The Penguin History of Europe (Paperback)

~ (Author) "J.M. Roberts was born in Bath and educated at Taunton School and Keble College, Oxford..." (more)
Key Phrases: United States, Great Britain, Middle Ages (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Product Description

Since its publication twenty years ago, J. M. Roberts's monumental History of the World has remained the "unrivaled World History of our day" (A. J. P. Taylor), selling more than a quarter of a million copies worldwide. Now in an equally masterful performance, Roberts displays his consummate skills of exposition in telling the tale of the European continent, from its Neolithic origins and early civilizations of the Aegean to the advent of the twenty-first century. A sweeping and entertaining history, The Penguin History of Europe comprehensively traces the development of European identity over the course of thousands of years, ranging across empires and religions, economics, science, and the arts. Roberts's astute and lucid analyses of the disparate spheres of learning that have shaped European civilization and our understanding of it make The Penguin History of Europe a remarkable journey through the last two centuries.

About the Author

J. M. ROBERTS was a Fellow and Tutor of Oxford University, now retired. His numerous publications include Europe 1880-1945 and The Paris Commune from the Right. In 1985, BBC2 transmitted the series The Triumph of the West, which he wrote and presented.

Product Details

• Paperback: 752 pages
• Publisher: Penguin (Non-Classics) (December 1, 1998)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0140265619
• ISBN-13: 978-0140265613
• Product Dimensions: 7.6 x 5.1 x 1.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (10 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #216,478 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

55 of 57 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars An excellent survey of European history, November 9, 2004

By	Robert Moore (Chicago, IL USA) - See all my reviews (TOP 50 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

At approximately the same time, we were blessed with not one but two single-volume histories of Europe: one by Norman Davies and this one by J. M. Roberts. I have read around in the Davies and have completed this one, and I can point out a couple of differences between the two. One, Davies's history is probably more well rounded and a bit more comprehensive. This partly stems from its greater length. On the other hand, Davies is more willing to grind axes (though I have nothing against axe-grinding myself), while Roberts is almost aggressively neutral on most issues. Roberts simply gives the history as best he can; Davies is apt to brood over the very idea of giving history. If forced to make a recommendation, I would recommend the Davies over this volume by Roberts. There is more personality in Davies's book, and while I admire Roberts's evenhandedness, it doesn't help that much in assisting one through a long book.

And speaking of long books, why would one want to read such a volume as this? It is far too short to be adequate as a history of Europe. Too many things must be mentioned quickly, if at all. For instance, as a former student of the history of philosophy, I was struck by the fact that everything that Roberts says about Descartes, Montaigne, Locke, Leibniz, Berkeley, Hume, Bacon, Spinoza, Kant, Rousseau, Mill, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Sartre could have easily fit onto two pages, with room for an extra paragraph or two. There is simply no room for depth or detail. In other words, at best we will get a bird's eye view of the landscape of European history. All subtlety, all nuances will be indiscernible. The question reasserts itself: is there a point to this?

I think there is. I have over the years read pretty extensively in European and American history, but not systematically. The great thing about a single-volume history is that it allows you to engage in a self-test. I was, of course, already quite aware that there were many things in European history about which I was ignorant, but this book helped me to learn more precisely what it was that I didn't know. For instance, I'm dreadfully ill informed on Baltic, Slavic, Polish, and Russian history. My knowledge of the Habsburgs is spotty. And my knowledge of European pre-history is practically nonexistent.

This is not all. Not only do you learn what you do not know (thus setting the stage for additional self-education in the future), but also it is great to go over what you do know in a larger context. I knew a surprising amount about the French religious wars of the 16th century, but reading about them in a larger context brings home an increased sense of how they fit in the scheme of things. In addition, the book served as a good review for a host of topics, such as the history of Ancient Greece or the Hundred Years War or the years between WW I and WW II.

Is this an ideal way of learning European history? No. In fact, I would not recommend this book for beginners in the subject at all. Instead of immediately striving for an overview, I would recommend instead focusing on a particular period that one finds interesting. Read several books on that first, and then allow oneself to expand. More than that, you must eventually force yourself to expand. What happens eventually is that you will have criss-crossed European history to such a degree that your studies will start to connect up with fascinating ways. The book you have read on WW I will connect with the book by (or about) T. E. Lawrence, which will connect up with a book on the break up of the Ottoman Empire, which will connect up with the book on Byzantine Art. This way you can gain both breadth and depth on the subject. Reading Roberts will only gain breadth, and if one is unfamiliar with at least most of the highpoints, it is unlikely to make much of an impact.

So, I think this book can be helpful to those with prior familiarity of the subject who want to review what they already know, gain some sense of what they don't know, or get a sense of how the whole thing fits together, but I am not sure that this would be at all a good place for a beginner to go to learn about European history.

12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars How to write history, October 7, 2002

By	DeeK "Astrologer/Historian" (Seattle) - See all my reviews

The other reviews for this book make me wonder whether the other reviewers actually read the book.

I found a The Penguin History of Europe (A History of Europe in hardback) a delightful informative read. Mr. Roberts covers history in a way that provides facts without sounding factual. I am researching my own book and found his to be a good starting point for chasing down relevant information. The book is only loosely chronologically based and instead emphasizes topical issues. After I read this work I understood the how each country in Europe related to others worldwide and to history itself. If this book had been available in my high school, I would have looked forward to class!

8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars not for beginners, May 2, 2006

By	Janez (Slovenia) - See all my reviews

A nice book on European history, but I didn't like it as much as I liked his History of the World. For one thing, there is not much more on European history in this book than it was in the former. Secondly, his narrative seems to be aimed at those who already know the history, but need a synthesis, or analysis, not a sequence of facts. This made the reading much harder and, at the end, less informative. And thirdly, maps are very scarce, so unless your geography is perfect, or you have time to check other books while reading, you will not always know where things happened or who was occupying what at some point in time.
Also, I've read complaints about the author's coverage of Poland, and I have to add that the short section on the disintegration of Yugoslavia leaves a lot to be desired. Roberts' judgement here has no substance, and some of his explanations (like why Serbs bombed Dubrovnik) are very shallow. Still, I wouldn't extrapolate this to the other parts of the book, I think saying that he was not particularly interested in the East is enough. In my modest judgment this has something to do with the IMPORTANCE of the countries in question for the history of Europe.
These setbacks aside, I can't think of a better way of writing history. Lucid, concise, critical, synthetic, and, not the least important, incredibly literate.
For those who have never read Roberts, here's a sentence typical of his writing:
Furthermore, many of the Spanish were sincerely horrified at such practices as the Aztec human sacrifices (however hard it may be for us to understand why men easy with the idea of burning Christian heretics should have been so offended).