The History of the Medieval World by Susan Wise Bauer

Currently reading The History of the Medieval World by Susan Wise Bauer (pictured above).

The virtues of this book are deceptive. Those who fancy themselves intellectuals will say it's a mere galloping outline (they'll say that without the metaphor); yet it is more than that. The author presents clearly what happened on the ground, and accomplishes that by having developed real understanding of what was going on in a time-line and geographical and universal human nature sense. One may think that is a run-of-the-mill requirement for any historian, but it really isn't. How many history books of the period can we read and still not be very clear about Ostrogoths and Lombards and who preceded who and where did they settle and what degree of power did they have and so on. In deceptively simple brush strokes Bauer puts all this down clearly in short, to-the-point chapters. She also maintains a disciplined perspective which, again, can seem overly simple, but there is method to her madness. She also treats each religion and empire and so forth with an equal tone. You might think she is being politically-correct when she gets to the Islamic part of the history, but you quickly see she is just being disciplined with her tone and perspective and treating Islam like any of the other peoples and parts of the world. The result is to enable one to begin to see the universal patterns and types and human nature and nature of power going in its cycles in each part of the world. Again, any good history does this, but Bauer seems to have hit on a formula that makes it strangely clear. Obviously a weakness of her series (this book is volume two of a projected four volume history of the world; the first volume is The History of the Ancient World) is the weakness of any history of the world, the necessary space limitations and inability to go into depth in any one era or individual and so on. So I know there will be people who glance at it and say, "It's a little too mile-wide and inch-deep. Too much kings and emperors and caliphs, and not enough of what actual people were doing and creating and how they were surviving and living their simple lives." That, though, is not what the book(s) intends to accomplish. It intends to provide a rather sparkling clear narrative of world history from a disciplined, good perspective in an even tone, and not without the author's understanding of human nature thrown in. She is on-the-mark when she describes leaders in her more informal ways. Typing them using modern language and metaphor and so on. There is a lot of suffering and violence going on at ground level that her narrative doesn't put a spotlight on, but again, any history of the world will be limited by space. She actually highlights just enough of that, though without moralizing, to make it generally known. I've read a few histories of the world, and this one has strange and unique qualities which make it worth looking into.

------------

Some email excerpts I wrote on this book trying to get people to read it:

When you said you bought the books I mentioned, did you also buy the Susan Wise Bauer book (History of the Medieval World)? I can't get over how interesting I am finding it. She so easily and deftly - without seeming to even try to do it - makes clear all this difficult history of the 300s and 400s and barbarian movements and so on. I can't explain it, you can only see it for yourself. I'm not enthusiastic because I'm reading this time of history for the first time, I'm enthusiastic because its being presented clearly. There's nothing new under the sun, and you can see how these personalities are as 'modern' as what is around today. All these names, Stilicho, Alaric, even Attila (didn't know that as a teenager he was a hostage to the Roman Empire in Ravenna). Vandals, Visigoths, etc. She has really taken the time to *get understanding of the material* and then has presented it in a *not vain* manner, i.e. not academic in a way to make her seem brilliant
and all that; it seems deceptively simple, but she couldn't do it unless she had gotten understanding of it prior.

This shows what I'm trying to get at with this Susan Wise Bauer book (History of the Medieval World) -

http://www.christianitytoday.com/lyris/booksandculture/archives/02-02-2010.html

Click on the second link in the text where it says 'this week's podcast.' I found the guy annoying at first, but then I could see he is just trying to articulate why this book is unusual.

He's actually talking about the first volume (History of the Ancient World) in the projected 4-volume history of the world. But it's the same. The style of the writing is the same. (I've actually just bought that first volume today.)

I'm still reading Bauer's History of the Medieval World. I said she has her limitations, but all world histories make sacrifices. I call her style a *galloping skeleton.* But she's unique in being able to write narrative that makes things clear. Belisarius' career as a general is very clear to me now. I can now go into that in more depth elsewhere if I want to, but what Bauer gives is a lot, even if a bare skeleton galloping along.

