Reviews for Life of Dion

The average rating for Life of Dion based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2010-04-25 00:00:00 Calli Wright Charles of Anjou is a really interesting guy. He's the youngest brother of one of the most famous medieval kings, Saint Louis IX, but in some ways Charles stands out a bit more just because he seems to pop out of nowhere. As a royal son with four older brothers, Charles should have been destined for a career in the Church or perhaps a small principality in a corner of French royal lands. Instead, he wound up with what can only really be described as a pseudo-empire, ruling Maine, Anjou, Provence, southern Italy and Sicily (the Regno), and Albania. He also had the titular claim to being King of Jerusalem, Imperial Vicar of Tuscany, and Senator of Rome. He had three kingdoms and lots of influence to swing around elsewhere. He even made a go at conquering Constantinople. The fact that it had pretty much fallen apart by 1282 (in the awesomely-named Sicilian Vespers) doesn't take away from the fact that it was a crazy accumulation of land and influence. Because of this, Jean Dunbabin's biography of Charles is fascinating based on her subject alone. She's very good at indicating the wide swatch of Charles's power and how he was constantly busy in all of these regions. I also liked that it discussed the less political aspect of Charles's career - chapters on his role as patron of the University of Naples and on his relationship with troubadours are really interesting. Considering the sheer number of names, dates and places going on throughout Charles's life, Dunbabin does a reasonably good job of keeping her narrative understandable. Unfortunately, her work also has a few problems that prevent it from being an entirely satisfying biography. The first is its organization. Chapters are organized by either theme or geographic location. While this allows for some nice case studies of the different regions of Charles's pseudo-Empire (it works especially nicely in Anjou), it also artificially separates the different aspects of Charles's reign, frequently making it difficult to know exactly why something is happening or how it impacts something else. Almost all discussion of the papacy, for example, is pressed into a single chapter, despite the fact that papal actions frequently had an important impact on Charles's activities in other regions. This is especially frustrating because of Dunbabin's repeated insistence on the interdependence of Charles's various lands. Similarly, discussion of Charles's relationship with Venice skips from overt tension in 1268 to an alliance in 1281 without any real explanation of what happened in between. A more chronological approach would have its own problems, but I do think it would have made for a better work. Also a bit of comparative work would have helped - Dunbabin spends a lot of time on Charles's administrative work, especially his attention to detail. He apparently kept copies of correspondence and administrative documentation in triplicate (or quadruplicate!) and was very hands-on in most of his regions. Much is made also of Charles's exceptional legal courts. It would have been helpful to know exactly these lined up with other kings of the 13th century, to know whether Charles was a reformer, an innovator, or just an efficient applicator of existing practice. Finally, any attempts to get to know Charles as a person also wind up being dead ends. Dunbabain rejects the narrative sources as being biased and the bureaucratic documents as being too formulaic, leaving her very little to work with. She always takes an optimistic view of Charles, even when it's perhaps not terribly warranted (Charles's taxation and military service system seemed to have been pretty brutal, even if it wasn't all that much worse than his predecessors). It's a good corrective to Charles as Power-Hungry-Ambition-Machine, but a bit of an over-correction all the same. Still, thought it's not a perfect biography it's certainly an interesting one, and great for learning about Italian/Mediterranean affairs in the second half of the 13th century.

Review # 2 was written on 2016-09-23 00:00:00 Cory Lucas Very interesting book showing the rare German experience. It covers a short time (June-July 1943) with great detail, so we experience the daily grind. Steinhoff fought the whole war and this book focusses on his short time in Sicily, after the fall of North Africa and the invasion of Sicily. I wondered why & he explains in the epilogue that it was when he first thought Germany would lose the war. His experience of facing crazy odds, being constantly bombed, retreating from airfield to airfield seemed very much like what the RAF faced in France in 1940. Steinhoff's account was well interspersed with descriptions of the Battle of Britain, Russia & his short stint in North Africa. The English edition I read did not tell me when Steinhoff published the original German one, but he mentions later it was 25 years after the end of the war, so 1970. The English translation includes words like "scramble" etc. I wonder if that was the translator using English equivalents, or if there really were evocative German words that said the same.