Profiles in Power: Joseph II, by T.C.W. Blanning
Reading the last posts here, I was reminded of this book.
It bugged me right from the start - it wasn't actually what the author wrote, it was the way he wrote it. But it wasn't until the following sentence that I wanted to scream and throw it against the wall:
These structural reasons for Habsburg backwardness had been exacerbated by historical development.
Backwardness? Backwardness?!
Admittedly, I might be biased here, because I ♥ the Habsburg empire. Like, a lot. BUT. In my book, using the word "backward" is the cardinal sin in historical writing. If something's backwards or progressive is deeply subjective and depending on the time, place and society you live in. It's judgy. It's condescending. It's not yours to decide, especially if you want to write a history textbook. All of which the author specifically pointed out and then proceeded to compare British and the Habsburg empire in the most biased way possible and haha, look at those dumbass Habsburg dudes and their pathetic attempts at modernity.
ARGH.
I mean, yeah sure. The British Empire is probably closer to our modern idea of state and government than the Habsburg Empire was. That's because there's a vast difference in structure and historical development between the two of them. See what I did there? I SAID THE SAME THING YOU SAID, AUTHOR, JUST IN A LESS PATRONIZING MANNER. How about you try that next time? THANK YOU.
Oh, also: apparently Joseph II was a stickler for detail because he had bad sex. I wish I could quote it directly, but alas, I gave the book back as soon as I could and I won't touch it. Ever. Again. It gives me a brain aneurysm just thinking of it. Obviously Joseph II had bad sex! Every person in history who was convinced of an idea and pursued it in a somewhat over-zealous manner must have had bad sex! Of course! You see, good sex and firm convictions are mutually exclusive! Again: I buy that Joseph had unhappy marriages. I can imagine he was a very difficult person to get along with! And maybe he even had bad sex! (I don't know. I also don't care, but that's a different story.) I'm all for psychology in my textbooks. But it felt like the author was just taking a cheap, mean-spirited shot at Joseph rather than trying to do genuine characterization. I really wish the author wouldn't have hand waved his complex if flawed reform programme like that.
Conclusion: THOSE WACKY BACKWARDS HABSBURGS. THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE GOOD SEX, HUR HUR.
It bugged me right from the start - it wasn't actually what the author wrote, it was the way he wrote it. But it wasn't until the following sentence that I wanted to scream and throw it against the wall:
These structural reasons for Habsburg backwardness had been exacerbated by historical development.
Backwardness? Backwardness?!
Admittedly, I might be biased here, because I ♥ the Habsburg empire. Like, a lot. BUT. In my book, using the word "backward" is the cardinal sin in historical writing. If something's backwards or progressive is deeply subjective and depending on the time, place and society you live in. It's judgy. It's condescending. It's not yours to decide, especially if you want to write a history textbook. All of which the author specifically pointed out and then proceeded to compare British and the Habsburg empire in the most biased way possible and haha, look at those dumbass Habsburg dudes and their pathetic attempts at modernity.
ARGH.
I mean, yeah sure. The British Empire is probably closer to our modern idea of state and government than the Habsburg Empire was. That's because there's a vast difference in structure and historical development between the two of them. See what I did there? I SAID THE SAME THING YOU SAID, AUTHOR, JUST IN A LESS PATRONIZING MANNER. How about you try that next time? THANK YOU.
Oh, also: apparently Joseph II was a stickler for detail because he had bad sex. I wish I could quote it directly, but alas, I gave the book back as soon as I could and I won't touch it. Ever. Again. It gives me a brain aneurysm just thinking of it. Obviously Joseph II had bad sex! Every person in history who was convinced of an idea and pursued it in a somewhat over-zealous manner must have had bad sex! Of course! You see, good sex and firm convictions are mutually exclusive! Again: I buy that Joseph had unhappy marriages. I can imagine he was a very difficult person to get along with! And maybe he even had bad sex! (I don't know. I also don't care, but that's a different story.) I'm all for psychology in my textbooks. But it felt like the author was just taking a cheap, mean-spirited shot at Joseph rather than trying to do genuine characterization. I really wish the author wouldn't have hand waved his complex if flawed reform programme like that.
Conclusion: THOSE WACKY BACKWARDS HABSBURGS. THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE GOOD SEX, HUR HUR.