Bruno Carleston

Excellent and Clear -- Should be read by All

Reviewed: 09-24-24

Every time I wonder whether I should embark on another course on ancient Rome, I find myself rewarded when I pursue it, especially with this course. Fagan is an excellent listen and wonderfully entertaining. Now the more you listen to Great Courses or any non-fiction, the more you learn and can cross-reference your own learning, which is why from time-to-time you'll wonder when you catch a teacher in shorthanding an explanation, you wonder whether this is a strike against the teacher for bias or just the reward of learning all you can about the world.

Point being, I found one section to cause me to wonder why he made the conclusions he did. This is specifically on the Christianity portion. He made a point to say that the Christian persecutions weren't "That bad," which...to use his brand of humor, being torn to pieces by a lion or crucified still might seem pretty bad to the person experiencing it. In other words, it was interesting to learn that the persecution of the Christians was employed quite unevenly, but to throw in twice that "it wasn't that bad" and Christians did worse things later on seemed a little like, okay, but like why aren't you addressing a point you made earlier.

This point was that the Romans never persecuted for "beliefs." Even the cult of Dionysus had a reason behind it that was pragmatic, so the Christian one is left hanging in this history. (I have read elsewhere that Romans respected ancient religions but did not tolerate new ones, which would explain the Christian persecution, but he doesn't mention that here.) So, not sure why he doesn't have a take on why the Romans made this exception to their rule (as he earlier presents it) in the case of Christians.

Also, he seems to enjoy pointing out that Constantine wasn't very Christian as though its contrary to established belief, but ask any Catholic at least and it's pretty well understood that he was perhaps Christian in name only. What Fagan doesn't address is why -- if the stories of the "under this sign you will conquer" are likely mythology -- then it brings up an interesting question of why an Emperor would take such a turn towards a religion he didn't quite believe in.

I mean, my take on it (which is inspired by the other chapters of Fagan that are so tapped into the human psyche) is that Constantine, being a Roman who prayed to gods for victory, chose a competing god to honor if he were to win a battle, he won, and so he chose to honor this new populist god in the way that seemed to please his believers. Maybe his wife was a believer (or curious) as is mentioned in some other studies. But unlike Akhenaten in Egypt who dismissed the other gods in favor of one sun god, yet lost in the end, Constantine's switch seemed to last, and one can say he certainly found the Christian god decent enough, but wanted to Romanize the religion, in other words, give it structure, by having the leaders hash out what was "true" and what was "misguided" and thus create a centralized religion. Maybe he never "got" the religion (which likely he didn't), but it's not a reason to disband studying why such a huge switch in religions would be made by Constantine. It seems like Fagan gives very human reasons to the other characters studied in this book and he just gives up on this one.

ANYHOW, usually a stumble like this gives me pause to wonder whether a professor knows his stuff about the other things he's teaching, but Fagan has such a command and wit and speaks with such clarity that I find it hard to ding him on more than this admittedly mysterious time in Roman history.

Can't recommend this one enough. Just an excellent listen and can't wait to listen again in the future at some point.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

A Must Read

Reviewed: 07-14-24

Think it’s pretty fair to say most people now have only a cartoon understanding of what actually happened and how the Nazis came to power.

Should be required reading for anyone trying to make a political point.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Unexpectedly and Thoroughly Informative

Reviewed: 10-27-23

I wasn’t sure I needed to learn much more about the founding fathers, or at least cared to learn more, but this thorough listen proved a worthwhile education. And much of this needs to be re-learned, reread, and relistened to by the modern American.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Freedom of Speech requires that books like these sit alongside all others in the student curriculum

Reviewed: 01-23-19

Expected a rehash and yet found this book intensely intriguing and educational. No matter how much you know about history, there’s nothing like another person organizing those memories and presenting it with a point of view, one which you are free to accept, question, or hopefully explore more.

As I claimed, books like these should be in every high school as a counterpoint for the sole reason that people get smarter not by being preached the same progressive viewpoints over and over, but by being presented diverse or even conflicting viewpoints. The real world is complicated, and students lose when they find books like these censored from their required reading lists.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful

Another book you wish was part of every university world history curriculum

Reviewed: 11-26-18

WW1 is a war that often gets passed over in discussions as it is considered complicated and tedious. However, when it is presented with excellent eloquence as the defining moment of the 20th century, one finds it easier to proceed. Such is the case with this book.

If nothing else, the contrary biographical sections on Wilson and Lenin, two Utopians whose actions and/or inactions were simply the detonators to WW2 and the Cold War, are worth everyone’s attention.

As in the case of any great history book, a story is presented but not without some balance, and while those suspicious of socialism and communism will find this a good reminder of why, even those leaning Left would do themselves a world of good learning about these events that get “skimmed” over or polished about in a typical history class.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

9 people found this helpful

Surprisingly Informative Read - 1 Caveat

Reviewed: 09-21-18

From Santa Monica, CA to the autocrats in the other side of the planet, these professors build a believable case for what essentially is the algorithm that defines a democrat vs autocrat.

If anything can be gathered from the theme between the lines, it’s that democracy is a rare thing... perhaps even an unnatural state of countries, one that must be fought for everyday (and this argument exists outside of party lines).

As often is the case, writers who make an excellent argument supported by evidence throughout blow it in the last two chapters when they try to come up with “solutions” to the situation they have otherwise pinpointed with wise precision, thus undercutting the gravitas they had thus far earned.

If you spend 9/10 of a book successfully educating a reader on the hypothesis of the book, there really is no need to “apologize” with lighter than air solutions.

