Henry V (Dan Jones)

Henry V is a biography of the same by popular historian Dan Jones. Jones spends the first half the book covering Henry's life (1386-1422) before ascending to the throne of England, from his tumultuous childhood (watching his father, the eventual Henry IV, outlawed from the land by Richard II) to a series of tough battles against Welsh rebels. The second half of the book is on Henry as king, though much of his reign was spent in France, fighting to take back Norman lands (a part of which is his famous success at Agincourt) and beyond, eventually securing an agreement to become king of France upon Charles VI's death (though Henry would end up passing away from illness before he could wear that crown). 

Ultimately, Jones take a traditional view of Henry, agreeing with his Medieval contemporaries who "saw in him a paragon of Christian, knightly virtue and the living embodiment of traditional kingship."

This is a straightforward work, with two unique aspects of note:

1) As I said, about half the book is before Henry becomes king. Giving unusual weight to his pre-king days gives the reader insight into the experiences that shaped Henry and influenced his approach to rule.

2) Jones writes in present tense, as though you are there with Henry as he is actively dealing with the various trials and situations given him. This enables an element of suspense (and allows for speculative asides on what may have been going through Henry's mind in a given scenario).

I enjoyed this work for its unusual style (it did help you feel "in the moment" with him) and decent pace. Covering an entire life in 360 pages means events (and differing interpretations/opinions of Henry's actions) will be glossed over or ignored entirely, so there is a degree of trust that Jones has done his homework and rightly assessed (and interpreted) what is worth presenting.* All told, this is a good read.

Rating: B+

*I suppose this is true of any historical work; I've read other historians who try to cover the conflicting views in more depth, though.

Images in the Margins (Margot McIlwain Nishimura)

This "book is intended to evoke the rich and varied world of the Middle Ages as seen through the lens of manuscript illumination." This is a book of marginalia, "a modern term that refers to words or images in the margins of a page . . . [which were] especially common in English, French, and Italian manuscripts of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries." In "the margins of illuminated manuscripts lie a world of inviting images equally at odds with the solemnity of their settings . . . you will find a surprisingly fresh array of the fantastic, the real, and the ridiculous among the images in the margins." You will find a mixture of sacred and profane surprising to modern readers—yet humans are no stranger to bizarre, hilarious, and often irreverent pictures. In just 75 pages, this book walks the reader through a brief history of marginalia, looking at topics, placement, and meaning (where known) of these delightfully weird images.

not in the book (image from here), but gives you an idea of what marginalia is

In 2015, I read the first book in this series: Beasts Factual & Fantastic. Like that volume, Images in the Margins is done well, intriguing, and too short. Personally, I enjoy absurd humor, and marginalia is right up my alley when done to that effect. I like the more serious depictions, too, and wonder what might have been behind the chosen scenes. Some are symbolic and instructive, others appear to be inside jokes, and still others may have been the modern equivalent of playfully poking fun at friends, society, or life in general; a visual satire, perhaps. Whatever the reason, there is a 'tale within a tale' in old manuscripts, and I enjoy studying such scenes whenever I come across them.

Rating: A-

The Thirty Years War

Every year, my church puts on a speaking event called "Ignite." Similar to TEDD talks (but limited to 5 minutes instead of 20), it is a great time. This year, I presented on the Thirty Years War. A transcript is below, with the PowerPoint slides interspersed.

------------
I’d like to share the story of the Thirty Years War, “one of the longest and most destructive conflicts in European history,” (W) and it starts with the Holy Roman Empire.

HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE
The Holy Roman Empire (962-1806) was a shifting territory that included all of present-day Germany and much adjoining territory besides. The HRE was not a centralized state, but a “limited elective monarchy composed of hundreds of sub-units: kingdoms, principalities, duchies, counties, prince-bishoprics, Free Imperial Cities, and other domains.” (W) Within the HRE, there were about 300 of these different territories, some as small as a few square miles! The rulers of these sub-units owed the emperor allegiance, but also possessed a high degree of independence, with some of the larger areas striking their own coin and raising their own armies.

The Emperor was chosen by seven electors (3 religious, 4 secular), and often ruled a portion of the lands himself, thus holding other titles. Though elected, the Austrian house of Hapsburg would come to dominate the Empire over the years, having a string of Emperors that would last 300 years (1440-1740) and moving the center of power to Vienna and Prague.

THIRTY YEARS WAR (1618-1648)
One hundred years after Luther, religious diversity was rampant. Tensions had certainly existed between the various traditions, but the Peace of Augsburg in 1555 had established a policy where the ruler of a given region determined that region’s religion. As a result, some areas of the HRE were Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinists, and various permutations.

One Emperor, Ferdinand II (a Hapbsburg), also gained the title King of Bohemia, and he wanted to impose Catholicism in that largely-Protestant region. The Protestants in Bohemia revolted, throwing the emperor’s advisors out of a window and electing their own king. This didn’t go over well, and the Catholic areas of the HRE gathered armies to put down that rebellion, causing other Protestant areas to come to Bohemia’s aid and a predictable chain reaction occurred. The Thirty Years War had begun.

What started as a German war grew. Protestant Denmark and Sweden would intervene in 1625 and 1630, respectively, to assist the Protestant parts of the HRE. And then, something mysterious happened: in 1635, even Catholic France would join to help the Protestants. Why? Because the war had widened in scope beyond religion to encompass commercial interests and a political struggle: the Habsburg (family who ruled HRE & Spain) vs. Bourbon (France) jockeying for dominance on the continent.

By the time it ended, the war proved the most destructive conflict in Europe outside of the world wars; over 8 million Germans died, and some areas lost over 50% of their population. Some scholars suggest that this war set Germany back hundreds of years and allowed France to be the dominant power for a long time to come. And the outcome? Stalemate. Basically, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 was remarkably similar to the pre-existing 1555 agreement. It did recognize Calvinism, though, as a “legitimate belief system,” and some consider it the end of the Protestant Reformation.

