Where the Crawdads Sing (Delia Owens, 2018)

(368 pages)

Book club selection (via Emily; session held 23 June 2019).

Marsh Girl survives, thrives in a marshy setting along the Carolina coast.

Highly readable.  Author is interesting - extensive scientific background, a couple nonfiction works to her credit - this is her first novel.

My favorite part of the book - the descriptions of nature as it occurs in these coastal marshlands - this sets the stage right at the beginning of the book.  A bit reminiscent of the Kolyma Stories descriptions.  I don't know much about this part of the world, and apparently the weather is harsher than I realized (one consequence being lots of shipwrecks in the early days).  I also liked the short recitation of the history of the types of folks who settle here - mostly losers, convicts, antisocial folk, escaped slaves.  This element alone made the book worth reading.

The plot line was engaging enough, moved along well, if a bit simplistic.  Protagonist (Kya) was too precious - no school, mom leaves at 6, dad a drunk - yet somehow a poet, artist, naturalist, author, hot chick, able to hide in the marsh - even in the land of novels (where somewhat-too-amazing characters should be, and are, accepted), that was a bit much.  Chase and his girl posse right out of central casting, as were Tate and Scupper and the sheriff's department.  Murder mystery, courtroom drama, of course.

This will be a movie for sure.

Twilight of Empire: The Tragedy at Mayerling and the End of the Habsburgs (King and Wilson, 2017)

(352 pages)

Book club selection (via POC; session held 2 June 2019 (though I was in Virginia so missed it)).

I love reading about this period of history and this part of the world.  But I didn't altogether love this book - the author just was way too focused on the scandal-details surrounding the Mayerling hunting lodge incident - sure it was important in the arc of the monarchy, but it was just one fairly minor episode in the overall story (if titillating). 

I would have liked much more Austria-context, and a lot less Mayerling-minutiae.

Still, the book did provide some insights about the Austrian royalty in its final period.  And in working through various conspiracy theories surrounding the Mayerling incident, the author did get into some of the challenges faced by the empire as the 19th century drew to a close, including divisions among Czechs, Hungarians, and other groups.  It's impressive that the conglomeration hung together as long as it did - I often think it receives more ridicule than it deserves.

Interpreter of Maladies (Jhumpa Lahiri, 1999)

(198 pages)

A collection of nine short stories.  Most concern the experiences of Indians who have emigrated to America; a couple stories are set in India.

I liked it.  Of course we now know several folks from India who are living in the U.S.  I don't know that the stories have any overlap whatsoever with the experiences of folks we know, but in general it's useful to get this perspective.  While the comparison is rather strained (because so much more of the heritage was in common), the book even made me think a bit about 19th-century Luxembourg emigrants to the U.S.

I think my favorite story was the last one - about the Bengali gentleman who took a job in the Boston area, rented a room with a (very) elderly lady, brought over an arranged-marriage wife, and settled in the Northeast U.S.

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume II (Edward Gibbon, 1776)

(592 pages)

Volume 2 of 3 (Volume 1 addressed here).

I continue to very much enjoy Gibbon's writing (both substance and style).  And it's impressive to consider how well his work has held up after near 250 years.

This volume circles back to consider the conduct of the Roman government towards Christianity starting with Nero, and continues with general overview until just a few years past the final separation of the Eastern and Western empires (364 AD).

As with Volume 1 - much discussion about the various emperors and the way responsibilities were split.  Major characters included Constantine and his sons; Julian (something of a philosopher-warrior, sought to restore paganism).  Battles go on in both east and west; barbarians and adjacent empires or nations get rowdy; successful emperors seem to rise up sufficiently regularly to hold things together reasonably well.  But not always.  Toward the end of this volume - some of the large-scale wars with Persia that contributed to the mutual exhaustion of Rome and Persia prior to the emergence of Islam.