For instance, the Electoral College of all things is targeted, taking a rather prejudiced read of history that it only exists in order to please slave owner states, and therefore should be eliminated. One can read the current issue of National Review and find an extremely cogent argument as to why a democracy is better off with such a system and how it had very little with giving slave owners and extra percentage of the vote. (They should probably brief themselves in the history of small states vs large states, Madison, Adams, and the Constitutional Convention to find why their argument doesn’t hold water.)

Regardless, I believe their “solutions” miss their own point. Recognizing why Foreign Aid fails, why the Olympic Committee is corrupt by design, and why dictators do exactly the things they spotlight is education enough in making one recognize that most people in the world are NOT interested in democracy unless it serves their own needs.

I certainly encourage everyone to read this book as an antidote to the sophomoric understanding of good and evil in the world as promoted by most news outlets who, by extrapolation, are not so interested in dispensing information, but reporting on those things they feel will simply keep them in business.

Turn off your TV and satellite radio and read this!

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

May Take a Few Listens

Reviewed: 07-15-17

In short, the professor is obviously well versed in the material and seems excellent. The only tricky part is that he uses lots of 10-dollar words. They're the kind that are super precise and you kind of know the meaning of them, but when three or four are used in the same sentence, your mind just glazes. It's sort of like a rocket scientist explaining what he does with technical terms. He's certainly being more accurate than if he used layman terms, but it would be nice to throw in some more common words to assist the poor layman who is trying to wrap his head around the unfamiliar subject.
That being said, taking on the City of God is a huge task, and I know more than I did before I started. I like the professor and hope to listen someday again and see if I can glean a little more from this sophisticated lesson.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

8 people found this helpful

Every attempt to dramatize this book hurts it

Reviewed: 05-02-17

There is something very off putting about a non fiction book being dramatized with actors voices, sfx , and wall to wall music. Also, the last 23 minutes is an interview with Paul Rudd and the author which basically is about how awesome the author is. Who needs it?
While there were some nice nuggets about Eisensteins theories, I'm pretty sure a Great Course or other book handles it just as well.
If you aren't into the material to begin with , no dramatization is going to help.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

27 people found this helpful

A+ Superb --- Didn't Want This One To End

Reviewed: 04-27-17

Professor Garland takes you along on an amazing trip through time, teaching in a manner of which more teachers should take heed. I had no idea this course would be (much much) more than a hum drum itemized list of factoids, when in fact the course puts you in a first person POV throughout some major and minor empires. Just some of the details that Garland throws in makes even one lecture worth the purchase.

I can't recommend this enough for anyone who is curious as to how similar we are to the commoners of ancient history, plus to teachers who would like a good example of how one can effectively teach!

I will certainly look for more of his courses.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

Needs To Be Re-Thought

Reviewed: 03-21-17

Gets off to a bad start with a homily insinuating that many of the things we take for granted today are actually the result of Native American contact with the Europeans. Of course, if one has chosen to listen to this course, it is because he or she already has a bit of an inkling of the Native American perspective being overlooked. This would be fine except that the preaching continues at least throughout the next 2/3rds of the course (I haven't made it to the last third yet). In every instance, the noble Native Americans are taken advantage of by the wily Europeans. Which probably is the case. However, when a teacher takes a side in the history course, portraying their favored side as the only one you should have any sympathy for, then it is hard to trust that this retelling of history is valid.

One of the greatest crimes in history-telling is presuming that you are supposed to cheer for one side over another. History is a complicated thing, made more complex by the morales of the time. Progressives of one time were not as progressive as those of today, but to blame them for this supposed short-sightedness is rather snobbish (as the professor does whenever a European steps forward to try to be a good samaritan to the Native Peoples.)

A more useful and respectful history of the Native People would be to not romanticize them as a people who meant no harm and got run over by greedy Europeans, but to recognize that this was a culture clash in which both cultures had their reasons for seeing the world as they saw it, and this is just the way it was. Europe, for instance, happened to have developed technologies and materials the Peoples of the Americas did not have, and along with these Powers came vices, as they always do. And to presume that Native Americans, had they had the same or greater technologies than Europe, would not have done something similar to Europe, had the shoe been on the other foot, is an impossible thing to argue. It's a blind argument with no fair answer. If the Native Americans had had the same awesome military technology as the Europeans and yet chose to withhold it in the name of Peace, then you could perhaps fairly take sides in history and say, "Look what awful things happened to this culture." But, as the professor shows, the Native People also had their wars, and even though he goes on to put a positive spin on their wars (with the Orwellian spin that the Native American wars against each other weren't destructive but constructive because they sought to replenish their own tribe with prisoners), it doesn't take away from the bigger question: If Native Americans had developed the kind of technology that the Europeans had, would they have suffered from the same vices? And in the absence of these technologies, military or otherwise (read Guns, Germs, and Steel if you're interested in this subject) to tempt them to conquer, does it really mean they were always the good guys no matter what the instance?

As always, even mis-performed history has its lessons to teach, and there are a few nuggets here and there, but one comes away with a scattershot history of the Native People. I came him hoping to get a taste of what daily life was like and what a year amongst them would entail, but mostly we're given a vague representation of how life was in America with the Native People and almost no sense that there was any dissension or disagreement among them. When there is, we're given the impression that its only because the Europeans have forced a wedge between them.

All in all, there has got to be a better history of the Native People out there, somehow somewhere. Though there seem to be no written sources (since the Native People didn't develop a written word until the supposedly evil Europeans came up with a system in order to trick them into preserving the beautiful history) :) -- one would hope there would be a way to put together a day in the life of the native people, flaws and all.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

75 people found this helpful