So many, for me. Ancient Egypt, for one (and to a lesser extent, similar ancient cultures of the Fertile Crescent) -- the mere notion of this 5000+ year old highly sophisticated society, in which women incidentally had more rights than in some modern societies, simply makes my head spin. It also lasted astonishingly long, for several 1000s of years, all told.
Ancient Greece and Rome, for similar reasons (minus women's rights), and for their amazingly long-lasting effect; even today's society would be different in so many ways if it hadn't been for the Greeks and Romans.
The Middle Ages -- when European societies began to establish formal structures (tribes morphing into nations, governmental systems being formed, society organizing itself into clearly defined layers), arts and sciences began to blossom again (sometimes with, sometimes against the will of those in power) ... though mankind was also still largely powerless in the face of hunger and disease (first and foremost the plague), and alas, anything but shy of taking to the battlefield to resolve conflicts of any kind, or to simply satisfy territorial greed.
The Tudor Era: Hilary Mantel has called it British history's equivalent of a daytime TV soap opera -- and I definitely find it just as, or actually much more addictively compelling. Greed, power, intrigue, lust; what's not to like? I also genuinely admire Queen Elizabeth I as a ruler (and a woman), however, even if I wish her policy towards Ireland (and a few other things) had been different. AND of course, this was the era that gave us William Shakespeare. 'Nuff said on that particular score.
For pretty much the same reason (minus Shakespeare), the Borgias and the Medicis -- just replace "six wives and a break with Rome" with "ruthless, Macchiavellian pope" (promiscuous, too, though) and "financial superpower house."
Still in the same general temporal context, Luther, the Protestant movement and the 30 Years' War -- which revolutionized not only Christianity as it had been known but also the entire makeup of Germany and the better part of central Europe. It's also an important part of "where I come from" in my own outlook on life.
The great American Indian civilizations -- Aztecs, Mayas, Incas, you name it. Perhaps more than any other periods and societies (with the exception of Ancient Egypt, see above) reading about them, to me, is a way of killing two birds with one stone ... of being taken not only to a past society but also to a whole continent and world different than mine.
The American Revolution ... and the French, I suppose, though I find it easier to empathize with Washington, Jefferson, et al. than with Robespierre or, for that matter, Napoleon Bonaparte. In France, I actually find the centuries and writers leading up to 1789 decidedly more interesting (Voltaire, Rousseau et al., but just as much the absolutist monarchs -- incidentally also those of Germany and Russia).
The 19th century -- pretty much all of it, from Austen, the Romantic poets, the Victorians and the great stars of French and Russian literature to the struggle over nationhood in Germany after the Napoleonic wars, the democracy and freedom movements propelled everywhere in Europe by the the French and American revolutions, and the Civil War in the U.S.
Finally, the first half of the 20th century -- I hate to see German history frequently still reduced to that period alone in public discussion, but one visit to Auschwitz, or indeed to any of the monuments remaining of the Nazi reign of terror, should convince anybody just how necessary it is to keep the memory of those years alive, in order for the slogan "never again" to remain meaningful to future generations ... and to be able to avoid the mistakes of the years leading up to 1933, which made the Nazi dictatorship and WWII possible in the first place.
So, that's my own run-down of World History reading preferences in 10 paragraphs. What does yours look like?
What a fun group! When I'm not reading with my daughter,99 times out of 100 you'll catch me reading historical fiction. It is definitely my preferred genre. (Next, would probably be sci-fi/fantasy) Basically, I read to escape the contemporary world with my reading!
Your list of eras is really great and I agree with almost of all of them. I find that I don't read a great deal of ancient history, but I also don't avoid it purposefully. I find the eras that I seem most often drawn to are the Middle Ages, Tudor England, and the Victorian era (I am an unrepentant Anglophile). However, I also do a ton of reading on various American history topics - Native American, Great Depression, WW II and the Revolutionary War topping the list most of the time.
Reply to post #2
(show post):
A widely varied list, Bashara.
