![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bedlamsbardSo I am reading this book called Water: The Epic Struggle for Wealth, Power, and Civilization, as I have mentioned before, and at this point I'm pretty convinced the only reason I'm still reading it is for the hilarity, not for the historical accuracy, because, ha, that's not an issue. (Yeah, it's a nonfiction book.)
I have so far marked seven times that the word "precocious" appears in the text, and have discovered something interesting. So far, I am now into about the early twentieth century, although he jumps around some, so it's hard to tell. The last time that Solomon used the word precocious was to refer to the Dutch in the seventeenth century. The other occasions he used it were: Sumeria (the world's most precocious large civilization!), ancient Egypt (precocious but timid shore-huggers!), Venice (the most precocious of the early Italian city-states!), China's textile artisans (can you believe they discovered SILK? the shock!), the Meditarranean (precocious and semiarid, with disparate resources!), Portugal (my GOD! an evolving political economic marriage between private markets and governments, a.k.a. colonialism!), and the Dutch (the most precocious of global powers, in other words: a REPUBLIC! a merchant REPUBLIC!). Since the Oxford English Dictionary defines "precocious" as "premature development; occuring prematurely", this means that Solomon is shocked, shocked, I tell you, to discover that anyone before the Industrial Revolution (and, heh, probably the American Revolution, for that matter) could do ANYTHING.
Among other moments of LOL, I have realized why this reads as so, well...mispresented? Poorly researched? Written by a guy who has no idea what he's talking about? Anyway, it reads like a B student's undergrad history paper. Steven Solomon doesn't really understand what he's talking about, or why the events he's highlighted in his book are happening; he knows they did happen because he read about them, but he's not exactly sure on why they happened or why they're so important. The only reason he knows is because the books he's read told him so. So while he has a -- not technically inaccurate survey of the use of water in civilization from 5000 BC to the present day, a lot of the time he misrepresents historical events because he doesn't know the context, he's not entirely sure why they're important, or because he hasn't bothered to do the research to find out what really happened, just the common belief on what happened. (Although I do have to admit to being slightly impressed that he actually knows that the levee breaks in 2005 in New Orleans were caused by the flood surge, not by the hurricane itself, but hey! That happened in 2005, not 500 BC or 1005 AD, or 1500 AD.) So he says stuff that might make sense on the surface to someone who doesn't know anything about a certain period, and in some cases may be technically true, but for someone who knows the period to any extent whatsoever, it just sounds ridiculous.
On the Vikings: "Ultimately repelled by walled citadels and castles defended by mounted, armor-clad knights, these barbarians, too, settled down to civilized life, adopted Christianity and, like converted barbarians throught history, invigorated their new religion with fresh zeal."
On alcohol in Europe: "Around the same period [the Age of Discovery], another disinfecting drink, alcohol distilled from grains, became popular. The Greeks and Romans had had primitive versions of distilled spirits in antiquity and stills were operating in the ninth century and thereafter in Europe. ...Wine drinking, of course, had been popular in semiarid Mediterranean habitats from Greek and Roman times.
Yeah, that's right, people. The Vikings were repelled by high walls and knights in shining armor, and Northern Europe didn't discover alcohol until the ninth century CE. (His phrasing may be technically correct, but it looks wrong. It feels wrong.)
He also likes to quote other books when it's utterly unnecessary to do so. No, we don't need a not-so-pithy quote from a noted historian to figure out that the development of long-range artillery was revolutionary to sea warfare; you just told us so with an example! Sir, you may in fact use your own words: you have just done at least three things my Medieval England professor told the class not to do on our papers. And I have seen his reference list; he was not only not using primary sources (which, okay, he's a journalist, not a historian, this isn't necessary a history book, I don't like it, but okay), he's using popular history books, not academic history books. I love Mark Kurlansky's book Salt: A World History, but it's not academic history. I'm pretty sure anything that has the title 100 Decisive Battles isn't either. And Solomon says himself that rather than trying to do his own research, he's using other people's, and trying to "pull these ideas together into a cohesive framework and narrative." Buddy. Buddy. You have to understand what is going on to do that. (And he used an abridged version of Gibbon. I suppose I should feel honored he bothered to actually read Herodotus, instead of a popular history.)
I wish I could find the part where he said that the French kings of England only lasted 300 years, which I mostly remember because of the WTF factor. Also, Islam fell from prominence after the twelfth century! I will grant you the Mongols sacking Baghdad, but I think poor Constantinople would be really surprised to say that. Also, the modern world.
I have so far marked seven times that the word "precocious" appears in the text, and have discovered something interesting. So far, I am now into about the early twentieth century, although he jumps around some, so it's hard to tell. The last time that Solomon used the word precocious was to refer to the Dutch in the seventeenth century. The other occasions he used it were: Sumeria (the world's most precocious large civilization!), ancient Egypt (precocious but timid shore-huggers!), Venice (the most precocious of the early Italian city-states!), China's textile artisans (can you believe they discovered SILK? the shock!), the Meditarranean (precocious and semiarid, with disparate resources!), Portugal (my GOD! an evolving political economic marriage between private markets and governments, a.k.a. colonialism!), and the Dutch (the most precocious of global powers, in other words: a REPUBLIC! a merchant REPUBLIC!). Since the Oxford English Dictionary defines "precocious" as "premature development; occuring prematurely", this means that Solomon is shocked, shocked, I tell you, to discover that anyone before the Industrial Revolution (and, heh, probably the American Revolution, for that matter) could do ANYTHING.
Among other moments of LOL, I have realized why this reads as so, well...mispresented? Poorly researched? Written by a guy who has no idea what he's talking about? Anyway, it reads like a B student's undergrad history paper. Steven Solomon doesn't really understand what he's talking about, or why the events he's highlighted in his book are happening; he knows they did happen because he read about them, but he's not exactly sure on why they happened or why they're so important. The only reason he knows is because the books he's read told him so. So while he has a -- not technically inaccurate survey of the use of water in civilization from 5000 BC to the present day, a lot of the time he misrepresents historical events because he doesn't know the context, he's not entirely sure why they're important, or because he hasn't bothered to do the research to find out what really happened, just the common belief on what happened. (Although I do have to admit to being slightly impressed that he actually knows that the levee breaks in 2005 in New Orleans were caused by the flood surge, not by the hurricane itself, but hey! That happened in 2005, not 500 BC or 1005 AD, or 1500 AD.) So he says stuff that might make sense on the surface to someone who doesn't know anything about a certain period, and in some cases may be technically true, but for someone who knows the period to any extent whatsoever, it just sounds ridiculous.
On the Vikings: "Ultimately repelled by walled citadels and castles defended by mounted, armor-clad knights, these barbarians, too, settled down to civilized life, adopted Christianity and, like converted barbarians throught history, invigorated their new religion with fresh zeal."
On alcohol in Europe: "Around the same period [the Age of Discovery], another disinfecting drink, alcohol distilled from grains, became popular. The Greeks and Romans had had primitive versions of distilled spirits in antiquity and stills were operating in the ninth century and thereafter in Europe. ...Wine drinking, of course, had been popular in semiarid Mediterranean habitats from Greek and Roman times.
Yeah, that's right, people. The Vikings were repelled by high walls and knights in shining armor, and Northern Europe didn't discover alcohol until the ninth century CE. (His phrasing may be technically correct, but it looks wrong. It feels wrong.)
He also likes to quote other books when it's utterly unnecessary to do so. No, we don't need a not-so-pithy quote from a noted historian to figure out that the development of long-range artillery was revolutionary to sea warfare; you just told us so with an example! Sir, you may in fact use your own words: you have just done at least three things my Medieval England professor told the class not to do on our papers. And I have seen his reference list; he was not only not using primary sources (which, okay, he's a journalist, not a historian, this isn't necessary a history book, I don't like it, but okay), he's using popular history books, not academic history books. I love Mark Kurlansky's book Salt: A World History, but it's not academic history. I'm pretty sure anything that has the title 100 Decisive Battles isn't either. And Solomon says himself that rather than trying to do his own research, he's using other people's, and trying to "pull these ideas together into a cohesive framework and narrative." Buddy. Buddy. You have to understand what is going on to do that. (And he used an abridged version of Gibbon. I suppose I should feel honored he bothered to actually read Herodotus, instead of a popular history.)
I wish I could find the part where he said that the French kings of England only lasted 300 years, which I mostly remember because of the WTF factor. Also, Islam fell from prominence after the twelfth century! I will grant you the Mongols sacking Baghdad, but I think poor Constantinople would be really surprised to say that. Also, the modern world.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-08-06 10:04 pm (UTC)also vikings were primarily farmers who were undergoing a population boom and needed to find new farmland, you twit. the knights had nothing to do with their settling down and becoming farmers. that's what most of them were the entire time.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-08-06 10:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-08-07 02:20 am (UTC)It's kind of awesome if you're into the Roman empire as a motivational model for British colonialism. Also there are 43 hours of it, so I am not going to run short any time soon.
Herodotus is waaaaay peppier than Gibbon. Tacitus is superior to both.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-08-08 06:54 pm (UTC)