Patrick J. Geary

The period between the fall of Rome and the emergence of medieval Europe gets short shrift in the popularly available literature. This book fills that gap, and in doing so show just how overdrawn is the "fall of Rome" view of European history. Geary shows convincingly that late Roman ways and relationships persisted for centuries, gradually evolving into what we recognize as early medieval culture. Or at least they did in the place that is very much the author's focus: Merovingian France. show more (The title may be somewhat misleading: this book is almost entirely about what went on to the west of the Rhine). In France, a Gallo-Roman provincial aristocracy persisted and remained powerful after the Franks established control over much of what is now France and the Low Countries, and late Roman culture persisted along with that. Moreover, the Franks themselves had been heavily Romanized, serving in Roman armies and becoming subject to Roman law. The Merovingian kings worked with the Gallo Roman power structure rather than attempting to supplant it. Given just how few Franks there may have been (Geary cites a "guess" of 150-200,000 spread out in a Gallo-Roman population of 6-7,000,000) they probably had little choice. The author ends with a chapter summing up the importance of the Merovingians, and argues convincingly that much of their poor reputation (les rois faineants) may be due to Carolingian propaganda.

All in all, this is an illuminating and enjoyable read. There is one section on the later Merovingian kings where the number of unpronounceable names becomes a real stumbling block, and the genealogical chart in the Kindle edition is not much help -- it appears to have been divided in two. But I learned a lot, and enjoyed doing so. show less

Patrick Geary's The Myth of Nations has only become more relevant in the fifteen or so years since its first publication. In this short, lucid, but highly thought-provoking book, Geary explores how the period between the third and ninth centuries have been appropriated by nationalists and racists who claim to find in that period a definitive origin of contemporary European peoples. Geary dismantles these myths and shows instead that the names of ethnicities are less descriptors of biological show more continuity than they are representative of shifting claims over time. Rather than pinpointing the ethnogenesis of European peoples as a thing that happened at some fixed point in the early Middle Ages, Geary argues that it is a process, beginning in Late Antiquity and continuing through to the present day. This should be accessible to the interested lay reader, and also of use in the college classroom. show less

Egyfelől A nemzetek mítosza „pusztán” egy remek könyv arról a történelmi fekete lyukról, ami a Nyugat-Római Birodalom felbomlása és a nagy keresztény államok megjelenése között ásítozik legtöbbünk fejében. Ez az a periódus, amikor az ilyen-olyan barbárok közösségei gyökeret vertek Európában, kereszténnyé váltak, és nekiálltak betölteni a latin civilizáció összeomlása után keletkezett hiátust. Nos, nagyon tanulságos, most legalább tudom, kik is show more azok a vandálok – azon túl, hogy édesapa szerint ők karcolták össze a kocsink ajtaját. De ettől azért még nem dobnék hátast. Másfelől viszont…

Geary az egész elé rittyent egy frenetikus bevezetést, amivel tudomásomra hozza, mik azok a kortárs jelenségek, amelyek egészen konkrétan ezekből a zűrzavaros évszázadokból vezethetők le. Olyan első harminc-negyven oldal ez, hogy halleluja és heuréka – végig az volt az érzésem, mintha Geary helyettem beszélne, megfogalmazná azt, amire magam is mintha gondoltam volna, csak épp nem tudtam eddig világosan megfogalmazni. Adomány az ilyen szöveg, bár illik ilyenkor megvizsgálni, nem csak én látom-e a szövegbe azt, amiről olvasni akarok. (Amúgy: azt hiszem, nem.) Aztán persze jön a masszív értekezés a római polgárságról, a barbár gensről, átláthatatlan népmozgásokról, de ekkor már érdekelve vagyok. Figyelek.

Elképesztően aktuális téma ez. Ma, amikor az iszlám gyökerű vallási intoleranciára a nyugati államok paradox módon nem vallási, hanem nacionalista intoleranciával felelnek*, érdemes szem előtt tartani, mennyire egy tőről fakad ez a két jelenség. Egyikük a Koránból, másikuk valamiféle nemzeti őstörténetből merít ideológiai igazolást – de hasonlítanak abban, hogy legfeljebb közvetett kapcsolatban állnak azok valódi tartalmával. Mindketten előnyben részesítik a kézzelfogható tények helyett a szubjektumokat, így hatástalanok ellenük a racionális érvek. És végezetül: mindkettejük végső érve a terrorizmus. Úgyhogy jó lesz figyelni.

* Még azok az államok is – most nem jut eszembe a nevük –, akik nincsenek közvetlen kapcsolatban a terrorizmussal. show less

I definitely liked it, and it pretty much shook my entire perception of peoplehood - reading the brief section on the Bulgars and how they had split from the Avars is totally and utterly unlike anything I was taught in school in terms of the origins of the Bulgars. Being Bulgarian, this really caused me to reconsider everything I was taught about our historical continuity as a people - a concept which really is quite ridiculous. Geary does a great job in describing the fluidity of identity show more and how ethnicity or peoplehood is a construct, that "peoples" are heterogenous units, constantly evolving and amalgamating, sometimes disappearing altogether in the course of history.

The writing was excellent, and I felt the book was an appropriate length. What I would have liked to hear more is how exactly the notion of nationhood was formed in the 18th and 19th centuries, and how historians manipulated and reinterpreted history for their political purposes. But I guess he indirectly tells us that, because the peoples of the Late Antiquity themselves invented genealogies and histories to consolidate and validate their political power. In reality this has always happened and will continue to happen, and it is important for us Europeans (and all peoples, really) to realize the mechanics of ethnogenesis and not to be fooled by nationalist rhetoric. Not that I necessarily have a quarrel with nationalism as such, but I do object to the politicizing and manipulation of history as is so often observed within such political groups.

This book also reminded me why history and the study of history is important - history means a lot in terms of our self-identification, and it's important to be informed when political leaders use and abuse history for their own aims. It's important that historians speak out on issues such as these and break down illusions of the past that can be extremely harmful.

The reason I'm giving a 3.5-star rating and not a 4-star, is that I found the middle section a bit dull, to be honest. The fusion of barbarians and Romans was described in too much detail for a layman like me, and I had difficulty keeping up sometimes. What that really tells me is that I should step up my game and learn some more about my history - something which this book has inspired me to do. (less) show less