question of how and why the empire “lasted so long lies at the heart of the book”.

 

That can be broken down into further questions, which the book engages. How and why did it survive when the western empire didn’t? How and why did it almost succumb to enemies after that, notably the Persians and Arabs when it came within a heartbeat of falling? How and why did it then rebound after those and other occasions of decline?

 

As to the book’s big question of how and why it lasted so long, a fundamental part of the answer is reflected in its preferred usage of Romania – that the empire transformed itself to resemble not so much subjects under imperial rule as participants in a Roman nation state.

 

A further engaging point is that the author doesn’t shrink on occasion from laying down some snide snark – such as when channelling his inner Procopius, he lets the occasional barb slip that he really doesn’t like Justinian. He quips that the Plague of Justinian was the only thing the emperor didn’t want to name after himself – ooo, sick imperial burn! Of course, in this house, Justinian is a hero – although even I have to admit he overextended the empire.

 

Less engaging for me is when he detours into the endless theological disputes in the broader history of Christianity within the empire. Yes, yes – I know the history of the empire is intimately caught up with the history of Christianity within it but my eyes mostly glazed over when the book went there.

 

Except for the dispute over icons – that kept my interest, although I suppose it helped it just involved the simply use (or prohibition from use) of images and not some mindbogglingly pedantic semantics. Also, there was the book’s insight that the iconoclasts were not as, well, iconoclastic as they were made out to be.

 

Even so, I preferred the book’s more straightforward political and military history of when the empire was kicking ass or having its ass kicked.

 

 

RATING: 4 STARS****

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Empires

Posted on by

“The Rhodes Colossus”, a cartoon by Edward Linley Sambourne published in Punch magazine in 1892

 

Given my interest in military history, it’s not surprising that I’ve also always found empires a fascinating subject of history, again from the fortunate perspective of being well removed from the sharp end of them. Empires are typically creatures of military conquest or power, and rise and fall by war.

Indeed, the two books that define my historical (and political) worldview are Sun Tzu’s The Art of War and Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (yes – I know I’ve shortened the title for the latter) – so it’s not surprising that their subject matter, war and empires, also define my primary interests in history.

Not all empires are equal, however. Not even the same empire, as like the proverbial river of Heraclitus, you cannot step into the same empire twice.

Of course, that is perhaps implicit in their rise and fall, particularly when the fall of one empire is at the hands of the rise of another – such as when you have a tale of two empires, in a strikingly memorable phrase (for the 1945 Soviet offensive against Japan in Manchuria), one “at the absolute top of its game” and the other “dying and insane”.

So these are my Top 10 Empires of History. These are not ranked by how large, populous, rich, powerful or influential they are, but by my historical interest in them – although this tends to overlap with the former criteria. For example, of the ten largest historical empires by area at their greatest extent, all but two of them pop up in my Top 10 (with the other two in my special mentions).

Just some further notes, as with my Top 10 Wars, I have some ratings within each entry:

 

DECLINE & FALL

I have to admit that my particular interest in empires is not so much in their robust rise, but in their decline and fall. But again, not all empires are equal in their decline and fall. Some empires seem to collapse almost overnight, but others hold the line over incredible areas or incredible periods of time (or both), even rebounding or bouncing back. My interest is in the latter, so just how impressive or tenacious was each empire’s decline and fall?

 

THE EMPIRE NEVER FELL

On the other hand, rating the empires by their temporal span, particularly for that arguably never fell, or still haunt the world as ghosts or shadows.

 

THE SUN NEVER SETS

Rating the wars by their geographic scale as world empire. It was famously said of one empire as descriptive of its extent that the sun never set on it. Actually it was said of at least one other empire before that, with precursors even before that, but never mind that now.

 

EVIL EMPIRE

Yes, yes – they’re all evil. But just how evil?

But seriously, no empire rises to or maintains its power by being nice. They do it by crushing their opponents or rebellious subjects – “they make a desolation and call it peace”. Hence rating how brutally or ruthlessly they did so – just how evil was each empire?

But also seriously, history usually does not repay moral judgements, particularly contemporary moral judgements. Almost every empire proclaims itself to be spreading civilisation or bringing some benefit to its subjects – and all but the most destructive have at least some merit in those claims. Empires were often the only means for any political unity above the tribal level, or indeed peace from inter-tribal warfare, although of course both were typically achieved by an imperial “tribe” or nation subjugating others, usually with great death or destruction, even if it subsequently absorbed or adopted the latter as citizens or soldiers of empire.

Also, prior to modern concepts of ethnic national self-determination, I tend to regard all polities as imperial in nature, at least in so far as they comprised any more than one ethnic group, and generally even in the case of more homogenous or tribal polities over their own members, in the absence of any concept of participatory representation.

 

So these are my top ten empires in history. And yes – this is another of my deep dive top tens, counting down from tenth to first place and looking at individual entries in some depth or detail of themselves.

But wait – there’s more! The subject is prolific enough for my usual twenty special mentions per top ten and for honorable mentions beyond that.

