(no subject)
Nov. 4th, 2015 03:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccaelizabethTrying to learn more history is really frustrating. I started out with a book that mentioned women repeatedly and made it sound interesting, and the more I read the more I find books that mention ... technically women, as in two whole women. Technically. If you count mentions of someone having a wife.
This is especially frustrating when I've read the longer version and know for a fact they're leaving out the bits that make it make sense. Whitby with no abbess and the story of the two Easters without mentioning the King and Queen who ended up with the longest possible Lent, that doesn't make sense. Put the women in and you see why it was worth an argue.
Not to mention that the only books I've seen make sense of the Romans sudden turn around about how they treated the Iceni was the one that made it about sexism. Every other book, including the frustrating chapter I just finished, says Romans just up and decided to treat their friends like conquered enemies. Randomly. Because they felt like it. But the book that pointed out the Iceni, common to most British, had female leaders, and Rome decided they were having none of that, well, that makes it make sense. The change from a male leader to a female leader becomes a trigger and the mystery is resolved.
Yet I can't say the 'because sexism' version is correct, because what do I know? I'm just reading these books, and only the one of them has mentioned the most interesting bits at all so far.
History is annoying.
This is especially frustrating when I've read the longer version and know for a fact they're leaving out the bits that make it make sense. Whitby with no abbess and the story of the two Easters without mentioning the King and Queen who ended up with the longest possible Lent, that doesn't make sense. Put the women in and you see why it was worth an argue.
Not to mention that the only books I've seen make sense of the Romans sudden turn around about how they treated the Iceni was the one that made it about sexism. Every other book, including the frustrating chapter I just finished, says Romans just up and decided to treat their friends like conquered enemies. Randomly. Because they felt like it. But the book that pointed out the Iceni, common to most British, had female leaders, and Rome decided they were having none of that, well, that makes it make sense. The change from a male leader to a female leader becomes a trigger and the mystery is resolved.
Yet I can't say the 'because sexism' version is correct, because what do I know? I'm just reading these books, and only the one of them has mentioned the most interesting bits at all so far.
History is annoying.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-04 05:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-11-04 07:06 pm (UTC)https://beccaelizabeth.dreamwidth.org/2971111.html
yeah, that book had little stories about each bit of history it focused on, not what I'd call detail. Yet still, more and more interesting than the huge great coffee table sized book I read today.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-05 02:22 am (UTC)