Re: History

by furriner Thu 01 Nov 2007, 13:28

Shoeshine wrote:
furriner wrote:
On an unrelated note, everything I need to know about the age of sail I learnt from Patrick O'Brian.

Mmm. Marvellous books, definitely, but I wouldn't necessarily take O'Brian as being a particularly accurate reflection on the navy of the age - except in atmosphere. For example, he made a pretty basic error in not noticing that the rank of Master & Commander had been abolished before the period in which he set his books - becoming simply "Commander", whilst impressment is somewhat overstated due to a fairly common misunderstanding of the difference between pressed men and prestmen (those given a bounty). Nor did the navy routinely accept criminals and convicts, in complete contrast, they loathed the idea of having them palmed off on them and wouldn't take them.

Nevertheless, whilst Cochrane was undoubtedly a fine commander, O'Brian was a little too quick to accept the self-justifying and frankly mendacious memoirs of the man himself, though dressed up as fiction. Cochrane WAS guilty of fraud, not set-up as O'Brian believes.

I was speaking only semi seriously.

Assuming what you have said about the press is correct- and I'll take your word for it- he's not the only writer to have overstated the case. Either way, he seems absolutely convincing to a layperson like me with his descriptions.

by furriner Thu 01 Nov 2007, 13:33

Shoeshine wrote:...Oh, and equally, O'Brian was writing largely for an American market, who bought his books long before they became popular on this side of the Atlantic.

I distinctly remember reading the opposite, i.e. that his success in the US came much later. Will try to lok it up later.

by Shoeshine Thu 01 Nov 2007, 13:34

furriner wrote:I was speaking only semi seriously.

Assuming what you have said about the press is correct- and I'll take your word for it- he's not the only writer to have overstated the case. Either way, he seems absolutely convincing to a layperson like me with his descriptions.

No, he isn't at all. Don't get me wrong, O'Brian is a marvellous, and highly entertaining introduction to the period. People will learn more from reading his books than they are ever likely to from dry text books. It's just that as is always the case, it must be remembered that it was fiction, not fact, and have that healthy scepticism accordingly.

But if you want a really good, and really readable history of the navy, may I recommend NAM Rodger's two books (thus far), Safeguard of the Sea and Command of the Ocean, which goes far deeper than moving from battle to battle.

by furriner Thu 01 Nov 2007, 13:43

[quote="Shoeshine"]

furriner wrote:I was speaking only semi seriously.

Assuming what you have said about the press is correct- and I'll take your word for it- he's not the only writer to have overstated the case. Either way, he seems absolutely convincing to a layperson like me with his descriptions.

No, he isn't at all. Don't get me wrong, O'Brian is a marvellous, and highly entertaining introduction to the period. People will learn more from reading his books than they are ever likely to from dry text books. It's just that as is always the case, it must be remembered that it was fiction, not fact, and have that healthy scepticism accordingly.

But if you want a really good, and really readable history of the navy, may I recommend NAM Rodger's two books (thus far), Safeguard of the Sea and Command of the Ocean, which goes far deeper than moving from battle to battle.[/quote]

I knew this forum would be good for something, some day.

Thank you. I will look them up, most certainly.

by Rachel Thu 01 Nov 2007, 13:50

We did the Norman Conquest (primary school), copying out of a book on the Enclosures Act (all I learned in the first three years of secondary school) and for GCSE, we did the History of Medicine, the Arab-Israeli Conflict and, er, that's it. Anything else I have taught myself.

My schools were sh*tholes.

by JKLever Thu 01 Nov 2007, 15:06

Most of my knowledge is basically self taught through my own interest in subjects.

My nephew doesn't even know what Hadrians wall is FFS

by Shoeshine Thu 01 Nov 2007, 15:07

JKLever wrote:
My nephew doesn't even know what Hadrians wall is FFS

Well? Did it keep Gordon Brown out? No, it didn't. Wink

by Guest Thu 01 Nov 2007, 21:43

JKLever wrote:Most of my knowledge is basically self taught through my own interest in subjects.

My nephew doesn't even know what Hadrians wall is FFS

The Vindolanda Tablets are fascinating.

by JKLever Thu 01 Nov 2007, 22:01

Demelza wrote:
JKLever wrote:Most of my knowledge is basically self taught through my own interest in subjects.

My nephew doesn't even know what Hadrians wall is FFS
The Vindolanda Tablets are fascinating.

Ah yes, I remember them.

Aren't they what you take after 12 lagers and an Indian?

by Guest Thu 01 Nov 2007, 22:04

Laughing!

by The One Fri 02 Nov 2007, 14:54

furriner wrote:Indian- ancient, medieval and modern

the history textbooks we read in school ended with indian history on 1947. there is absolutely nothing on independent india - kinda ironic

good to know about indus valley, mauryas, mughals, brits, etc. but would have been even more interesting to know about nehru, ambedkar, patel, indira, etc. i wonder if we will ever get an unbiased modern history textbook in indian schools

we also had stuff on asian and european history. not in great detail though

by Sponsored content