WHY IT MATTERS
Why do we fight? The HRE had worked for its first 650 years as a political patchwork that could accommodate religious differences and compromise. War broke out when one tried to impose their beliefs on all, which morphed into general desire for control, and ultimately caused only devastation. It shows our fallenness and futility: we desire to rule others: their territories, interests, resources, and minds. How does that work in a pluralistic society? How should we then live?

I don’t have the answers. But as we approach a contentious 2024 election, I pray that the Lord would give us the wisdom to live and work with those who have differing convictions. How to, as we read in Jeremiah 29:7, “But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare.”

REFERENCES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War (W)
https://www.worldhistory.org/Thirty_Years'_War/ (H)

Erebus (Michael Palin)

Built in 1826, the HMS Erebus didn't do much of note until its 1839-43 Antarctic expeditions, where she ventured further south than anyone had ever been. That success made her an obvious choice to go the other direction in 1845, looking for the Northwest Passage. She was never seen again. Many search attempts yielded little until years later, when graves, cairns, tins, and other evidence eventually revealed that the crew had survived until 1848, when they abandoned ship. They were all dead by 1850. The Erebus was found just 36 ft under water in 2014.

This is a great book. Any journeys into the polar regions are filled with both dreadful suspense and epic boredom, and author Palin did a good job knowing when to dwell on, and when to accelerate, the story. The harrowing but successful journeys in the Antarctic then shift to the optimism, then panic, then searches in the Arctic. It is a fascinating look at the age of discovery, science at the time, polar adventures, and the goals of an age.

Rating: A

American Reading List: History

image from here

As I've done in the past, (see my Books page for links to German and British versions), today I start presenting an American Reading List (ARL). Due to its anticipated size, I will present titles by category. Today: history.

History matters, which is why people fight over it. America in particular seems to be a polarized nation, and that is reflected in the presentation of our history. You can find books that proclaim America as the best nation ever, those that argue it is instead a nation of hypocrisy, racism, and oppression. Ultimately, I want the truth, and sometimes that gets messy . . . the best history books present the good and bad.

The below are 40 books related to American history, with a handful of surveys up front followed by (roughly) chronological topics. I'm sure this list will grow and evolve over the next few years. I have read a good percentage of these already, starting in 2013; follow the links below for my reviews.

Susan-Mary Grant          A Concise History of the United States of America

Various                        Rand McNally Atlas of United States History

Smithsonian                 American History: A Visual Encyclopedia

Paul S. Boyer                 American History: A Very Short Introduction

Shi & Tindall                 America: A Narrative History (vol. 1)

Shi & Tindall                 America: A Narrative History (vol. 2)

Dee Brown                 Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee

Robert Middlekauff        The Glorious Cause

Joseph Ellis                 Founding Brothers

David McCullough         1776

Gordon S. Wood         The Radicalism of The American Revolution

Gordon S. Wood         Empire of Liberty

Stephen Ambrose         Undaunted Courage

Daniel Walker Howe What Hath God Wrought

David Crockett         Davy Crockett: My Own Story

Christian Wolmar         The Iron Road: An Illustrated History of the Railroad

H.W. Brands                 The Age of Gold

James M. McPherson Battle Cry of Freedom

DK Publishing                The American Civil War- A Visual History

S.C. Gwynne                 Rebel Yell

Doris Kearns Goodwin Team of Rivals

Candice Millard         Destiny of the Republic

Richard White                 The Republic for Which It Stands

David McCullough         The Great Bridge

Stephen Ambrose         Nothing Like It in the World

Hampton Sides         Blood and Thunder

Bruce Schulman         Brand Name America

Edmund Morris         The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt

David McCullough         The Path Between the Seas

Doris Kearns Goodwin The Bully Pulpit

DK Publishing                World War I- The Definitive Visual History

David M. Kennedy         Freedom From Fear

Michael Hiltzik                Colossus

DK Publishing                World War II- The Definitive Visual History

E.B. Sledge                 With the Old Breed

Robert Leckie                 Helmet for my Pillow

Margot Theis Raven Mercedes and the Chocolate Pilot

James T. Patterson         Grand Expectations

Robert Kurson                Rocket Men

James T. Patterson         Restless Giant

America: A Narrative History, Vol. 2 (Shi & Tindall)

America: A Narrative History, Volume 2, is a survey of United States history from Reconstruction (1865-77) to 2014. I read the "brief tenth edition," which is 20% shorter than the regular tenth edition.

I read volume 1 a few months ago. As I mentioned in that post, I was looking for a 'fair' survey text as free from agendas as possible, and the first volume did pretty well. Volume 2 is much the same. This is largely a political history, but covers some social aspects. The few events with which I was previously familiar were decently presented. And- as an aside- it was bizarre to see decades in print that I have lived through. (I'm getting old.) Of course it is a whirlwind, but overall, I think the authors did a good job with this textbook. It was clear, informative, and pretty fair. Recommended.

I'll end with some concluding thoughts on America as presented in the text. They argue that one of the most powerful themes in America's history is that we are "a mythic land of unique opportunities for people from around the world." Indeed, our story is one of great success- but also hypocrisy. We champion liberty for all but have a history of discrimination against a variety of peoples. We must always be reforming, looking at how to improve and become a more just society. Impressively, "for all its diversity and divisions, the nation remains united under a common government and political system, something that few societies can claim. For centuries, Americans have also displayed a distinctively self-critical temperament, espeically noticeable to foreign visitors . . . Charles Dickens said that the American 'always is depressed, and always is stagnated, and always is at an alarming crisis, and never was otherwise.'