The discussions about Christianity in this context are pretty interesting.  Many elements for Gibbon resonate with this discussion - where the author was focused on the death of Jesus and the few ragtag followers in place at that time - yet Christianity grew into a powerful worldwide institution - how??  Gibbon pretty staunchly (if somewhat covertly, given that he desired to get published) anti-clerical, anti-organized church - so I try to read him with that in mind.

While Christianity clearly was making some strides, so much of it comes back to Constantine.  Like Mohammed (discussed here), Jesus didn't leave behind a comprehensive written roadmap - later generations (in many cases "very" later!) did that - perhaps they were divinely inspired, perhaps other considerations mattered.  Christianity had some maddeningly tricky concepts - main example being how to define the relationship between "three persons in one God" - not addressed in the Gospels or other early writings.  Arians - known forever as "Arian heretics" after 325 - the best-known not-orthodox (as it turned out) variant.  Various groups in various geographies had various interpretations - and they definitely annoyed one another, but some coexistence seemed to be the norm.

But now there is an emperor with minimal theological background but intense interest in getting everyone on the same page - Council of Nicea, 325 - now there's the imperial juice to define heretics, and make life miserable for them.

And with the imposition of a Roman/imperial superstructure for the church - gobs of money at stake - but not for the not-orthodox clergy.  This of course encouraged intense competition for bishoprics.  Venality arises early, it didn't wait until the Reformation - already imperial Rome found it necessary to pass laws preventing "spiritual adviser" priests from taking huge bequests from wealthy Romans (typically female it seems).

Constantine generally revered for legitimizing Christianity's position in the Roman empire, but wow, was the Roman administrative structure really a good thing for Christianity?   Folks occupying what I'll call "offices" in the 4th century church adopted the outlook and mannerisms of the imperial government.  Not to mention, look what attempted enforcement of orthodoxy has achieved.

Gibbon has an interesting discussion about the difference between the church in the east and the west - he describes the westerners as essentially too rude in the sense that they (recent or present barbarians depending on one's viewpoint) lacked a history of parsing theology minutiae, and thus tended to adopt what was put in front of them by the leadership.  In the east - endless energy to fight about nuances of the nature of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and so much else.  We end up with various sub-groups within Christianity to this day, all originating from the eastern church.

Julian was an interesting character - not a willing emperor - preferred hanging around as a philosopher in Athens - but became highly effective, including in battle.

Nexus (Ramez Naam, 2012)

(464 pages)

Book club selection (via Lon; session held 28 April 2019).

This wasn't one of my favorite books - lots of action, but rather in an "I (the author) am hoping for a movie deal" sort of way; characters not very credible (though that might be chalked up to the strange drugs they take?)

The book does cause one to think, if just a bit, about how far and how fast we might go in terms of enhancing human intelligence, permitting folks to share their thoughts, etc.

I'm no expert but I think current experiences with "driverless" cars indicates that in our lifetimes, we won't come anywhere near the technologies described in this book.

Author confuses what I consider intellectual horsepower -  compute power - with wisdom.  Folks like Kade, Samantha, the Chinese post-human - had they lived a lot?  read a lot?  learned a lot?  developed judgment and experience to go along with compute power?  Somehow they're supposed to exercise all this power wisely?

Lots of blather about the ecstasy of sharing another's thoughts - what's that about?  Why is it so great?  No real limits on sharing here - yet people have forever exposed themselves gradually to others, for good reason, and often call a halt.  Understanding is a lengthy process. Somehow these wonder drugs are supposed to short-circuit what humans have evolved in terms of communication, and this is great?

I'd say the drones were the coolest tech in the book.

Naivete of the lead characters re dangerous uses of the "nexus 5" drug was unbelievable.

Kolyma Stories (Varlam Shalamov, written between 1954 and 1973)

(734 pages)

I really, really liked this book (actually it's three books - Kolyma Stories; The Left Bank; and The Spade Artist; I decided to read all three in one shot rather than breaking into separate sessions).