 

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Wars

Posted on by

 

One of the most iconic photographs of war – Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima by Joe Rosenthal of the Associated Press

 

I’ve always found wars a fascinating subject of history, from the comfortable armchair of hindsight and the fortunate perspective of being well removed from any firsthand experience of them. History, particularly military history, has always been something of a hobby of mine. So of course I have ranked my Top 10 Wars of history.

Just some notes – these are not ranked by scale of destruction or historical impact, although I’d like to think that most or all of these entries would rank highly by those criteria. They are also not ranked by moral justifiability or in terms of being ‘good’ wars, to the extent that such a term can be used for wars, if at all. Rather, they are ranked in terms of historical interest to me – and I tend to be interested in the broader themes of history, so I have preferred a broader classification of the wars in each entry, although I do nominate individual wars (or conquests or invasions) within each entry.

 

Just some further notes – I have some ratings within each entry:

 

ART OF WAR

Rating the wars by the art of war shown in them, typically by the victors of course, albeit based on my more idiosyncratic application of Sun Tzu’s Art of War.

 

WORLD WAR

Rating the wars by their scale – some wars might well be considered world wars (or at least part of world wars) beyond the two twentieth century wars formally designated as such, from World War Zero to World War X.

 

STILL FIGHTING THE WAR

Rating the wars by their span, particularly for those wars we are arguably still fighting.

 

GOOD GUYS VS BAD GUYS

Rating the wars by taking a shot at choosing moral sides or nominating the good guys and bad guys – or not, since history usually does not repay moral judgements.

 

So these are my top ten wars in history. You know the rules – this is one of my deep dive top tens, counting down from tenth to first place and looking at individual entries in some depth or detail of themselves.

But wait – there’s more! The subject is prolific enough for my usual twenty special mentions per top ten and for honorable mentions beyond that.

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Books

Posted on by

Marble bust of Herodotus, the “Father of HIstory” – public domain image donated to Wikimedia Commons as part of a project by the Metropolitan Museum of Art

 

History repeats itself – the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.

History does not repeat but sometimes it rhymes.

History is just one damned thing after another.

Ah yes, history – and three of my favorite quotes about it.

The first is paraphrasing an actual quote by Karl Marx – often overlooked by people, even Marxists, as someone who could be quite the capable prose stylist when not bogged down in denser prose or theory.

The second is often attributed to Mark Twain – someone who is widely acknowledged as a capable prose stylist, except that he doesn’t seem to have actually said it.

The third quip is often quoted from historian Toynbee – correctly but somewhat misleadingly because firstly, it was adapted from a preceding popular saying about life, and secondly, he was using it to criticize historians who simply sought to chronicle history rather than analyze it.

Toynbee definitely fell in the latter category – a historian whose central theme was identifying, well, the themes of history, its cycles and patterns, its plot and rhythm (or history rhyming if you will).

History has been a subject that has fascinated me since childhood, when I read it avidly – and still does as I read it now, hence my Top 10 History Books.

The subject of history in its broadest sense is perhaps straightforward enough – “the systematic study and documentation” of the human past or past events, usually demarcated from prehistory as the past or events subsequent to the invention of writing systems (or written history in other words, although it might be corroborated by other sources such as archaeology).

Beyond that, it gets a little tricky with all the permutations of the various subjects of history or even the concept of history itself – so many permutations that it could be the subject of its own top ten and certainly has been the subject of debate among historians.

“History is an academic discipline which uses a narrative to describe, examine, question, and analyze past events, and investigate their patterns of cause and effect. Historians debate which narrative best explains an event, as well as the significance of different causes and effect. Historians debate the nature of history as an end in itself, and its usefulness in giving perspective on the problems of the present.”

I’m not here to seek to resolve any of these debates, if such a thing is even possible – I’m just here to read books on history and, you know, live in it. To adapt my own quote of living in a mythic world, I live in a historic world. We all do.

That said, what I will do is clarify my tastes in history books. I definitely lean more towards Toynbee’s concept of history as themes or patterns, preferring history books that are more analysis than chronicle. All my top ten might be said to be analytical or thematic history, albeit some more than others.

I also tend to prefer my thematic history on a grand scale – the scale of comparative or global history. Not always of course, but often – it is a preference after all, characterizing at least six of my top ten books.

I also tend to have a preference for military history – put bluntly, the history of wars and empires, or indeed of war and empire in the general thematic sense. The latter characterizes two of my top ten books as general histories of war and warfare.

Following on from the history of wars and empires, it might be cliched but foremost among my subjects of preference are the Roman Empire and the Second World War (although Alexander the Great and the Cold War are close – and somewhat overlapping – runners-up for each respectively). Two of my top ten books have their subject as a focus on the Roman Empire, while another two are with respect to the Second World War.

I also can’t invoke capable prose style in my introduction without noting my preference for a good or even literary prose style in my books of history – some historians or historical writers are definitely better than others.

So here are my top ten books of history. You know the rules – this is one of my deep dive top tens, counting down from tenth to first place and looking at individual entries in some depth or detail of themselves. Tenth place is my wildcard entry for the best entry from the previous year (2023).

But wait – there’s more! The subject is prolific enough for my usual twenty special mentions per top ten and for honorable mentions beyond that.