The Inheritance of Rome - Illuminating the Dark Ages (Chris Wickham, 2009)

The author had two main goals if I understand things correctly. First, he wanted to debunk the notion that the era from 400 - 1000 was a simple "dark" age wedged between the "fall" of Rome and the stirrings of modernity. Second, he observes the many claims that were made, probably mostly in the 19th and 20th centuries, about the birth of European nations, with politicians searching for roots in the 400-1000 era that would support whatever borders or ideology they were pushing for at the time.

I liked the book a bunch, though it did slow down a bit along the way. Part of this is a scope problem - even if sources in this area are somewhat limited, it is a daunting task to cover all of Europe and beyond over five centuries.

I do think his two main tasks are important. He does a good job of explaining how the transition of Roman power in the west took place over a long period of time; barbarians having served in the Roman army and as administrators etc. How Roman customs and forms survived with varying strength over time.

It is interesting to read how the church and the state grew in complementary ways - each needed the others. Also how land was donated to monasteries -turns out this was a good way for families to continue to control blocs of property (if not providing some afterlife insurance). Parish churches as a later development, with generally unschooled local priests becoming another control mechanism.

Tax systems - Romans maintained a land tax, which permitted feeding cities and keeping huge standing armies. Few other systems could pull this off. Kings started giving away land to nobles; which was tricky business given the finite supply.

Some strong centralized kingdoms developed, especially Charlemagne. But then devolves into local powers over time. Who become increasingly adept at limiting the freedom of peasants, skimming off more of their work time and production. Castles start appearing . . . feudalism in the offing. With weaker kings, stronger local nobility.

Pilgrimage sites as big business - wise investment to come up with a bunch of relics.

He also threw in some information about Scandinavia, Russia, Bulgaria, etc. - much later developing.

The Management Myth - Why the Experts Keep Getting it Wrong (Matthew Stewart, 2009)

Very unusual subject matter for me, as I make a point of not reading business books.

I found it highly interesting and probably quite useful, though I don't really know enough about the subject to put the author's views in context.

He did think that studying philosophy and history is better preparation for business than going to business school - so I was instantly inclined to agree with whatever else he wrote.

The author intersperses anecdotes about his education and his forays into the business consulting world with observations about the history of business schools. Names I've heard but know nothing about - Frederick Taylor, Elton Mayo (and the famous Western Electric study) - basically pointing out how these folks sought to imbue business theory with a scientific precision, when actually doing nothing of the sort.

The business school elites were only too happy to play along - otherwise how to legitimize their very new (and unproven) schools being promoted at some of the most famous Eastern universities?

Stewart discusses why all this may be worse than just nonsense - folks like Taylor (he of the pig iron loading study) emphasized the separation of management from labor and the view of laborers as inputs, not to mention the faux science.

He has lots of fun skewering the recent pop psychology business writers - the Jim Peters types. They somehow pass off cliches and truisms as wisdom, and are paid handsomely for doing so.

Also highly entertaining: his descriptions of the management approach (and oddities) in his consulting firm. Plenty of that was reminiscent of the management issues in the professional service firms in which I've worked.

Very much worthwhile.

Old Goriot (Honore de Balzac, 1835)

I like Balzac's writing. Though this one, not quite so well as Cousin Bette or Lost Illusions.

Old Goriot is another part of "La Comédie humaine"(as were the novels mentioned above). One of the first where the "recurring characters" conceit is developed.

In this one, a successful merchant gives all to his two daughters - each accomplishes an upscale marriage greased by lots of his cash; each promptly forgets his kindnesses and is mostly embarrassed by having him around. And Old Goriot didn't have enough cash to live comfortably at all, though he never stopped adoring his daughters.

So Goriot lives in a boarding house with the protagonist, Eugène de Rastignac. Rastignac is from the provinces; many nice qualities; but overcome with the urge to climb socially. (So he reminds of Lucien Chardon from Lost Illusions.) The boarding house also features a criminal-in-hiding.

This book is set during the Bourbon restoration.

Wikipedia says it is considered the "essential" Balzac novel, that it was highly influential, etc.