"Perhaps that is why the nation always overcomes its greatest crises; Americans eventually summon the will and creativity to address their urgent problems. The nation has a remarkable genius for self-renewal and a confident ability to maneuver through the most difficult threats and challenges," for what unites and informs our sense of purpose is "the widely shared hope, even expectation, of a better future for all based on hard work, ingenuity, and sacrifice."

Rating: A-

The Battle of the Alamo (Matt Doeden)

In early 1836, Texas was fighting for independence from Mexico. A small band of Texans and volunteers (including Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie) holed themselves up in the Alamo, an old mission-turned-fort, and held off the advancing Mexican army (under Santa Ana) for several weeks before being overcome and defeated. The loss would galvanize the Texans, however, and they would soon defeat Mexico and become independent. Their rallying cry? "Remember the Alamo."

I got to see the Alamo this week. (It's really small, but worth a visit if you're in the area.) Knowing very little about the battle there, I opted for this graphic novel to give me an overview. Written for children, it is a good account of the event. I want to study the battle (and personalities) more; I saw the following books in the giftstore that intrigued me:

- Three Roads to the Alamo (William C. Davis)

- The Blood of Heroes (James Donovan)

Both are highly regarded. But they are meatier accounts; this graphic novel was just fine for an introduction.

Rating: B

America: A Narrative History, Vol. 1 (Shi & Tindall)

America: A Narrative History, Volume 1, is a survey of United States history from pre-Colonial times to the end of Reconstruction (1877). I read the "brief tenth edition," which is 20% shorter than the regular tenth edition.

I wanted a refresher in American history. Years ago, I searched for a 'fair' survey text, as American history presentations can be wrought with agendas from the political Left or Right. I was seeking a middle ground- one that presented the events clearly (and gave sufficient/inclusive coverage to noteworthy events and personalities) but also interpreted the significance and motive of controversial episodes in a way that was fair to both sides. This text was recommended, and I think it succeeds. This is largely a political history, but covers some social aspects. The few events with which I was previously familiar were decently (though not perfectly) presented. And I especially appreciated their coverage of the "War of the Union" (what most call the Civil War). Of course it is a whirlwind, covering centuries in just 600 pages. But overall, I think the authors did a good job with this textbook. It was clear, informative, and fair. Recommended.

Rating: A-

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Richard Bauckham)

The point of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses "is to show that Jesus' teaching was not only transmitted by anonymous masses, but also and very significantly by particular individuals." - Simon Gathercole

A summary follows; any quotes below are from the book.

Summary

The Christian faith trusts that we "encounter the real Jesus" in the Bible (most obviously in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). How did the Gospels come to be? Some have argued that they were collectively transmitted orally by a community, obscuring the historical Jesus behind decades of anonymous alterations before they were put to paper. In Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, however, scholar Richard Bauckham argues that "the Gospel texts are much closer to the form in which the eyewitnesses told their stories or passed on their traditions than is commonly envisaged in current scholarship. This is what gives the Gospels their character as testimony. They embody the testimony of the eyewitnesses, not of course without editing and interpretation, but in a way that is substantially faithful to how the eyewitnesses themselves told it, since the Evangelists were in more or less direct contact with eyewitnesses, not removed from them by a long process of anonymous transmission of the traditions."

"The Gospels were written within living memory of the events they recount. Mark's Gospel was written well within the lifetime of many of the eyewitnesses, while the other three canonical Gospels were written in the period when living eyewitnesses were becoming scarce, exactly at the point in time when their testimony would perish with them were it not put in writing." Thus, to Bauckham, "Gospel traditions did not, for the most part, circulate anonymously but in the name of the eyewitnesses to whom they were due."

To support his argument, Bauckham looks at many things, to include:

