Jeremy Popkin Herodotus To H-Net Summary
Jeremy Popkin's work From Herodotus to H-Net is a wonderful book, and it covers the topic very well. It includes necessary content, and it gives readers enough background information to help them along in the narrative, specific details about each historian he mentions to give the reader the reasons why they did things in different ways, but not enough to drown them in too many details. Popkin has a definite passion in the topic and does his best to convey the ideas to the readers, though he does make a mistake in one crucial aspect.
Popkin is too good at talking about as much as possible at the right amount as possible. Nothing he talks about really pops out as being entirely interesting or noteworthy above the others, it's all very well done but the level stays the same at just interesting enough. Nothing really stands out to me after reading the books, that doesn't mean I think this book is actually a bad one, it’s just that I think Popkin needed to add things into certain areas of the book to excite the reader. Everything was very good, but it was just there on the pages and then handed to us.
He does include some historians that might be new to the readers such as Marc Bloch, Sima Qian, Mary Beard, Leopold Von Ranke, Edward Gibbon. Bede I had heard about because he is the patron saint of historians and …show more content…
It’s well written, it goes into a necessary depth to educate the reader enough without noting on every little thing on the sections of the book he's writing about at that time, I especially like how he strays from the normal Eurocentrism in his topics and historians, mentioning ones from China and the Islamic World. He then writes a little section in the book titled Contesting Eurocentrism and talks about the struggles that many countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia went through trying to create their own distinct histories once they had become free from their mother country after the second world
Popkin is too good at talking about as much as possible at the right amount as possible. Nothing he talks about really pops out as being entirely interesting or noteworthy above the others, it's all very well done but the level stays the same at just interesting enough. Nothing really stands out to me after reading the books, that doesn't mean I think this book is actually a bad one, it’s just that I think Popkin needed to add things into certain areas of the book to excite the reader. Everything was very good, but it was just there on the pages and then handed to us.
He does include some historians that might be new to the readers such as Marc Bloch, Sima Qian, Mary Beard, Leopold Von Ranke, Edward Gibbon. Bede I had heard about because he is the patron saint of historians and …show more content…
It’s well written, it goes into a necessary depth to educate the reader enough without noting on every little thing on the sections of the book he's writing about at that time, I especially like how he strays from the normal Eurocentrism in his topics and historians, mentioning ones from China and the Islamic World. He then writes a little section in the book titled Contesting Eurocentrism and talks about the struggles that many countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia went through trying to create their own distinct histories once they had become free from their mother country after the second world