The Ostrogoths took Italy then the Lombards took Italy. I can see that clearly now. This is Bauer's gift. It's deceptive, but what she is doing is she is getting understanding of what happened on the ground before she writes her galloping summary, so she is able to communicate a *clear* summary of events.

I'll stop now...

Oh, my God, the horror, the horror, the HORROR!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c81bcjyfn6U

I'm going to go so far as to say these Bauer books are school books. They are world history for those who will be playing conscious roles in time. Serious. Because what you begin to see from her fast moving narrative is the universal patterns and types playing out. Not really as we usually think of that, but a more in-depth sense of it. The result being the 'not taking too seriously' events. I mean by that, not screw-off-ism, but laughter of the Gods type of thing. That doesn't get at it either. The vanity of historical events and movement mixed with high-perspective understanding, but not minus any valuation for what is serious regarding the human condition and the plan of God. Maybe that gets at it.

Read Susan Wise Bauer's History of the Medieval World. Do it, do it, do it. I'm a universal world history buff. I've owned all the well-known volumes. Even read a few. In fact I was skimming through Welle's Short History of the World (the one I read a long time ago, I never attempted Outline of History), and in the contrast you can see why Bauer is so clear and unusual. She writes swift narrative like Welles, but she has more space to work with. And I think I've discovered her trick: she may have stumbled upon a structural formula, like what is found in ancient works. Hers is like 'wheel, wheel, wheel...' And no matter if the subject is Byzantium, or Persia, or Korea, or the Franks she makes them all seem the same *in a real way.* She takes the mystery from them, yet describes them still as they are. It comes across at first as naive, yet... it's not. When I got to the Mohammed chapters I said, ah, she's being politically-correct here, but upon further
reflection I could see she was just treating Islam as she was treating all the others. And from that you get a different, higher, more pristine perspective and understanding. I can't quite describe it well.

One strange note: I find that in the India, China, Korea, and Japan chapters you receive impressions that can be found in much fantasy literature. Like some fantasy literature is more 'eastern' in impression even though the setting and characters aren't portrayed as eastern. Even the names of the leaders have fantasy genre sounds to them.

For many years now everything I've been reading has really been 'going over old ground' type influences. With this book by her it's the first time I am getting new impressions and encountering a new influence. And it's basic. Getting a basic dose of complete world history. In this unusual, valuable way she delivers it. With her volumes you get a total God-like view. The perspective she maintains it part of what makes her presentation unusual. Total, complete earth, complete time. We're really benefiting from her study and obvious completnik approach which she's been gathering her whole life, I bet, and which enabled her to write the children's world history, and graduate up to this new one for big people. I still havn't caught in words what makes her history unusual. You can only see it for yourselves.

I think I've struck on why I've been excited over Susan Wise Bauer's World History (the first two volumes of four): it's because they describe history subtly, without mentioning it, from a Christian - or, kingly - perspective.

The perspective is unique because it's not just above ground level everyday life, but it's above the level of the kings and emporors and caliphs, and is so comfortably, and in an on-the-mark way. It de-mystifies the highest level of power and life in this realm. Again, subtly.

It is like a history of kings and empires and wars written for kings.

In the sense that a Christian is a king. A prophet, priest, and king.

Secular historians subtly are in awe of the diabolical theocracies of the city of man where the king/emperor/caliph become human deity. Bauer, perhaps not necessarily aware she is doing it, has all these wizards behind the curtain exposed and uses language the way one would tend to use language to describe them as such. Again, though, with no moralizing or any obvious self-conscious sense that this is what she is doing.

I read an outraged review at Amazon where the reviewer was apoplectic that Norton would give an 'English professor' such a stage. "Why do we need this?" he lamented. "Is this necessary?" I sensed the guy was an atheist as I read it, yet Bauer is not overtly Christian with her language, yet this guy could just intuit he was reading something that was heretical in the secular realm. A world history that exposes his idols. He was not happy about the entire enterprise, and I thought it particularly comical that he was attacking Norton, the publisher, for 'allowing' Bauer to write such a world history, or for having published it.