• Early church father Papias (who wrote ~110-130 CE) and other ancient writers on their views of the importance of eyewitnesses as the best way to record history (very relevant to the formation of the Gospels).
• A study of names in the Gospels.
• "Many characters in the Gospels are unnamed, but others are named. I want to suggest now the possibility that many of these named characters were eyewitnesses who not only originated the traditions to which their names are attached but also continued to tell these stories as auhoritative guarantors of their traditions."
• Israeli scholar Tal Ilan's study of Palestinian Jewish names in the period of Jesus and the early church.
• This is "a significant resource for assessing the origin of Gospel traditions," as the study then compared with the Gospels reveals evidence that goes against those claiming names in the Gospel accounts were added much later.
• The significance of the Twelve Apostles and their role as "official eyewitnesses and guarantors of the core of the gospel traditions."
• "The idea that a Gospel, since it tells the whole story of Jesus, must embody the testimony of witnesses who were participants in the story from beginning to end- from the time of John the Baptist's ministry to the time of the resurrection appearances."
• This was true of more than just the Twelve Apostles, as the Scriptures themselves attest.
• The literary device called inclusio and how the Gospels use it to show Peter as the primary source of Mark and Luke and to show John (not necessarily the Apostle) as the primary source of John.
• "Mark's Gospel not only, by its use of the inclusio of eyewitness testimony, claims Peter as its main eyewitness source; it also tells the story predominantly (though by not means exclusively) from Peter's perspective."
• Anonymous persons in Marks' Passion narrative and the reason behind it 
• Bauckham argues that the omitted names are for 'protective anonymity,' as Mark's Gospel is the earliest account, written while many were still alive and could be considered seditious figures by the ruling powers for being with Jesus during that time; John's account (written much later, after these would likely be dead) then names them.
• Papias' thoughts on the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. He felt that, in short,
• "Peter, an eyewitness, related logia about Jesus orally in Aramaic but not in literary order. Mark, not an eyewitness, translated Peter's teachings [into Greek] and put them in writing accurately and omitting nothing." [Meaning they remained out of chronological order.] 
• Bauckham shows later how "Peter is Mark's principal eyewitness, but that, since he drops out of the narrative after his denials of Jesus, the three named women function as Mark's principal eyewitnesses for the remainder of the narrative. They are his witnesses to the crucifixion and death of Jesus, to his burial, and to the empty tomb." 
• "Matthew, an eyewitness, put the logia about Jesus in writing in Aramaic/Hebrew in literary order . . . [others], not an eyewitness, translated Matthew's written logia [into Greek] as well as they were able." [and Papias thought that translation put things out of order]
• "John, an eyewitness, put the logia about Jesus in writing in Greek in literary order."
• Models of oral tradition (looking at "the nature of the [oral] transmission of Jesus traditions in the early church" and how cultures carefully controlled oral traditions, to include use of memorization and authorized tradents to pass on knowledge).
• Among other things, Bauckham argues "Paul provides ample evidence of the formal transmission of traditions within the early Christian movement . . .[to include] the words and deeds of Jesus."
• Anonymous tradition vs. eyewitness testimony
• Arguing against the movement called form criticism, which "saw the Gospels as folk literature more or less continuous with the oral traditions as formed and transmitted anonymously by the communities." His "argument is rather that the continuity of the Gospels is with the testimony of the eyewitnesses, not via a long period of community transmission but through, in many cases, immediate access to the eyewitnesses or, in other cases, probably no more than one intermediary."
• "In their close relationship to eyewitness testimony, the Gospels conform to the best practice of ancient historiography."
• What about some of the differences between th Gospel accounts? ". . . [M]inor verbal and narrative differences among the Synoptics . . . may be better seen as the kind of performative variations normal in oral tradition, not necessarily emobodying higly nuanced ideological divergences."
• Eyewitness memory, looking at the science behind the confidence (or lack thereof) that we can have in the mind's recollective abilities, to include "the objectivity of the event and the rememberer's insight into its meaning."
• The Gospel of John as eyewitness testimony, the only Gospel which "claims not only to be based on eyewitness accounts but to have been actually written by an eyewitness."
• The witness of the Beloved Disciple, whom Bauckham argues is the author of John (and not one of the Twelve, but a lesser-known disciple who also had been with Jesus since the beginning). 
• He also argues that John claims Peter's role is leading the whole church, while the Beloved Disciple's role is "witnessing to the truth of Jesus" [by writing the eyewitness account].
• Papias, Polycrates, and Irenaeus on the Gospel of John
• John's Gospel differs markedly from the other three 'Synoptic' Gospels.
• Though popular scholarly consensus is that this Gospel's author was John the son of Zebedee, one of the Twelve, Bauckham believes John the Elder is the Beloved Disciple mentioned (and hence author of the Gospel). Further, that "the distinctive narratives of the Gospel of John derive not simply from the Beloved Disciple himself, but from a particular circle of disciples of Jesus in which the Beloved Disciple moved." That he ran in different disciple 'circles' as evidenced by his focus on "disciples not prominent in the Synoptics." This John lived much longer than most of the other eyewitnesses as well, making sense of the Gospel's later dating.  
• The Jesus of testimony, looking at the trustiworthiness of testimonies in general, their value, and their inescapability.
• Some believe historians can piece together the past independent of testimony. Impossible. "Testimony is as basic a form of knowledge as perception, memory, and inference." "All knowledge relies on testimony." It's okay to doubt- if there are valid reasons for doing so- but an inherent distrust of what everyone says is an unsustainable way to live (and practice history). We all believe some and disbelieve others. "The witness says not only "I was there" but also "believe me."
• "In everyday life, we do not systematically mistrust everything anyone tells us. When someone who is in a position to know what they tell us does so, we normally believe them. But we keep our critical faculties alert and raise questions if there is specific reason to doubt. There is no reason why historical work should be substantially different in its dialectic of trust and critical assessment."
• "Trusting testimony is indispensable to historiography. This trust need not be blind faith. In the "critical realist" historian's reception and use of testimony there is a dialectic of trust and critical assessment. But the assessment is precisely an assessment of the testimony as trustworthy or not. What is not possible is independent verification or falsification of everything the testimony relates such that reliance on testimony would no longer be needed." There "is truth that only testimony can give us," whether we like it or not. It "offers us insider knowledge from involved participants. It also offers us engaged interpretation, for in testimony fact and meaning coinhere . . ."
• We cannot be certain. "In history, we only deal in probabilities (as is also the case in much human knowledge). Historians are in the business of constantly making reasonable judgments of probabilities. To believe testimony, to trust it when we have no means of verifying its content in detail, is a risk, but it is the kind of risk we are constantly taking when we trust testimony in ordinary life."
• The second edition adds material on eyewitnesses in Mark (to include a discussion on who Mark was), the identity of the Beloved Disciple, and thoughts on the end of form criticism.

Ultimately, the book "is an attempt to validate the Gospels themselves as sources that are historically trustworthy at the same time as being testimonies of faith. They give us Jesus interpreted- interpreted from the perspectives of the eyewitnesses and the Gospel writers. They give us representations of Jesus but representations whose historical basis can be tested. My claim is that they transcend the dichotomy between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. They give us the Jesus of testimony."

"Testimony offers us, I wish to suggest, both a reputable historiographic category for reading the Gospels as history, and also a theological model for understanding the Gospels as the entirely appropriate means of access to the historical reality of Jesus . . .[this] enables us to read the Gospels as precisely the kind of text we need in order to recognize the disloruse of God in the history of Jesus."