Another favorite, highly recommended.  I very much took my time reading it.

Initially I was worried about redundancy with prior reading on the camps in Russia, especially Solzhenitsyn  and/or Primo Levi's wonderful book, or books on the Nazi camps.

But it wasn't redundant.  Shalamov has an entirely unique voice.  I see the Chekhov comparison but wouldn't be able to explain it.  Spare, unsentimental - yet lyrical (perhaps because of this)?  Short story format is not at all my favorite - Shalamov makes it work so beautifully, including in many stories that run just a few pages.  Heartbreaking, often - but not hopeless.

There is never any doubt that Shalamov lived through (more accurately: suffered, survived) that about which he wrote.  A sad life in so many ways, but look what he left us. 15 years in the camps.

Thoughts -

1.  I sometimes wonder "what can I really learn" from stories of humans functioning in such extreme conditions - how can this be instructive, even relevant, to me?  Don't know the answer, maybe I just found the stories here well-written and compelling?  But it feels like more.  Then I think that so much literature is set in more or less extreme settings - whether war or natural disaster or crime or whatever - not sure how to think about this.

2.  I'm not finding much new these days in the stories set in Nazi world.  Perhaps because the canvas there, while fascinating in so many ways, is relatively limited - only a few years in power, then rapid movement in a war setting; smaller geography (fewer remote places); and bad guys that almost feel a bit cartoonish.

3.  In comparison the Soviet canvas goes on for decades, and includes incredibly remote places - where war and political change back in Europe didn't disturb much; where all of those years resulted in interrogators, prison guards, informers, exiles, NKVD types, who in some sense could be considered "regular people" in that continuing society. (Even a longer history if we include the similar behaviors from tsarist times.)

4.  And the setting for Shalamov's stories is even starker because of Kolyma's specific climate - extreme cold so much of the year - and extreme geographic isolation.  And the policy of sustained near-starvation and overwork - specific calorie counts - unfavored prisoners slated for "heavy physical work" only (meaning a quick death sentence).

5.  Shalamov's focus isn't so much on the cruelties of the system (though those are not overlooked), but on the way prisoners - including literary folks like this author - functioned, and tried to survive, at least until giving up.  Entirely unromantic.  Dealing with gangsters - apparently they are organized in every prison.  Political prisoners.  In particular political prisoners with the dreaded "T" (Trotskyist) marked in their file.  Nonpoliticals (such as "ordinary" thieves, rapists, murderers) favored in this world, relatively speaking.

6.  Shalamov excellent with descriptions of the local geography - taiga, dwarf pines, plants/animals - even rivers and streams - struggling against the cold.  Kolyma!  Just look up the city of Magadan (the local metropolis, lying well south of the camps) on a map.

7.  By far the longest story - doesn't even have a plot - recounts the author getting into paramedic training classes - describes individually all the students and teachers - fascinating look, folks from around the huge USSR with unbelievably disparate backgrounds who were selected for a wide variety of more or less understandable reasons.  Initially each is desperate to stay in the program mostly for the incrementally better food.  They weren't in the First Circle, but at least were no longer near the bottom circles.  Getting the paramedic position saved Shalamov's life.

8.  Spouses hoping for the best, but destined for the worst.  Some imagined they could repeat the experience of the famous Decembrist wives, but it was not to be.  Camp bosses knew how to take advantage; visits to the spouse invariably denied.

9.  Of the three books - the first is pretty grim - mostly about life in the camps.  The second was my favorite - broader look - includes transit prisons, interrogation prisons, paramedic world, lots of hospital action.  The third overlapped thematically with the first two to a considerable extent, but then moved on to discuss Shalamov's last days in Kolyma - the releases after Stalin finally died - his lengthy return trip to Moscow - those tales are amazing in their own way.

Go, Went, Gone (Jenny Erpenbeck, 2017)

320 pages

Book club selection (via Zach; session held 17 March 2019).