What do you think influences your reading preferences? For me, a huge part to this day is what I became interested in while growing up (both in and out of school), though that, then, branched out over time. E.g., though I knew about Henry VIII and Elizabeth I as a student, really the only part of history that mattered to me with regard to the 16th and 17th century was the rise of Protestantism (in Germany and continental Europe) and the 30 Years' War. It was only when I became more interested in English history, much later (and initially as a sort of fall-out product of an increasing interest in the American Revolution!) that I really clued in on the Tudors as well ... and made the connection to Shakespeare, whose plays I have always loved, but for the longest time didn't fully appreciate in their historic context (or that of their author's life).
The first non-fiction book I ever read was a biography of Heinrich Schliemann and I still harbour a penchant for Ancient Greece and Rome. I go through phases, though, and at the moment I have a slight obsession for the lead-up to WW I. And colonial Africa and Asia. And really the history of the Caribbean of which I know nothing.
I wouldn't say though that I have a favourite period in history that I like to read about. With me it is more a case of finding an interesting theme or topic and investigating it from different angles.
Reply to post #4
(show post):
Schliemann! Really -- which one? Have you ever been to the Neues Museum in Berlin (or, for that matter, seen the originals in Moscow's Pushkin Museum, where they were taken in WWII)?
Reply to post #5
(show post):
I have no idea which one it was - it was an old copy I borrowed from the local library and it was a long, long time ago - I think I was about 12. The book was heavy and heavy-going and I don't think much of the factual content stuck with me but it was the experience of reading an adult non-fiction book (and people around me encouraging the attempt to tackle the book) that made an impression.
I haven't been to the Museumsinsel, yet. It's been on my list every time I have been to Berlin, but I always ended up somewhere else or am just passing through around Christmas time - dragging luggage.
I was a history major in college and never could settle on a favorite period. I took a wide variety of courses from Women's History to Mesoamerican History, from Ancient Roman History to early American History. I think my favorite course, however, was one I took in the English department - The History of the English Language. It was, for me, the most eye opening.
These days, I find that I mostly read in the area that my daughter is studying in History. (We homeschool) The past two years we covered Ancient and Medieval History. This year we're doing early American. I assign her a mix of historical fiction and non-fiction. For example, this school year, she has read 'The Birchbark House', 'Pedro's Journal' and is now reading 'The Lost Colony' by Jean Fritz. We're using the 10 volume 'The History of US' as our textbook.
Reply to post #8
(show post):
Wow -- that must be such a joy, studying history all over again with your daughter! I imagine it a bit like traveling together, only virtually ... or is that too idealistic (given that she also has assignments to complete)?
I remember loving what I learned about the history of English in school as well. Linguistic history says so much about the history of the people(s) speaking that language -- their social history, political history, the whole deal, all mirrored in their language!
Reply to post #8
(show post):
It sounds like a great way to learn - having history lessons based on a mixture of fiction and non-fiction.
Agreed. That sounds great.
T-A's periods are about mine, as well. Post-1950 is kinda not history yet for me, for the most part.
I'm with you Susanna - I don't read much post-1950s - with a few exceptions. I think that 'One Crazy Summer' (set in 1968) looks awfully good!
My husband is also an avid reader of history, but for him it's not history before like 1700! He loves the *really8 ancient stuff!
To me post-1950 is too close to my own lifetime (even if I wasn't born QUITE as close to the end of WWII ;) ). It just doesn't feel like history yet. Also, for Germany as a country, 1945 was really a major cut in many, many ways. So anything post-1945 (or post-1950) to me is more or less "present time" and "present society," regardless whether I was already around to see it in person or not. And for at least the better part of that period I was, anyway ...
Reply to post #12
(show post):
Bashara, I quite see your husband's point. :) Why pre-1700 specifically, btw ... just because it's "really" long ago, or also because from 1700 onwards the world was beginning to see the formation of a society as, at least in part, we're stll experiencing it today?
Reply to post #14
(show post):
I think a bit of both really. I think he also reads to escape and, for him, anything post 1700 feels too recent/familiar (much like the post 1950s feel for us). He also has his degree in history and even went on to get his Master's (specializing in French Revolutionary history). Although, it's quite funny because all he seems to read these days is news, news, and more news. What kind of escape is that?? Blah!
Log in with Facebook 