"In summary, if the interests of Christian faith and theology in the Jesus who really lived are to recognize the disclosure of God in this history of Jesus, then testimony is the theologically appropriate, indeed the theologically appropriate, indeed the theologically necessary way of access to the history of Jesus, just as testimony is also the historically appropriate, indeed the historically  necessary way of access to this "uniquely unique" historical event. It is in the Jesus of testimony that history and theology meet."

Review

Fascinating. Intriguing. Scholarly. Compelling. This book enthralled me. Dense in places but largely accessible, I learned a tremendous amount about not only the Gospel formation but historiography and the various disciplines relating to the study of memory, testimony, and even names. My summary above only scratches the surface. Bauckham is clearly a scholar (with hundreds of footnotes and a 30-page bibliography to accompany his 600-page account), writes well, and makes a compelling argument. I look forward to re-reading the Gospels with an eye towards the topics discussed in this book. I started today.

Rating: A

Mercedes and the Chocolate Pilot (Margot Theis Raven)

Mercedes and the Chocolate Pilot is the true story of the Candy Bomber (Gail Halvorsen), as told through the eyes of seven-year-old Mercedes, a girl who grew up in West Berlin during the Berlin Airlift. The story starts with historical background on the airlift and related statistics (some incredible numbers) before covering Mercedes and her experiences there in 1948. She longed for the candy that Halvorsen dropped from the sky, but never got any. So she wrote to the pilot, and received a heartwarming response- and the candy she desired.

This is a great book. The illustrations are wonderful and the story uplifting. What I enjoyed most, though, was the nature of Gail's service. He saw the kids in need and wanted to do something small to give their lives more joy. He was already serving them through his work, making three runs per day to Berlin from Wiesbaden's airfield to drop much-needed supplies like flour. But he went even further, making candy 'bombs' by attaching little parachutes to chocolate bars and dropping them over crowds of children. When the public found out, they chipped in with supplies and assistance, enabling him to drop tons and tons of candy over the seven months he was there. His example is one we should all follow- make 'little' acts of service for others part of our daily routines. He made a difference in thousands of lives in so doing. A little chocolate goes a long way.

My family got to meet Gail Halvorsen in 2019, when he visited Wiesbaden at age 99 (he's still alive as of this writing, aged 101). 

Rating: A

The Story of Christianity, Volume 2 (Justo Gonzalez)

In the second volume of his history of Christianity, Justo Gonzalez covers from the Reformation to present day (AD ~1500-2010), broken into three sections:

• The Reformation
• Orthodoxy, rationalism, and pietism
• Beyond Christendom

Summary
Martin Luther's internal struggles and uncertainties led him to study the Word of God with vigor. In so doing, he found that the church of his day had strayed far from the teachings of the Bible. He posted his famous '95 Theses' in Wittenberg in 1517, hoping for debate. What ultimately resulted was revolution. He soon attracted a following- true believers in Luther's theology and/or those simply wanting to diminish the power of the Roman catholic church. And various other biblical interpretations arose, leading to Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist, and Anglican schools of thought. Then as now, difference of thought wasn't well tolerated, and a long period of unrest ensued, culminating in the Thirty Years War (1618-48) a century later. 

After the Thirty Years War and other things like the Puritan Revolution, a continent weary of war went through an "Age of Dogma and Doubt," where religion started a shift into the private sphere when it became clear that forcing people to align with a given confession was unproductive and ineffective. The different schools of thought by this point each had developed their respective orthodoxies (which Gonzalez presents in simplified form), and there arose other schools of thought like rationalism, spiritualism, and pietism. The author concludes this section with an analysis of religion in the thirteen American colonies.

Gonzalez concludes by looking at an age 'beyond Christendom,' studying the shifting landscapes in the Americas and Europe, new schools of thought in Proteestant and Catholic theology, missions work and the unifying effect that has between different traditions, geographic expansion (so that Christianity is now truly global), and geographic shifts (where the world wars contributed to a 'crisis at the center' of the old Christendom, and led to a new 'vitality at the periphery,' as the church is now more centered in Asia, Africa, and Latin America).

Review
As with Volume 1, This is an excellent read. It's clear, succinct, fair, informative, and well-written. Gonzalez covers major events and personalities impressively. Highly recommended for anyone (Christian and non) who wants to understand this highly influential institution and how it obtained its present form.

Rating: A

The Great Influenza (John M. Barry)

 

The 1918 influenza pandemic rocked the world in the waning years of World War I, killing between 35-100 million people. The Great Influenza is the story of both the disease and the scientists working to fight it. 

The author wanted to include the political angle- what the leaders did to fight it from a social/political perspective- but "finding useful material on the epidemic proved remarkably difficult . . . [the political leaders were] far too busy, far too overwhelmed, to pay attention to keeping records." So instead the focus on the state of medical science- "partly because it didn't seem possible to write about the scientists without exploring the nature of American medicine at this time, for the scientists in this book did far more than laboratory reasearch. They changed the very nature of medicine in the United States." So this book was about how American medicine was modernizing in addition to explaining the potential origins, spread, horrors, and impact of the illness itself.

The book was good; informative and well-written. I was mildly disappointed, as I wished for more insight into effective public pandemic policy (or, at least, lessons learned from failed attempts). It's an occasional mention throughout, and then covered at the end, but that isn't the focus. 

Rating: A-

Post-script:

This book excited me because it was written before COVID and, as a result, unaffected by current political influences and "heat of the moment" emotion that can cloud judgment. Due to his research, the author was included on committees in the early 2000s looking at pandemic preparation, as many used this 1918 pandemic as a model. He talks about some suggestions at the very end- the last 10 pages- and that part is intriguing, if unsatisfying. I'd have like to read much more on the topic- and the back cover implies the books covers it, saying "this [1918] crisis provides us with a precise and sobering model as we confront the epidemics looming on our own horizon." If this crisis did, the book didn't cover it. But it sounds more accurate to say the 1918 flu did not provide us with a great model, but more a cautionary tale in several aspects. 

