What do you think?
Rate this book
Civilization in the West, Combined Volume
Civilization in the West blends social and political history with an exceptional map and image program to engage students and bring history to life. The authors tell a compelling story of Western Civilization that is enhanced by an image-based approach. “The Visual Record” chapter openers draw students in by using illustrations that underscore a dominant theme of the chapter. New “Image Discovery” features guide students to interrogate images, understand their contexts, and unpack their multiple meanings. The dramatic, changing contours of the West are explored through an exceptional map program, through Map Discovery features, and through Geographical Tours of Europe .
1040 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1991
8 people are currently reading
110 people want to read
About the author
Mark A. Kishlansky
182 books12 followersMark Alan Kishlansky (1948-2015) was a historian of seventeenth-century British politics. He was the Frank Baird, Jr. Professor of History at Harvard University.
He completed his undergraduate degree at the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1970 and proceeded to graduate study under David Underdown at Brown University, receiving his M.A. in 1972 and his Ph. D. in 1977. From 1975 to 1991 he taught at the University of Chicago, successively as instructor and professor. From 1990 to 1991 he was a member of the Committee on Social Thought. He was a visiting professor at Northwestern University in 1983 and was the Mellon Visiting Professor in the Humanities and Social Sciences at the California Institute of Technology in 1990-1991. In 1991 he became a professor at Harvard University and from 1998 to 2001 served as Associate Dean of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard. He was editor of the Journal of British Studies from 1984 to 1991 and editor-in-chief of History Compass from 2003 to 2009
He completed his undergraduate degree at the State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1970 and proceeded to graduate study under David Underdown at Brown University, receiving his M.A. in 1972 and his Ph. D. in 1977. From 1975 to 1991 he taught at the University of Chicago, successively as instructor and professor. From 1990 to 1991 he was a member of the Committee on Social Thought. He was a visiting professor at Northwestern University in 1983 and was the Mellon Visiting Professor in the Humanities and Social Sciences at the California Institute of Technology in 1990-1991. In 1991 he became a professor at Harvard University and from 1998 to 2001 served as Associate Dean of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard. He was editor of the Journal of British Studies from 1984 to 1991 and editor-in-chief of History Compass from 2003 to 2009
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
Currently reading
April 28, 2010My college uses this book for one of its History classes and I enjoy the time frame that it covers. However I found the book to be hard to “grasp” at times and had to reread it. Some words were not explained so I had to Google to find the meaning; this took time away from a very intense 8 week session. Also, Kishlansky has a tendency to jump from one subject to the next without warning, thought they are connected; he gives no reason for the initial jump. It can be very confusing.
December 10, 2010
A really great book
June 27, 2024
Some untruths are presented as true for the unaware reader. Rather than this book, the marvelous books of Michael Hudson should be the go-to.
It's amusing how books like this are written with their untruths upfront due to knowing that the reader is consuming the content simply to find out what happened. There is little doubt that what such scholars present is the truth.
On Constantine, there is a perfect example of this. "Many Christians and even bishops had collaborated with Roman authorities, handing over sacred scriptures to be burned." The Donatists were then "disturbed by the ease" with which they "had returned to positions of power in the church under Constantine".
It seems reasonable, doesn't it? The criminals or collaborators were returned to power under Constantine (making him the abettor of criminals.) Much the same happened after WWII, such as in West Germany: "ex-Nazis" returned quickly to power in all sectors of West German society, including the ambassadors of 50+ countries in the early '60s (under their sponsors, the US, while in East Germany, such ex-Nazis were routed from power throughout society).
Greece was the same, where the communists fought the Nazis, then the British came in when the Nazis were finished, to destroy the communists and put back the collaborators in power. The British couldn't keep it up, so the US took over. The Greek communists noted that they were never lacking volunteers, but the war was destroying these good people, and surrendered, leading to collaborators returning and dictatorship.
Back in Augustine's time, it was Augustine who coddled the collaborator-equivalents of those post-WWII in Greece and Germany. While the recent criminals were the US and UK; then, it was Augustine. The Donatists wished to hold criminals to account, not to promote them.
This situation is very clear from the text because as I say, it is written for people wishing only to consume the words rather than to step back and consider the obvious.
The writers do complicity for Augustine but in a very obvious way, writing, "The Donatists insisted that the church had to be pure and that its ministers had to be blameless." Well, "blameless" would be an obvious starting point, sure, but the Donatists weren't asking for this. This is simply rather obvious misinformation. The Donatists saw the wrongs that the writers here have pointed out, and wanted to address them, not reward them.
