You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.06 AVERAGE
4.06 AVERAGE
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
informative
slow-paced
I read this because sometimes when people learn that I’m a medievalist they ask me what I think of this book. There are some things that Tuchman gets right (ex. antisemitism in medieval Europe), but quite a lot more of the book is made up of poor scholarship. She has a tendency to take chroniclers at face value, for example, especially when it comes to slandering powerful women. The only time she calls these accounts into question is when they seem implausible to modern sensibilities, such as accusations of witchcraft. Similarly, she has a tendency to use a modern voice in her narration of events, which came out especially in her description of the “Turks”—the language she used was much more characteristic of 20th c orientalism than even of medieval descriptions (racist and orientalist in their own right) of Muslims. Similarly, she uses the language of the three estates to talk about medieval French AND English society, which doesn’t make sense. All of this contributes to her parroting of the progress narrative—the idea that somehow modernity is more progressive and advanced than those backwards and ignorant medieval people. She even says that something about the spirit of the 16th c reinvigorated people and ideas…without being able to point to what exactly that might have been. She completely ignores that many of the things she says were characteristic of the Middle Ages (torture, witch hunts) in fact peaked in modernity, not in the Middle Ages. If you want a good account of medieval history, I would advise looking elsewhere.
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
Sometimes I realize just how little history I actually know, even though I do think I have a decent broad strokes overview but, wow, this was absolutely fascinating and Tuchman's investigation into all the different things happening was just really cool.
The research and narrative structure made it work as a book rather than a textbook; I think I would have felt differently about it if I was reading for research rather than just to know more about everything. And I do finally understand what was going on with the whole "We've had one pope, yes! How about second pope?" situation.
The research and narrative structure made it work as a book rather than a textbook; I think I would have felt differently about it if I was reading for research rather than just to know more about everything. And I do finally understand what was going on with the whole "We've had one pope, yes! How about second pope?" situation.
adventurous
challenging
dark
informative
medium-paced
A Distant Mirror is sometimes fascinating, while horribly repetitive at others. There are themes to its chapters, but they’re unclear and serve only to aggravate an already erratic flow. I happened to listen to the audiobook version, and the narrator (bless her soul) did nothing to improve the story. She talks fast, never breaking for a breath, in a high-pitched, monotone voice devoid of expression. The subject matter is well-researched, and the author is clearly passionate, but its presentation doesn't land well. The setting is mainly focused on the French, and occasionally British, nobility during the later 3/4 of The Hundred Years War, setting various stories in an almost scandalous tabloid style. Early on in the book, it’s stated the focus is on the French noble Enguerrand VII de Coucy. While his presence gravitates around certain events throughout the book, he’s ultimately a forgettable figure. The plague sections are excellent, yet they’re weighed down by numerous tales of repetitive battles, presented with little buildup or explanation, along with one too many needless tales about which duke was coveting which lord's niece before she ran off with the prince from the next town over only for both to perish at the hands of a dozen disgruntled serfs. Those who may have studied the period might find enjoyment, but to the armchair historian or casual Sunday reader, this one isn’t for you.
I wasn't sure going into this book what I'd think. But I found an engaging and entertaining look at Europe in the 14th Century, specifically France and England and the dealings regarding the 100 Years War. I learned a lot of things that I did not know about the century, and am glad I took the friend's recommendation for it.
I did the audiobook and think the reader was a huge help in keeping me engaged for the entire 29 hours. If it's an option for you, I would recommend listening to this book.
I did the audiobook and think the reader was a huge help in keeping me engaged for the entire 29 hours. If it's an option for you, I would recommend listening to this book.
Wow, that was some dense reading! Overall a very engaging book, although it sometimes gets bogged down in the minutiae of various topics.
challenging
informative
fast-paced
After the 100th mention of the exact cost of the taxes in Mirror on approximately page 250, I knew I would be slogging through the rest of the book. I don't understand if the book is supposed to be pop history or academic history; maybe in 1978 there wasn't as great of a divide between these styles. I don't read academic history any more unless it's about U.S. History because I don't have the depth of knowledge about places and and people to understand it in the way I want to: when Tuchman relentlessly mentions the Duke of Burgundy versus the Duke of Brittany I had to continually turn back to the front of the book to remember where those regions were in France. There's just too much detail in the last two-thirds of this book for most readers to enjoy it.
However, the first third pulled me in and forced me to try to finish the book. I did enjoy a lot of the medieval literature I read in college and didn't realize how much of it came from the 14th century. Even though I somewhat knew better, I must have romanticized aspects of the time period to enjoy the literature, because in Tuchman's brutal and exhaustive account, there's nothing to enjoy except her uncompromising gaze. The church is hopelessly corrupt, the nobility hopelessly ignoble, the peasants massacred or starved in shocking numbers and detail. The literati perform in the hopes of finding a noble patron rather than falling into the growing middle class of merchants and bankers who are periodically purged by the peasants or the nobility or the church and blamed for all of their problems. I already knew some about the dynamics of anti-semitism in Europe through Arendt's treatment of the issue in The Origins of Totalitarianism but the crushing frequency of the exile and massacre of Jews in Europe was just as brutal as the rest of the book.