In the final ten pages, here are the comments, observations, and lessons based on the "commonalities of the few pandemics we have information about: 1889, 1918, 1957, 1968, and 2009:"* 

• Pandemics come in waves. We've seen this with COVID, with the first wave (in Europe) in early 2020, then smoldering, then roaring back in the autumn.
• Every wave of a pandemic is at least a little different, due to rapid mutation.
• The one answer is a universal vaccine. Obvious, and nearly impossible to create, test, manufacture, distribute, and administer quickly enough. Mutations can render it less effective or useless- and it may be impossible to develop an effective one in the first place.

Vaccines aside, what can we do or what must we remember? Barry's points, either at the end or collected from principles throughout the book:

• Develop and maintain a good surveillance system. This requires cooperative governments and capable medical personnel to identify new diseases (and mutations of it) and distribute knowledge quickly. Doing so is a critical 'early alert' mechanism that accelerates vaccine development and other countermeasures.
• Prepare. There are known items to either stockpile or ensure manufacturing capacity is present to produce: medicines, ventilators, oxygen tanks, masks, and so on. Supply chain is relevant here, too- identifying and addressing in advance the basic materials necessary should a pandemic erupt.
• Plan. The government must identify plans (in advance of a pandemic). Plans of paths to take based on certain triggers- and sticking to them even when emotion might tempt to do otherwise.
• Public officials and the media must tell the truth. Not minimize, not exaggerate- deliver the unvarnished truth. In 1918, "the fear, not the disease, threatened to break society apart." And the fear was generated, in part, by officials downplaying the pandemic. This countered what people saw with their eyes- healthy people dying with alarming rapidity, bodies literally piling up in the streets- and the result was chaos. "Those in authority must retain the public's trust. The way to do that is to distort nothing, to put the best face on nothing, to try to manipulate no one."
• Remember the need for concerted action. "Society cannot function if it is every man for himself." And this action must be within and between communities, towns, states, and countries. Action taken in one without appropriate steps in another will be effectively pointless. The public must comply for public health measures to have any hope of success.
• Remember the realities of science. The scientific method is such that initial hypotheses may be proved wrong. In the heat of the moment, the demand for action- to do something, anything, NOW- can lead scientists and medical personnel alike to give advice based on initial and limited observations. Advice that could be proven wrong as more information comes to light. This could mean that later recommendations contradict earlier ones. We abhor a vacuum of knowledge, so we want to act, even when (frankly) nobody knows what to do. This can lead doctors and scientists (not to mention government/media) to take educated guesses and make proclamations just to do something. (My addition: remember that, and treat each other with grace as we stumble in darkness together.)
• Identify public health measures. There are several:
• The only way to completely avoid a disease transmitted from human to human is simple: avoid humans. Some towns or institutions did isolate- implement a complete 'external' lockdown (nobody in or out) in 1918 and were completely spared. Duration must be 6-10 weeks (depending on virus/etc.) A lockdown of this severity is almost impossible. 
• Mundane but known hygienic tasks like washing hands must be done rigorously. "Success depends on rigor, emphasis, and discipline."
• Masks can protect, but must be worn properly (and most people- even doctors- do not do so). Interestingly, the author argues that "for a few individuals and situations N95 masks may make sense, but for the general public over a period of weeks they do not."
• Observe obvious matters like keeping sick people home and appropriate coughing etiquette.
• "In a truly lethal pandemic, state and local authorities could take much more aggressive steps, such as closing theaters, bars, and even banning sporting events . . . " 
• Interestingly, studies of past pandemics argue against children being super-spreaders, finding that the spread was overwhelmingly adult to adult (at first), and then adult to child (later). As such, the author argues that closing schools "might well make sense in a lethal pandemic, but it will not in a mild one." 

Our current pandemic proves that, regardless of scientific advances in the past century, there are unstoppable forces in nature. Forces that require truth, cooperation, planning, preparedness, hard work, and sacrifices to confront and endure. There are no easy answers and even hindsight may not shed light on what should have been done. Thus, it's important (as always) to treat each other with truth and grace, looking not only to ourselves, but thinking on how we can love each other in such difficult days.

*remember those were all influenza epidemics, which is different than COVID. Nevertheless, I believe some of the principles hold true.

Germany, Part 7: A Greater Union

 We left our story last time with Germany divided into East and West, with the West thriving and East languishing. But change was on the horizon.

Reunification

Communist regimes fell like dominoes across Eastern Europe in 1989/90. For Germans, attention turned towards reunification. 3 October 1990 is the “Tag der Deutschen Einheit”- Germany unity day. Again, and at last, Germany was reunited. But disparities and difficulties remained- after all, the East had fallen far behind the West in prosperity, and taxes were raised on the West to help address that.

Sport

Sports have done wonders to help unite and heal the German people. Soccer, of course, is the most popular sport in Germany. Germany hosted the World Cup in 2006, and this was the first time since WWII that you saw Germans proudly waving their flag. They would win the World Cup in Brazil in 2014, powered by a systematic nationwide soccer program.

European Union

In 1957, West Germany was a founding member of the European Economic Community, which was a precursor to the European Communities (1967), which was a precursor to the European Union (1993). Today, the EU is "a political and economic union of 27 member states that are located primarily in Europe . . . [and] has developed an internal single market through a standardised system of laws that apply in all member states in those matters, and only those matters, where members have agreed to act as one." (wikipedia) In 2002, a common currency- the Euro- was introduced in many (but not all) member nations, replacing national currencies (like the Deutschmark).

The EU has morphed in function and member countries over time. Today, be aware that there are three main components to the EU- the overall union, the border agreement, and the common currency. Countries may be in one, two, or all three of these areas- check first when traveling! The graphic I show above is no longer accurate, as the UK exited the EU in February of this year.