More blatant disinformation emanates as the writers write that the Donatists believed that only they had preserved purity. No, not at all. They just observed that those Augustine was promoting clearly hadn't preserved that purity. The writers are exponents of a type of propaganda that is very easily seen through as they themselves provide the evidence for their propagandistic take. They write of the Donatists as issuing appeals to "heroic virtue"! No, just observe what happened and react accordingly rather than joining with the collaborator-criminals as Augustine did in his promotion of them.
The Donatists are labeled "elitists"!!! Ah, how often we've heard that one in propaganda! Basically that the honest consider themselves better than us, therefore they are in the wrong rather than the liars or the culprits of the actual wrongdoing.
So, pretty typical writing that we can read from whatever era supporting those designated for support: history written for the West's winners no matter how things really played out.
It's amusing how books like this are written with their untruths upfront due to knowing that the reader is consuming the content simply to find out what happened. There is little doubt that what such scholars present is the truth.
On Constantine, there is a perfect example of this. "Many Christians and even bishops had collaborated with Roman authorities, handing over sacred scriptures to be burned." The Donatists were then "disturbed by the ease" with which they "had returned to positions of power in the church under Constantine".
It seems reasonable, doesn't it? The criminals or collaborators were returned to power under Constantine (making him the abettor of criminals.) Much the same happened after WWII, such as in West Germany: "ex-Nazis" returned quickly to power in all sectors of West German society, including the ambassadors of 50+ countries in the early '60s (under their sponsors, the US, while in East Germany, such ex-Nazis were routed from power throughout society).
Greece was the same, where the communists fought the Nazis, then the British came in when the Nazis were finished, to destroy the communists and put back the collaborators in power. The British couldn't keep it up, so the US took over. The Greek communists noted that they were never lacking volunteers, but the war was destroying these good people, and surrendered, leading to collaborators returning and dictatorship.
Back in Augustine's time, it was Augustine who coddled the collaborator-equivalents of those post-WWII in Greece and Germany. While the recent criminals were the US and UK; then, it was Augustine. The Donatists wished to hold criminals to account, not to promote them.
This situation is very clear from the text because as I say, it is written for people wishing only to consume the words rather than to step back and consider the obvious.
The writers do complicity for Augustine but in a very obvious way, writing, "The Donatists insisted that the church had to be pure and that its ministers had to be blameless." Well, "blameless" would be an obvious starting point, sure, but the Donatists weren't asking for this. This is simply rather obvious misinformation. The Donatists saw the wrongs that the writers here have pointed out, and wanted to address them, not reward them.
More blatant disinformation emanates as the writers write that the Donatists believed that only they had preserved purity. No, not at all. They just observed that those Augustine was promoting clearly hadn't preserved that purity. The writers are exponents of a type of propaganda that is very easily seen through as they themselves provide the evidence for their propagandistic take. They write of the Donatists as issuing appeals to "heroic virtue"! No, just observe what happened and react accordingly rather than joining with the collaborator-criminals as Augustine did in his promotion of them.
The Donatists are labeled "elitists"!!! Ah, how often we've heard that one in propaganda! Basically that the honest consider themselves better than us, therefore they are in the wrong rather than the liars or the culprits of the actual wrongdoing.
So, pretty typical writing that we can read from whatever era supporting those designated for support: history written for the West's winners no matter how things really played out.
September 1, 2018
Very informative on the history of the west starting from Mesopotamia and onward...
September 8, 2010
Ever since i took two European history classes in college, i have been enamoured with European history and history in general. This IS a text book - in answer to the questions of a few inquisitive co-workers - from one of those classes. It's much better reading the second time around as i am reading it because i find it all very fascinating rather than looking for answer's to test questions. I read it nearly every day at lunch (and sometimes at my desk if i have a process grinding away on my PC). I find it endlessly fascinating to see just how different life and politics were before the 20th century. I could probably read about the same historical events hundreds of times over and have them never become old. This is a great book and it's held my attention. That's difficult to say about a text book.
August 2, 2010
A good introduction to the first civilaztions and thier political, economical and family structures. My version was split into two volumes. The first one covered Prehistoric Europe to the rise of Christianity. The second which I am currently reading covers the Rise of Islam through 1715. I love the narrative and the maps provided in the book. The writing is down to earth and doesn't shy away from the horrible things humans do to each other. Each chapter ends with futher resources and most of them provide additional history or information that is really well thought out and useful.
December 10, 2010
it was okay, nothing to stand up and cheer about.... it is a history book that i had for my class last semester... like i said OKAY....
March 1, 2012
Great history read!!!!!!
Read
May 2, 2012Finally.
January 17, 2013
An old college text I had to read and kept around for some unknown reason.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews