David Nicolle
Silent Hunter
I'd like to suggest if Osprey would reconsider having this author write more books in their Medieval series. Although a good writer his bias in favor of Muslims and his penchant for archaeological topics and illustrations more than the military is irritating and out of place. I like how one Amazon.com reviewer described him: "Osprey's resident Muslim apologist". Having an avid interest in the Medieval Era and it's military history, I cringe when I see another Osprey title bearing his name on it.
I'd like to suggest also if Osprey can have different authors for their books and not a single one dominating a particular time period. It would bring a freshness and variety to the series. Thanks.
Report offensive material
| Paul Williams |
1
Sorry, but I for one find David Nicolle's books very well written. Where as I can see the point of having different authors for a specific time period they would need to be able to cover the particular subject at least as well as the established author (Mr Nicolle) otherwise the reader would be disadvantaged, the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" springs to mind!
Posted: 27-Jul-2009 22:03
Report offensive material
|
| olaf |
2
I agree with Paul, he knows the period thoroughly and is for a change a western european author who is NOT biased towards Europe. I also like his detailed illustrations and explanations on arms and armour.
Posted: 28-Jul-2009 13:15
Report offensive material
|
| Michael Lubrano |
3
I must have missed the Osprey title authored by Dr. Nicolle after he was hired as press spokesman for Palestinian Hamas.........I have well over 20 Osprey books authored by Dr. Nicolle & have never found him to be biased. His details of architecture & fortification has complimented past MAA,Elite & other titles prior to the introduction of the dedicated Fortress series & the occasional "civilian" figure be it an 11th C. Jew or 14th C. Muslim religious judge lend flavor to the color plates.
I think poster Silent Hunter is way off-base with his comments............Besides, there are many other authors such as Christopher Gravett, Terence Wise & Douglas Miller who have done amazing books on Medieval topics if Dr. Nicolle's work is "so offensive" to Silent Hunter's sensitivities.
Posted: 29-Jul-2009 17:13
Report offensive material
|
| GPPearson |
4
Whilst I agree he is a prolific writer and has the lion's share of Osprey's medieval market, he is a specialist in the field, especailly with that of the Arab world. How this makes him an Arab apologist I don't know, seeing as he is dealing with the medieval military history of Islam and the Middle East in general. He is an excellent historian who uses archaeology to reinforce his point and use as evidence, a practice I utilise myself in my own research.
It makes sense for an academic who is well versed in Islamic military history to write on that subject, but in some eyes who view Islam and Muslims in general with suspicious eyes may do well in reading such books by this and other authors. The past cannot be prejudiced by our own means and values (or politics, religion or more unsavoury cultrual views); this is the first rule of any historian, and doing so sullies the past.
Posted: 02-Aug-2009 20:52
Report offensive material
|
| Draconifer |
5
Not as blatant as Professor Magnús Magnússon who in
his prefaced Osprey title Vikings special editions
begins with the remark crowingly "I am a Viking apologist."
Later in the text you see graphic depictions of human
trafficing, implied violation of women,destruction of books,and killing of the elderly.
That seems regrettably Wagnerian in terms of overlooking
grisly truths and romanticising about the historic subject.
Professionalism and indeed one's humanity does call for
a degree of resisting cultural and moral relativism.
A learned man of the twenty first century can't just condone
that barbarity to impressionable minds.
I am skeptical about Niccolle in this instance.
He did write Poitiers 732 A.D. without being overtly sympathetic
to the Islamic armies. The title "Charles Martel turns the Islamic tide" is not a glossy terminology. The content is anything but apologism.
Muslim did loom large in the Middle Ages. That has nothing
to do with any personal bias on Dr. Niccolle's part.
He is an authority on the subject and is a relaible,consistent, and competent author. There was and is a demand for the subject.
For matter it's like saying Samurai history authority Stephen Turnbull
is an apologist for Imperial Japan's atrocities. The times and regimes are
now different beyond inevitable historical parralells.
As far as the critique itself David Nicolle is passionate about his topic. His chosen field and place of study is Middle Eastern. It does offer a differing perspective and Dr. Niccole has never to my knowledge explained his particular interest or feelings about it's legacy in that field of study. Analysis and modern application is not within the scope of that series or publishing company.
