dropbear123 t1_j08m71x wrote on December 14, 2022 at 9:18 PM

Finished A Fiery & Furious People: A History of Violence in England by James Sharpe. Fairly long copy and pasted review

>5/5. Excellent, highly recommend if interested in English history or social history.

>Very well written, enjoyable to read with the stories being well told. Good selection of cases used as well as the right amount of statistics to get the point across without being bogged down in them. There is a lot of analysis in each chapter as to the change in the kind of particular kind of violence (murder moving from mostly between male strangers/ acquaintances to being more domestic based over the centuries for example) over time as well as the change in attitudes towards the specific violence (such as views on wife beating or infanticide).

>Part 1 is short and covers the medieval era - general violence but also the big events like the 1381 peasants revolt and the War of the Roses. It also has a bit on the ways that were meant to restrict violence like the Church or the ideal of chivalry and where these did and didn't work.

>Part 2 covers up to the end of Victorians and each chapter covers a specific kind of violence like duelling, crime, domestic etc and how these changed over time. The author argues that violence declined fairly rapidly after the English Civil War. The main reason for this is the emergence of capitalism which led to the growth of a middle class who valued 'respectability' and had more stake in preserving the status quo. Additionally they had different views from other economic groups, for example they believed that domestic violence was something the lower classes did but they also thought the duelling culture of the aristocracy was a bit ridiculous.

>Part 3 covers the 20th and 21st centuries with a similar style of each chapter focusing on a specific kind of crime. Personally my favourite chapter from this part of the book was focused on the depiction of violence in TV and movies (like the movie A Clockwork Orange) and the debates in society about if these contributed to violence in real life (the author argues they didn't/don't). In part 3 the author argues that for a variety of reasons (with an interesting theory that it is down to the deindustrialisation loosening the cohesion of society) violence rose in the 60s to 80s then declined rapidly, but this mainly reflects a decline in violence between strangers and acquaintances rather than a big decline in domestic violence.

>There is a nice further reading list for each chapter but since I read this to clear my British history unread pile I doubt I will read anything on it.

>Only complaint is that I personally found a couple of chapters to be boring (the slander/libel chapter and the historical sport related violence chapters), but that reflects my own interests rather than anything wrong with the book.

Hadn't planned it when I started reading a bit about British historical law and order but I remembered I had Blindfold and Alone: British Military Executions in the Great War by Cathryn Corns and John Hughes-Wilson which meant I could combine the law and order and get back to WWI at the same time. Most of the way through it but not enough to give it my longer thoughts, probably going to say a straight 4/5 by the time I'm done.

AutoModerator OP t1_j08m77f wrote on December 14, 2022 at 9:18 PM

Hi!

It seems like you are talking about the popular but ultimately flawed and false "winners write history" trope!

While the expression is sometimes true in one sense (we'll get to that in a bit), it is rarely if ever an absolute truth, and particularly not in the way that the concept has found itself commonly expressed in popular history discourse. When discussing history, and why some events have found their way into the history books when others have not, simply dismissing those events as the imposed narrative of 'victors' actually harms our ability to understand history.

You could say that is in fact a somewhat "lazy" way to introduce the concept of bias which this is ultimately about. Because whoever writes history is the one introducing their biases to history.

A somewhat better, but absolutely not perfect, approach that works better than 'winners writing history' is to say 'writers write history'.

This is more useful than it initially seems. Until fairly recently the literate were a minority, and those with enough literary training to actually write historical narratives formed an even smaller and more distinct class within that.

To give a few examples, Genghis Khan must surely go down as one of the great victors in all history, but he is generally viewed quite unfavorably in practically all sources, because his conquests tended to harm the literary classes.
Similarly the Norsemen historically have been portrayed as uncivilized barbarians as the people that wrote about them were the "losers" whose monasteries got burned down.

Of course, writers are a diverse set, and so this is far from a magical solution to solving the problems of bias. The painful truth is, each source simply needs to be evaluated on its own merits.
This evaluation is something that is done by historians and part of what makes history and why insights about historical events can shift over time.

This is possibly best exemplified by those examples where victors did unambiguously write the historical sources.

The Spanish absolutely wrote the history of the conquest of Central America from 1532, and the reports and diaries of various conquistadores and priests are still important primary documents for researchers of the period.

But 'victors write the history' presupposes that we still use those histories as they intended, which is simply not the case. It both overlooks the fundamental nature of modern historical methodology, and ignores the fact that, while victors have often proven to be predominant voices, they have rarely proven to be the only voices.

Archaeology, numismatics, works in translation, and other records all allow us at least some insight into the 'losers' viewpoint, as does careful analysis of the 'winner's' records.
We know far more about Rome than we do about Phoenician Carthage. There is still vital research into Carthage, as its being a daily topic of conversation on this subreddit testifies to.

So while it's true that the balance between the voices can be disparate that doesn't mean that the winners are the only voice or even the most interesting.
Which is why stating that history is 'written by the victors' and leaving it at that is harmful to the understanding of history and the process of studying history.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.