Well, the Plantagenets learned from their Norman ancestors. Searle argues that the early Norman rulers pruned their family trees with some precision, destroying relatives with independent bases of power and ducal claims and raising up bastards, half-brothers, and non-inheriting cousins in order to create a cadre of elite, loyal warriors whose livelihoods were dependent on the benevolence of the duke. Simplified, of course, but this is the gist. William the Conqueror, for whom my admiration is boundless, was a master of this tactic. His machinations created some of the greatest families in medieval Anglo-Norman history.
Met him, no; read his biography of Knox, yes. Since I’ve read about 200 books since then, I’m not in too much of a position to comment on him, but I remember the book being informative.
Haigh’s first major book was in 1965, and he’s still writing today (I think he’s actually on sabbatical now and working on a new book). It’s possible that the Durants adopted Haigh’s ideas, but even Haigh wouldn’t go so far as to say the majority of the English were Catholic as far as the 17th-century. He argues that it may have been that way in the North of England, but by 1605 England had been solidly Protestant for 52 years and most of the Catholics in England had died by then and had not passed their faith on to their children.
Oh, one more favorite historian (the list grows)–
Beat Kumin–from Switzerland originally, has done some interesting work on parish finances in England. Also a nice guy. (He actually cited a lecture I gave in an article!)
Reading: Robert Darnton (The Great Cat Massacre, The Forbidden Best-Sellers of Pre-Revolutionary France)
Lecture: Jon Bridgman (University of Washington, as of '96 anyway). Brilliant lecturer. Has a couple of tics that you titter over initially but you will never be bored or want to skip his lectures.
I get to be the first to mention the late Henry Mayer, author of two the finest historical biographies I’ve ever encountered: All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery and A Son of Thunder: Patrick Henry and the American Republic. Check 'em out - Amazon has them, and your local library can probably get them via interlibrary loan.
I agree with Edward the Head.
James Burke is one of my favorite historians.
He makes any subject he writes about fascinating.
And having the good fortune to have seen him in lecture twice, I can say that he is perhaps even more entertaining live than in print.
I also agree with Danimal, the Durants are great.
They have introduced me to so many authors that I would never have read had it not been for their citation.
Caroline Walker Bynum, for the same reasons Maeglin stated above. Except, well, I didn’t get to study under her. I’ve got Holy Feast, Holy Fast and Jesus as Mother on my shelf, and I’m looking to get Last Things: Death and the Apocalypse in the Middle Ages soon.
Thomas Glick’s work on Al-Andalus.
Sir Ronald Syme’s Roman Revolution.
Henri Pirenne.
Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton’s Harold: The Last of the Saxon Kings is so laughable that I have to love it.
You can easily see my preferred time period.
For more contemporary history, Stephen Ambrose is one of my favorites. But then, I’m not exactly well-read when it comes to this century.
Marc Bloch – The Historian’s Craft which lays out some fundamental rules for Historian’s.
Taylor Branch – Parting the Waters: America in the King Years
Richard Kluger – Simple Justice: The History of Brown vs. Board of Education
To name just a few. But each of these ranks as excellent reading and come with Sledman’s Highest Recommendation.
Robert William Fogel, Stanley L. Engerman get my vote as two of the worst for their flawed use of statistical data in the book Time on the Cross. Seriously read it for a laugh. The conclusions are hilarious. According to them slavery wasn’t that bad a deal.
Who knew??? :rolleyes:
Searle argues that the early Norman rulers pruned their family trees with some precision, destroying relatives with independent bases of power and ducal claims and raising up bastards, half-brothers, and non-inheriting cousins in order to create a cadre of elite, loyal warriors whose livelihoods were dependent on the benevolence of the duke. Simplified, of course, but this is the gist. William the Conqueror, for whom my admiration is boundless, was a master of this tactic. His machinations created some of the greatest families in medieval Anglo-Norman history.
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself.)