Posted: 02-Aug-2009 23:55
Report offensive material
|
| Draconifer |
6
Furthermore on his behalf I must point out archaeology provides
tangible historic evidence that may refute biased or falacious contemporary sources. That's why Niccolle is right to offer archaeological
evidence to complement the text.
Modern historians should strive for relative objectivity as their discpiline requires. The idea is not to take contemporary sources verbatim.
I think that it would be advantageous to for all specialist historians to be as critical and objective about his sources as Western historians and scholars endeavour to be. Overcompensating for a Eurocentrist view is
also a form of bias. Balance and objectivity is more appropriate.
Nicolle is not an apologist but he does in some insignificant instances have a more heavily influenced Middle Eastern school of thought.
He does not to my knowledge offer a moral or ethical judgement however. Critical thinking and analysis of source materials is required of a scholar. To that end he succeeds more often than not.
Posted: 03-Aug-2009 00:02
Report offensive material
|
| edwardthrawn1 |
7
I have to agree with the first post. Although Dr. Nicolle is an excellent writer, his bias very quickly comes out (for example, read the first few lines of his "Yarmuk" title). I must say, I also cringe whenever I see his name on an upcoming title. If those other authors are biased in their fields, other authors should be used to supplement them. Biased history is not history; there must be some sort of balance. However, I cannot begrudge him his archeological expertise, which should always be appreciated in the Osprey books. After all, our knowledge of history is based upon what they have left us.
Posted: 04-Aug-2009 16:44
Report offensive material
|
| Draconifer |
8
Never mind Yarmuk. I think it is quite clear that the Fourth
Crusade and Latin Usurpation was the worst devestation
to hit Constantinople. It ultimately made the Ottoman
Conquest possible. This was done by
Europeans against other Caucasians.
Armies you mention previously did not have to lift a finger
in conquest.
One of the abuses of history is propaganda yet
I don't quite see what references to "Hammas"
and general apologism has to do with specifically
medieval and ancient campaigns.
Honestly it seems tyranny of a ideological faction
in that certain people are promoting one bias v.s. "another".
The point is he is chronicling a historic incident
not writing specifically about contemporary foriegn policies
or applications thereof. It seems his detractors are trying to do
just that. Quite irrelevant.
One could play devil's advocate and claim
as readily that there is a EuroCentrist bias as graphic
massacres of ethnic communities are left
from crusade campaign titles.
Posted: 05-Aug-2009 22:39
Report offensive material
|
| Burdokva |
9
I've read two books written by D.Nicolle and honestly, they were good. I'm no expert on the Medieval Islamic world so I can't comment whether or not he's accurate in his research on military topics, but I can't say I didn't cringe with irritation when I read "Hungary and the Fall of Eastern Europe" and the so-benevolent Ottoman rule for the common peasantry and the dreadfull Eastern European feudal lords. Everything from my education to historical research clearly states otherwise, and while we could argue this is a bi-product of Balkan XIXc nationalism there are more than enough Medieval accounts that disprove him.
I recently read Bertrandon Brokier's account of his travels and he clearly states otherwise, while giving a very objective view on both the Islamic Middle East, Asia Minor and the conquered Balkans.
Is short, I enjoy his expertise on the subject and the attempt to demistify the Europo-centic view on the Medieval era. On the other hand, I do agree he tends to be a bit apologetic at least one one subject (haven't read his Crusades titles so it wouldn't be right to judge) - when he doesn't need to be.
Posted: 06-Aug-2009 22:34
Report offensive material
|
| Draconifer |
10
True that the Ottoman overlords were not benign occupiers.
The other side however is that the title in question on Hungary
and Eastern Europe did not feature in illustration or article
the infamous Vlad Basarab Tepes, a.k.a. Dracula the Impaler, lest we think it simplya matter of East v.s. West. Teutonic knights or the Balkan crusades were not really featured at any length. It's not like the local despots were all that civil to their vassals or serfs. Most serfs seemed
to feel as if it was mostly regime change in terms of foriegn conquest.
You are quite correct however in that Jannissary conscription amongst
other abuses made the Turks comparatively cruel overlords but this
was not the Age of Enlightenment nor were it's rulers a product of
those times.
The fact of the matter is that Europeans are no stranger to killing
one another in massive wars. East v.s West is not all encompassing
in terms of medieval warfare at all.
Posted: 08-Aug-2009 09:22
Report offensive material
|