It is no surprise that Germany plays a leading role in EU affairs. They have, after all, centuries of experience working within a 'patchwork' construct that was the Holy Roman Empire, which has given them a willingness to compromise and accommodate differences.

Germany Today

Germany today is strong and a model for the world. (As a friend from the Balkans put it: "Germany is our ideal.") Though their twentieth century story includes the horrors of WWII, the Germans have done a remarkable job owning up to, and atoning for, their mistakes as they rebuilt their society and played a significant role in the reconciliation and restoral of Europe. For example, they accepted more than one million refugees in 2015 from the war-torn regions in the Middle East and have worked hard at integrating them into society, giving a future and a hope to people who otherwise had none. 

Looking back through Germany's more distant past, we see a land strong and diverse. They beat back the Romans, enjoyed a more decentralized existence during the HRE than many of their neighbors (which enabled tolerance of diverse views), played a central role in the Reformation, endured the horrors of the Thirty Years War, and started to coalesce in a more unified way after the Napoleonic era.

I have lived in Germany for six years now (2007-11 and 2018-present). I can attest to the strength of their society. It is structured (sometimes annoyingly so) but fair. The government seems (to me) a pleasant mix of conservative and liberal ideas, borrowing the best from both idealogies to create a strong nation. We see it in many areas, not least their handling of the current pandemic. It is certainly not perfect- no country is- but we have benefited from and enjoyed our time here.

Touring Germany

Germany is full of breathtaking sights, from the historical to architectural to natural. One way to see them is by following their roads.

Germans have always loved their roads. In fact, the US got the idea of highways from the Germans- in WWII, Eisenhower was impressed with the German network. In Germany, there are many roads designated as tourist ‘trails’- they are great to follow in part or whole if you’re looking for things to do. 

Some examples:

• Fairy Tale Road- follow this route to towns, buildings, and sites said to inspire tales found in the Brothers Grimm stories.
• Romantic & Castle Roads- routes that run through areas of high numbers of castle or ‘romantic’ sites
• There are others- the Limes Road, Wine road, half-timbered road, and more!

In the pandemic, these roads provide excellent ways to enjoy the land while maintaining appropriate distance. See my 'pandemic tourism' page for more information.

Works Cited

I hope you enjoyed this brief overview of German history. Covering two thousand years in seven blog posts requires a good deal of summarization, reduction, and omission; that said, I hope that I hit the highlights (and if I missed or misrepresented something major, please contact me).

I relied on a number of resources in creating this presentation. For a book-length survey on German 

history, Neil MacGregor's Germany is fantastic and inspired the general outline for my presentation. Other works focused on specific times or topics:

Roman times:

- Tacitus, Germania

The early church & Reformation:

- Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity (Volume 1)

- Stephen Nichols, The Reformation

Medieval times:

- C.V. Wedgwood, The Thirty Years War

Prussia:

- Christopher Clark, Iron Kingdom

World Wars:

- DK Publishing, World War I: The Definitive Visual History

- DK Publishing, World War II: The Definitive Visual History

Wikipedia and general Google searches supplemented the above resources, filling in gaps and providing local information. 

Images presented are a combination of the author's personal photographs and pictures, graphics, and other images found from simple Google searches. 

For Further Reading

Other works pertaining to Germany on my German Reading List.

Germany, Part 6: War

From last time, Germany had become an Empire under Prussian leadership in the late nineteenth century. This Empire was unlike the former Holy Roman Empire and its patchwork nature (the HRE "was only nominally a discrete imperial state"- wikipedia). Instead, the German Empire was more 'traditional' as a "sovereign state consisting of several territories and peoples subject to a single ruling authority, often an emperor." (wikipedia) And it was not to last long.

World War I (1914-1918)

Simplistically, the rise of nationalism and interlocking alliances let to world war, sparked by the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in the Balkans. In response of this act, Austria issued an ultimatum to, and then invaded, Serbia. Russia (Serbia's ally) mobilized, Germany (Austria's ally) declared war on Russia in support of Austria, France (Russia's ally) declared war on Germany, Germany attacked France through Belgium (Britain's ally), so Britain declared war . . . you get the picture. As the dominoes fell, it was the German Empire, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Italy vs other powers. Central Europe vs. East & West.

World War I was a conflict unlike any other. Modern weapons with old tactics led to stalemate and disaster- trench warfare, tear gas, machine guns, mass death. The Western front ran through France and Belgium-  highly recommend you tour battlefields/tranches in those areas (especially Verdun). The Eastern Front collapsed after the Russian Soviet revolution, allowing Germany to focus on the West. But it was too late; the Germans were outmatched and out-resourced, as France & Britain could get supplies from the US (who was technically neutral until late in the war, but favored these nations throughout).

Interwar Period- Weimar Republic

After Germany’s defeat, the Emperor abdicated, and the government was reorganized to become the Weimar Republic. Germany was held guilty and made to pay impossible sums in war reparations. This differed from previous European wars, where the losers might lose territory or have policies imposed to limit expansionist tendencies (like with France a century earlier), but they were still welcomed back into the community. Germany wasn’t.

The policies led to widespread poverty, hyperinflation, and hardship. In 1923, for example, one USD = 4.2 trillion German marks. People were using their money for wallpaper and kindling. Hardships like this in turn led to the rise of extremism- which brought in Hitler, the Nazis, and World War II.

World War II (1939-1945)

Historians largely agree that World War II was, in effect, caused by World War I and the harsh terms imposed upon Germany after her defeat. Hitler came to power and his authoritarian party- the Nazis- soon dominated German affairs. He proclaimed Nazi Germany the third empire- a Third Reich (Reminder: the first two were the Holy Roman Empire (962-1806) and German Empire (1871-1918)).

