The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the week of July 18th - July 24th, we are reading approximately the next 28 pages of A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century by Barbara W. Tuchman.

The fifth week's reading assignment is:

Week Five - July 18th - July 24th -> PART ONE - Chapter SIX p. 126 - 154
SIX - The Battle of Poitiers

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book was kicked off on June 20th. We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.

There is time still remaining to obtain the book and get started.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Welcome,

~Bentley


TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL



by Barbara W. Tuchman

Folks, I am away until August 2nd traveling internationally with spotty access. When I can I will be on; but feel free to open up the discussion on any aspect of the week's reading.

Aussie Rick is the backup.

Bentley

This was a difficutl chanpter for me to keep track of all the character and events but in the end it would seem that it was French arrogance and or vanity that kept them from winning the day - or even breaking even. It was, from Tuckman's presentation like playing a game of chess with the French side not using their pawns at all. (maybe that is a bit too simple)

And not to bring (actually to bring) personal thoughts or current political theories into it they would seem to have set the stage for a trickle down ecomony. Page 142, to make Dick Cheney and others content "The new rates amounted to a tax of 4% on the incomes of the rich, 5% on the middle class and 10 percent on the lowest taxable class."

I think a lot of this chapter is summarized by a sentence on the first page, "Jean II ... could have served Machiavelli as a model for Anti-Prince" (page 126). So much of what he did was so frustrating to read about. Of course, hind-site and looking from outside the box make it so much easier to see mistakes before they happen.

by Niccolò Machiavelli

Is it just me, or are there too many Charles' running around?

One of the things that sounded funny to me was on page 143 where, after the king arrested a bunch of guys for plotting against him, and they were executed without being confessed. Yet, Colin Doublel was an exception because he was "condemned for raising a weapon against the King rather than for treason." Doesn't it seem weird that it is not treason to raise a weapon against the king?

My favorite mental image in the chapter was on page 147, the day before The Battle. Cardinal Tallyrand is trying to get some sort of peace negotiated. Tuchman says, "Cardinal Tallyrand and his clerics hurried back and forth on their mules..." Just the thought of these priests muling it back and forth between these two fighting forces--made me laugh.

Not to mention that we've heard several times about knights being downed from their horses and not being able to even get up because of the weight of their armor (see page 149). I keep thinking, "I've fallen, and I can't get up!" (Am I the only one who saw those commercials too often?)

NOTE: Perhaps I should mention that the loss of life and general waste of the battles was saddening. War is really not funny.

Elizabeth, I have this definition of treason:

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour. When you are trying to overthrow a king, it is considered high treason.

I think the guys were plotting to overthrow him and I guess that is treasonous. Raising a weapon I guess is considered something else.

I didn't even think to look up the definition of treason. Thanks, Bentley. It still seems strange--as do lots of things that only lawyers can understand!

I guess Elizabeth - I surmise it boils down to semantics and circumstances as defined by the laws of that time.

Elizabeth, I also enjoyed the bits of humor, even wry observations, that Tuchman includes. So necessary given the grim nature of so much of what she writes about! Jean II (WHAT A LOSER!) as the Anti-Prince: perfect.