Good question. I have no idea.

The Freemasons were very influential among intellectual circles in the eighteenth century. That’s why there were so many Masonic images and symbols used. Here’s a link to a very important and good book about freemasons in the 18th century, if you’re interested. You should also look at Jacob’s other books as well.

http://www.amazon.com/Living-Enlight...2793003&sr=8-7

As for your second question, I have no idea.

Regarding banking, I don’t know anything about your specific question. Financial speculation and fraud was quite common at the end of the 18th century. A couple books you might find interesting are:

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Financial...2793244&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Ascent-Money-F...2793266&sr=1-2

Lying and Fraud are probably excessively harsh terms to bandy about here.

Rothschild had the best communication network of all the private banks at the time.

And everybody knew they had the best communication.

Rothschild discreetly sold shares after Waterloo - thus giving the impression that it had gone badly; so everybody followed their lead and the price spiralled down.

But obviously they did it knowing it would be spotted, even more discreetly they had been buying shares because they knew the result.

Not lying, not fraud - just good strategy


EDIT: by the way, as an indication of how good their communications was - they found out the result of Waterloo before the UK government did.

I am attending an informal History Forum @ my community college on Wednesday. It is a mix of professors and students disecting a given topic. This months topic is as follows:

Did Napoleon preserve or pervert the ideals, princlples and objectives, of the French Revolution?

What are your thoughts on this and do you know of any readings you could point me to for this weekend? It is nothing too serious but I would like to be able to participate on some level instead of just observing. I know very little of the French revolution. Thanks.

Don’t really have time to give a thorough answer, but basically I see Napoleon as doing both. He effectively killed the idea of popular sovereignty and democracy temporarily by making himself emperor, yet he did it under the pretense of a popular plebiscite in which the republic seemingly voted for him. He also installed his siblings on the thrones of most of the monarchies of Europe. Yet he also enshrined the idea of civil equality before the law with such things as the Civil Code, which would remain after Napoleon. A good book that offers a really balanced view of Napoleon (for and against this argument) is:
http://www.amazon.com/Napoleon-Bonap...sr=1-1-catcorr

Thanks, that points me in the right direction

Not sure if you missed my questions; if you did, a reply would be awesome!!!

My wife recently got her master's in history. She just moved with me to northern Japan (US military base). Given the significant events happening here, what would your recommendation be as far as collecting or writing contemporary history? Any general tips on the next step for a young historian appreciated. Thanks!

Keep newspaper clippings. Access government reports where possible. Talk to eyewitnesses. Keep journals of events. These mundane things are the stuff history is made of. The historian's job is just to spin it into a narrative.

I think we're in an interesting spot as a couple. I'm a military broadcast journalist - much of my footage during the aftermath of the March 11 quake has been on national news. I have tremendous access to key personnel, and we have a good working relationship with the base historian on base here. I'm great at video, and my wife is danged smart. I just gotta figure out a way to turn this into something good.

I've been doing a lot of reading and listening to podcasts regarding Napoleon over the last few days, and I am quite impressed with his accomplishments and at the same time don't understand the narrow view portrayed of him in society.

I’m pretty cynical as a person, but I don’t think it necessarily has anything to do with my knowledge of history. I don’t really think of history as a series of tragedies or anything like that.

I’m not sure I have a deeper understanding necessarily than others. I do think that I think much more consciously and analytically about current events than perhaps I would if I were not a historian. As a historian, you learn to read everything (a speech, art, music, silverware, a toy, food, whatever) as a text defined by culture. Everything (literally) has to be understood within a deeper context. It’s just second nature to me now to analyze even the most banal daily things in this way, including news events.

I think everyone has biases. No one can be truly objective. You simply have to try to be as honest as possible about it and recognize it. That’s not very easy.

I’m not sure I can really offer a philosophy of life or anything. My personal philosophy is to simply have fun. Life is short. If you’re not enjoying yourself then you’re doing it wrong. I love learning new things and getting students excited about history. I love watching students develop intellectually. I have a blast. That’s enough for me. I’ll be dead soon enough, but I’ll have enjoyed myself. I’m not sure that very deep or philosophical but it gets me out of bed every day. By the way, every meaning of life type of question is inherently ideological. You just have to choose your ideology and don’t let yourself feel bad about it.

I'm trying to keep up!

All the things Prophet said, but in particular I would use the information you have that others don’t have access to. If you have access to important people then definitely get as much from them as possible. Record the interviews with precise dates and times, etc. Newspaper clippings and such are things historians will have access to hundreds of years from now. Focus on the things that will fade quickly, like individual memories. I would try to interview as many people as possible including people of every age, sex, socioeconomic group, etc. (not just government personnel).

If she’s serious about writing a contemporary history, which is basically journalism, I would focus on some aspect that is not entirely obvious or clear. Some part of the story that is not being told. That will be most interesting and the most important thing for historians generations from now. Everyone can get the basic narrative, so she should focus on some topic deeper than that. I would even encourage her to think of it more as a personal story almost like a memoir of her experiences of the disaster rather than a history. I think in the long run that would be much more useful and interesting.

I agree. People tend to have a stereotype of Napoleon. He was much too complex to fit into any facile stereotype.

Dale!

Thanks for doing this and i hope youre still taking questions because i only found this thread!

To what extent was the Enlightenment an anti-Christian movement? I understand it is difficult to deal with the Enlightenment as a single conhesive period, but can we still make generalisations on this question? Do you know anything about how the different 'enlightenments' differed in this regard?

(I have other general history/historian questions I swear, but I'll ask them tomorrow when I've finished my essay!)

Thanks!

Dear Dalerobk, first of all thanks for doing this thread. As to my question: Earlier on in the thread you briefly talked about economics history. Are there any good books you can recommend? Specifically, I'm interested in the following topics:

- History of capitalism
- economics and the early modern period
- The industrial revolution
- Economics and media
- Economics and the nation state
- Economics and culture

The last point probably interests me most. My questions would be how a given people's culture influences their economic system, why some countries have better adapted to a capitalist system than others, etc. In general, I'm looking for books that give an interpretation, a critical perspective and/or contextualize economics with another subject (such as culture) and not merely a historical overview. So for the industrial revolution for instance, I'd find a book that focuses on the actual lives of the working class interesting, or on land to city migration.

has the American Historical Association (www.historians.org) slanted history books to favor social planning and collectivism?

this was alleged by the Reece Commission in the 50s. ah just saw this on Wikipedia from the AHA's report in 1934-

"...the obvious fact that American civilization...is passing through one of the great critical ages of history, is modifying its traditional faith in economic individualism, and is embarking upon vast experiments in social planning...Cumulative evidence supports the conclusion that in the United States as in other countries, the age of laissez faire in economy and government is closing and a new age of collectivism is emerging.”

this report was funded by the Carnegie Endowment, which would later pick the great American Alger Hiss as its President until he was unjustly sent to prison. holy communist plots batman? I presume you are member of this organization? oligarchical collectivism, such a fun phrase.

(sorry for being so conspiratorial, would be very interested in hearing your thoughts on this)

simple fun questions

most evil person in history? most good? one event/battle/etc that goes a different way, and changes history most? do you think the USA has an expiration date, or is there any reason to think it'll be around longer than other nations that fell?

How do the majority of historians feel about the notion that society used to be ran by matriarchs pre-5000b.c.e. or whenever it was.

please op, give me all your knowledge on weed for recreational use history.

Have you studied Lincoln?

If so have you read The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked by DiLorenzo?

What's your opinion on Historical Revisionism?

Solid books on Asian history: pre-colonial and colonial, Southeast Asia or China, general history and more focused studies.

Would appreciate any recommendations (or somewhere I can find recs).

I would hesitate to call the E’ment “anti-Christian.” There was perhaps an element of that for some philosophes, but certainly not all of them. And those that were “anti-Christian” were more often more anti-clerical/Church than anti-Christian per se. I think the reason people often have this notion is b/c they tend to think of Voltaire when they think of the E’ment, and Voltaire was famously anti-clerical and was famous for his expression, “Écrasez l’infame.” But many E’ment philosophes were devout Christians. This was particularly true in Britain where many of the leading philosophes there were actually dissenters—Richard Price, for example.

I’ll give you some book suggestions later. I have a few books at home that I think are interesting but need to double check the titles.

As for the rest of your question, I’m not really sure that a comparative economic analysis of two very different countries is particularly useful. I’m also not sure exactly what you mean by “capitalism.” Pretty much every country today is capitalist—even China is more or less. And I’m not sure what you mean by “better adapted.” I would guess that you mean “richer” and you probably are defining wealth in western terms. This very statement is defined by your culture as you’re probably making assumptions about what is good and desirable economically. Also, you suggest that economics and culture are somehow different but could be studied together. I think this is wrong. Economics and culture are inextricably intertwined. Every economic decision is informed by society and culture.

I’ll post some book suggestions later today.