The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the week of September 26th - October 2nd, we are reading approximately the next 20 pages of A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century by Barbara W. Tuchman.

The fifteenth week's reading assignment is:

Week Fifteen - September 26th – October 2nd -> TWENTY-FIVE p. 517 - 537
TWENTY-FIVE – Lost Opportunity



We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book was kicked off on June 20th. We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.

There is time still remaining to obtain the book and get started.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Welcome,

~Bentley


TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL



by Barbara W. Tuchman

It has been a while since I've read this chapter. I'm behind on my catching up. Funny, huh. :)

Random thoughts, as always:

Page 518: I thought it summed up a lot of Coucy's personality when Tuchman describes him as "the supreme persuader." Seems he has, at times, even been able to persuade people to figuratively shoot themselves in the foot.

Page 524: What a great legacy for Robert of Geneva, to be remembered as the "Anti-Pope." Ouch.

Also on page 524: I am also amazed at the feat of the royal messengers galloping 400 miles in four days. I wonder how many horses they killed? And if their back-sides ever recovered...

Whine: Why do the popes have to change names when they become pope? I'm having a hard enough time remembering ONE name for everyone.

Page 532: Do you agree with Tuchman, that "since his motives are lost to us, let us believe them sincere"? Seems to me that if we apply it here, we really ought to apply it to everyone with lost motives. It is kinda like deciding that the person who cut you off on the highway really just didn't see you. Maybe. But that can't be true EVERY time, can it? :)

Page 533: Oooo, here is a good point to debate: "Kingship, which can corrupt or improve, seems to have had a generally one-sided effect in the 14th century: only Charles V gained wisdom from responsibility." Hmmm. If true, how does that compare with other centuries?

It is the sort of thing that Catholics have had to get used to for years (Popes changing names).

No I do not believe that if motives are lost that we necessarily have to believe that they were sincere.

All of the other comments are great discussion points and I hope others join in.

p238-39 @Elizabeth S: I think that Charles V's desire for knowledge and concern about the spread of knowledge was the basis of his gaining of wisdom. Obviously Richard II was not seeking wisdom and understanding by releasing his inner impulses. An excellent point. I'd have to think some more about your question.

I just have to note that it continues to be difficult to follow. I keep wondering where all the money comes from. Are the peasants/artisans/merchants really being taxed and taxed and taxed?

Msg 2 - Elizabeths remarks are noted - I have to also wonder about 400 miles in four days on horseback - especially with the roads of the day.

Pg 532 I don't agree with Tuchman that unknown motives are sincere just that they are unknown.

I tended to agree with you Vince that Tuchman's approach that unknown motives may be interpreted as sincere just because they are unknown does not hold water.

Bentley wrote: "I tended to agree with you Vince that Tuchman's approach that unknown motives may be interpreted as sincere just because they are unknown does not hold water."

And if you think about it, Tuchman doesn't universally apply that Assume Unknown Motives Sincere principle. My impression is that she uses it less often than not.

The think that was one of the things about Tuchman that bothered me Elizabeth S and I ignored it continually in this book. Tuchman was selective and used her hypotheses in different ways depending upon what she wanted to assert. I did not think that she was consistent nor necessarily correct all of the time. I felt very similarly in reading Barzun's book though overall I got a lot out of reading both of them and would recommend both of these books with that caveat.

by Jacques Barzun

Funny, I thought Tuchman's remark about sincere motives was kind of tongue-in-cheek.

One reason that monarchy did not improve the monarchs much, IMHO, is that the monarchs seemed to have so little to do, and spent most of their time amusing themselves! Granted that Charles VI was an extreme case because of his mental instability, nonetheless they all seem to have spent as much time planning and executing elaborate entertainments as on anything remotely connected to statecraft. Generally, apart from conducting wars and keeping ambitious relatives in check, kings had little interest in governing, apparently.

Popes take a new name (still the custom, I think) to mark this dramatically new phase in their life, I believe. It was traditional for monks and nuns to take new names when they entered their Orders, a tradidion still followed by some orders today. And apparently, as recently as George VI, English kings adopted new names at coronation - or anyway, picked one name, not necessarily the first, of their string of names, by which they'd henceforth be known. (If The King's Speech got it right!)

I thought it was both amusing and, as Tuchman notes, a sad commentary on the corrupting influence of power, that the Spaniard de Luna, who had made so pretty a speech about how easily he would abdicate the papacy before his election, was so devoted to keeping his position after it!

Mary Ellen, did you? I suppose that it could have been but I did not see evidence of that throughout the book. Who knows though. I have seen old interviews with Tuchman and she seemed to have a sarcastic side to her in a very understated way so anything is possible.

It does seem that the monarchies had an awful lot of time on their hands; I do agree with you on that.

Yes, that is often amusing when once power is acquired; how reluctant it is to give it up.

Mary Ellen wrote: "Funny, I thought Tuchman's remark about sincere motives was kind of tongue-in-cheek.
..."

That makes a lot of sense, Mary Ellen. There are quite a few dry humor comments like that in the book. I have a relative like that--she says such great sarcastic things, but sometimes she delivers them so dead-pan that no one picks up on it. Maybe Tuchman should have put "(cough cough)" after some of her less obvious tongue-in-cheeks. :)

I didn't know about English kings adopting a new name sometimes. It really is more prevalent than I would have thought.

I sort of agree with Mary Ellen that nobility did not seem to have much to do - but we can see that Coucy had lots of missions and work.

But also, if we believe the knights fought so well, I thnk we have to concede that they must have trained for several hours a day.

Vince, you raise the one difference (Coucy). And you are also right about the knights (there certainly was some expertise there which would have required specialized training which would take time).

I just discovered that some of your comments are showing a rating in the subject line - this must be a weird new feature that goodreads has added. Have you guys finished the book before rating or have you made up your mind already?

I have been holding off until all of you have completed your readings and really do not understand the value of this new un requested feature. The strangest features show up sometime.

Also, Vince, not sure if you realize but your avatar is blank; you might want to add a photo of an historical place you like or even a photo of the scenery or an icon you visited on one of your trips so it is not blank. Of course, blank is fine too.

I finished the book before rating it. I don't remember how long ago I noticed a commentor's rating thing. It might have been back when they started the ability to say that a thread is about a specific book. (I wonder if leaving the "This thread is about..." blank would remove the ratings.)

It is one of those things where I probably didn't notice it for a while, but once I did it became rather annoying.

Yes, Elizabeth you make a good point - maybe that is the connection; not sure. I will have to check this out on some other threads to verify the association if any. It is annoying and I am glad that once again I am not the only one who thinks so. It almost classifies you as belonging to one camp or another when you post a comment (like this person did not even like the book so why read their post or vice versa).

A terrible feature.

Bentley wrote: "Vince, you raise the one difference (Coucy). And you are also right about the knights (there certainly was some expertise there which would have required specialized training which would take time..."


I put in a so far rating on my main page - and it transferred - but you are right - but I know now and will try to avoid in future - I think you cannot go from a rating to a non-rating

an avatar - yes good idea - now I have to think what to use. Hopefully I come up with something during 2012

thanks

Yes, you can; you only have to edit the number of stars and delete them and then when you are done; you can just add the appropriate number of stars at that time.

An avatar would be terrific for you Vince; you have a lot of hobbies and you have traveled extensively - a photo of a favorite place is always good - maybe one with an historical reference. Good luck in adding something fun.