Hitler re-militarized (going against WWI treaties) and insisted on enlarging German territory. He annexed Austria and parts of Czech with minimal global response. Emboldened, Germany then invaded Poland, which caused England and France to declare war (the official start of the conflict). Using 'blitzkrieg'- lightning warfare- Germany struck fast and hard through Belgium at France (going around the Maginot Line), solidified the western front before turning its attention east and attacking the Russians (with whom they had had a secret truce). Germany, at its greatest extent, occupied most of Europe.

The Germans would be driven back, thanks in large part to America and Russia. As they were retreating, the horrors of concentration camps were discovered, and their atrocities- largely against Jews- came to light. Visit Auschwitz or Dachau if you can.

Note the casualty numbers in both world wars- for most allied nations, WWI was much deadlier! You’ll note this on town memorials, who often list the names of the fallen for both conflicts on the same obelisk. Of course, for Germany and Russia, WWII was harder- note the Russian losses in particular.

Germany Reduced

When you lose wars, you generally lose territory. In the below graphic, note that Germany lost some territory (in yellow/orange) after WWI and more (green/purple) after WWII. The entire country of Poland shifted west (at Russia's insistence) to occupy what had once been the Prussian heartland. part of Germany that had contained Königsberg- a major Prussian city- became Russian and remains so to this day (the city is now called Kaliningrad).

Germany Divided

After Germany’s defeat, the Allies split up the country (and Berlin) into zones. The western zones would be consolidated in 1948 to become the Federal Republic of Germany; the eastern would become the German Democratic Republic (GDR)- communist, under Soviet influence.

The  Soviets tried to get the Allies out of Berlin through blockade, but the Berlin airlift- running from several airfields including the one in Wiesbaden- kept supplies flowing until Russia conceded the point and re-opened the land arteries into the city.

East Germany was bleeding people at an alarming rate- 200,000 people escaped every year, so by 1961, 3.5M East Germans had left (20% of the entire GDR). In response, they erected the Berlin Wall in 1961. It would remain standing until 1989. About 5,000 people would escape after it was built.

The situation in the West was much better. It was a “Wirtschaftwunder”- economic miracle- as the economy roared back, helped by the Marshall plan. This time around, the victors chose reconciliation and restoration over solely punishment. It worked. The West thrived while the East languished in ways that are evident even to this day. But the division was not to last- Germany would be united again, which is where we will pick up next time.

Summarization is always hard, moreso when global wars are being discussed. For reading recommendations, see my "War history" page.

Germany, Part 5: Empire

We left last time with a Germany victorious over Napoleon but humiliated and rattled by her defeat to the same ten years prior. The Holy Roman Empire is no more (replaced by a German Confederation), and more change is in the air.

During the Napoleonic occupation, the French introduced their equality and liberty ideas- and the idea of freedom is not easily removed when populations suffer in non-democratic regimes. Thirty years after Bonaparte's defeat, in 1848, revolutions would spread across Germany and Europe. It is around this time when the familiar black/red/gold flag begins to be waved (possible origin: in 1813, when fighting Napoleon, a group of volunteers in Prussia wore black uniforms with red buttons and gold trim). This flag was of a German people rather than a German state. Remember the patchwork nature of the Holy Roman Empire- Germany wasn't one state and hadn't ever been. That was soon to change.

The 1848 revolution wasn’t just about throwing off old princely power, it was about forging a new national entity for the Germans- a ‘Deutschland,’ above more specific regions like Prussia or Saxony. Though this revolution would be crushed within two years, 20 years later, Prussia would take a leading role in uniting the German people under a different flag- their own. But flags alone do not unite a people.

FAIRY TALES

In the 1800s, the Grimm Brothers set out to define “German-ness.” This drive was found in art, too, as a response to the French Aggression. People were looking for things that defined and united them and could not be taken by force of arms. Stories are powerful forces for doing so.

The Grimm Brothers collected tales from all parts of Germany. In 1812, they published a collection of 86 stories called “Children’s and Household Tales.” Subsequent editions would grow the collection until 1857’s edition had 210 tales. Over time, these stories changed to fit public desires for morality tales and other things. A German identity was taking shape . . . and one region would be the ultimate driver to unite them. We now turn our attention to Prussia.

PRUSSIA 

The German state of Prussia rose over the centuries from a tiny state of Brandenburg (the region surrounding Berlin) to become a huge territory through a combination of marriages, war, political maneuvering, and favorable/fortunate inheritances. (Christopher Clark’s Iron Kingdom provides more detail).

Prussia fought a series of wars in the 1860s-70s. Their Minister President was Otto von Bismarck, who made his intent clear. “I shall . . . declare war against Austria, dissolve the German Confederation, subdue the minor states and give national unity to Germany under Prussian leadership.” And he did.

An 1863 war with Denmark would grant Prussia more territory. In 1866, a short (seven-week) war with Austria created a new North German Confederation that excluded Austria and gave Prussia the leading role in German affairs (recall that, until this point, Austria had dominated German affairs during the HRE with a string of Holy Roman Emperors). In 1870-1, a six-month war with France found Prussia allied with the rest of German states to take down their traditional enemy. They took back Alsace-Lorraine. The German Empire had arrived.

EMPIRE (1871-1918)

After the Franco-Prussian war, the German Empire was declared in Versailles, with the King of Prussia (Wilhelm) declared Emperor, and the prime minister (Bismarck) declared chancellor. This new German Empire changed the balance of power in Europe. Prussia would dominate Imperial affairs, as they had such a large percentage of the territory before unification. Understandably, this didn’t always sit well with the other German states (or other countries, for that matter). But here our story shifts as we turn our attention to world war.