And, of course, there's the Black Plague. History doesn't make make predictions, but based on Tuchman's account, plagues don't build solidarity, they destroy it, often for an entire century. From the beginnings of the plague in 1350 to about the middle of the 15th century, Europe lost not only two-thirds of its population but the entire moral and ethical framework of feudal monarchial Christianity. One could make a strong argument that this framework was mostly bullshit already: the church was basically a parasitic corporation that preyed on our worst instincts to extract tribute, the nobility did not actually feel any obligation to protect the peasants, the monarchs were mostly powerless to control the nobility, etc. However, the plague exacerbated the worst aspects of every one of this institutions. The church entered the period of the Schism and exacted double tribute from most regions for the cardinals in both Avignon and Rome, the English and French fought a century-long war over...nothing, and the companies scavenged over the bones of the plague- and tax-depleted countryside, taking the last scraps of food from the peasants.
So, I don't have a lot of hope for what we're about to do in the next century. I think we're a long way from the Renaissance.
However, the first third pulled me in and forced me to try to finish the book. I did enjoy a lot of the medieval literature I read in college and didn't realize how much of it came from the 14th century. Even though I somewhat knew better, I must have romanticized aspects of the time period to enjoy the literature, because in Tuchman's brutal and exhaustive account, there's nothing to enjoy except her uncompromising gaze. The church is hopelessly corrupt, the nobility hopelessly ignoble, the peasants massacred or starved in shocking numbers and detail. The literati perform in the hopes of finding a noble patron rather than falling into the growing middle class of merchants and bankers who are periodically purged by the peasants or the nobility or the church and blamed for all of their problems. I already knew some about the dynamics of anti-semitism in Europe through Arendt's treatment of the issue in The Origins of Totalitarianism but the crushing frequency of the exile and massacre of Jews in Europe was just as brutal as the rest of the book.
And, of course, there's the Black Plague. History doesn't make make predictions, but based on Tuchman's account, plagues don't build solidarity, they destroy it, often for an entire century. From the beginnings of the plague in 1350 to about the middle of the 15th century, Europe lost not only two-thirds of its population but the entire moral and ethical framework of feudal monarchial Christianity. One could make a strong argument that this framework was mostly bullshit already: the church was basically a parasitic corporation that preyed on our worst instincts to extract tribute, the nobility did not actually feel any obligation to protect the peasants, the monarchs were mostly powerless to control the nobility, etc. However, the plague exacerbated the worst aspects of every one of this institutions. The church entered the period of the Schism and exacted double tribute from most regions for the cardinals in both Avignon and Rome, the English and French fought a century-long war over...nothing, and the companies scavenged over the bones of the plague- and tax-depleted countryside, taking the last scraps of food from the peasants.
So, I don't have a lot of hope for what we're about to do in the next century. I think we're a long way from the Renaissance.
This damn book was a ride. I’ve been bothering friends and family with little tidbits that I found fascinating and spent a lot of time pondering the impacts of decisions made so long ago on the world we live in now.
I was, frankly, shocked by the agnostic-leaning writings of the author and the ability she had to draw such an unflattering picture of Christianity. I loved it. I loved that she was so fearless in describing the failings of the religion as a whole and that she threw in the perception of Turkish Muslims in the 14th century of Christianity being a polytheistic religion (although I would have liked MORE of their POV, I understand why the author chose not to focus on that empire). My personal religious issues were triggered frequently by the discourse, but I think it still gave me a valuable point of view.
I appreciated the forward in this book that explains why she chose Engeurrand de Coucy’s life to illuminate the century. I felt she was a bit too kind in describing his character and motivations at times, but he was a good choice.
Also, I didn’t need another reason to hate General Ludendorff (German army commander WW1), but fuck that guy for destroying the castle just because someone asked him not to.
Triggers: DO NOT READ THIS BOOK if you have any triggers. People die in every imaginable way and everything horrible that happens in modern war, with the exception of modern weaponry induced horrors, happened in this century. As far as I remember, there were not any detailed descriptions of SA, but it was touched on.
I was, frankly, shocked by the agnostic-leaning writings of the author and the ability she had to draw such an unflattering picture of Christianity. I loved it. I loved that she was so fearless in describing the failings of the religion as a whole and that she threw in the perception of Turkish Muslims in the 14th century of Christianity being a polytheistic religion (although I would have liked MORE of their POV, I understand why the author chose not to focus on that empire). My personal religious issues were triggered frequently by the discourse, but I think it still gave me a valuable point of view.
I appreciated the forward in this book that explains why she chose Engeurrand de Coucy’s life to illuminate the century. I felt she was a bit too kind in describing his character and motivations at times, but he was a good choice.
Also, I didn’t need another reason to hate General Ludendorff (German army commander WW1), but fuck that guy for destroying the castle just because someone asked him not to.
Triggers: DO NOT READ THIS BOOK if you have any triggers. People die in every imaginable way and everything horrible that happens in modern war, with the exception of modern weaponry induced horrors, happened in this century. As far as I remember, there were not any detailed descriptions of SA, but it was touched on.
It turns out I'm just not that interested in the 100 years war. Maybe if I could have separated out the bits about plague and chivalry I would have kept reading it.