Newly retired university professor (Richard) - lives alone - spots a group of African asylum-seekers in a Berlin park, and gets involved.

I liked it - author's main goal seems to be humanizing refugees at a time when that isn't always happening.  But she idealizes them a bit as uniformly thoughtful, gentle work-seekers; doesn't explain why they are all working-age men, etc.

Richard lives on a lake and there is a subplot about a person drowning there, an unrecovered body.  I guess it relates to these folks crossing the Mediterranean, too often unsuccessfully.

Richard and his wife (now dead) didn't have a very good relationship, not quite sure how that fit the tale.

Author threads in the East Berlin - West Berlin border, crossings, etc.  Which is an interesting comparison though I don't know that it leads us anywhere.

Some useful points about arbitrary borders, movements of peoples - but nothing much on all the hard questions - what policy should countries be adopting to deal with immigration?  Including what types of special provisions for legitimate asylum seekers?  How to think of sufferers in countries not adjacent to the Mediterranean or other borders - do they count?  How much to help these folks relative to domestic downtrodden in each country?

And:  how many folks can a country, or a given community within a country, absorb without losing the common culture that does underpin communities?  Throughout the book the author is citing things that are distinctively German (or Western or Christian) - Bach, Oedipus, Sundays of Advent, Christmas, Goethe, etc.  Universal human shared values run deeper yes, but the localized stuff is still important.  Often pointed out (not in this book) how Westerners altered cultures they encountered, but . . .

All of this seems much more difficult in Europe than in the US - we are protected by oceans from most random arrivals, don't have as many international borders, have lots of history absorbing immigrants, etc.

The Lost World (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1912)

(178 pages)

Of course the Sherlock Holmes books are quite excellent.  I had rather forgotten about this book - one of just a few by Sir ACD featuring "Professor Challenger" - was reminded of it as our little book club read this book, to which "The Lost World" owes its setting and plenty of plot elements and details.

It's purely a romp; a tale; thoroughly enjoyable.  Four Londoners explore a lost world.

Heinrich Schliemann was considered a bit of a wrecker for his approach in excavating Troy, but he had nothing on these high-spirited fellows. 

Perhaps my favorite scenes are those taking place at the Royal Geographic Society just before and just after the expedition.

Sir ACD can write!

Memoirs (Ulysses S. Grant, published 1885)

(780 pages)

Another book that I had never quite gotten to, despite repeatedly seeing recommendations.  Well worth reading.  Interesting that he came to write this in times of financial trouble (and eventually poor health) well after serving as president.  Of course not a professional writer - but much enjoyed his straightforward style.

Early portion regarding his selection to West Point and his challenges there.  Serves in Mexican War (and is bluntly critical of it); here he is exposed to many folks who he'll serve with or against in the Civil War.  Also doing quartermaster stuff which I suspect was very helpful down the line.  Transferred to the west coast in 1850s and the discussions of San Francisco (financial challenges sound familiar - boom-town cooks getting paid more than high ranking officers) and Oregon were interesting.

He was truly a nobody in military terms - basically out of the army when Civil War breaks out - took on some minor tasks for the army coming out of Illinois and had some value because of education and Mexican experience.

Consistent success leads to a larger role in the West.  Most of my Civil War reading has been weighted toward the war in the east - so it was interesting to read more about the west.  His discussion of the Vicksburg campaign was interesting - gives a sense of the challenges and risks of attacking an entrenched enemy while dealing with rivers, tributaries, flooding.  Great accomplishment that easily could have turned out badly.

As successes continue he takes over Army of the Potomac; the difficulties finishing off the Army of Northern Virginia take the war into 1865.  Grant as the relentless pursuer - Lincoln liked this after a string of too-cautious leaders - constantly calling for immediate pursuit if the enemy line is broken (this part sounded like Napoleon).  Appomattox and Lee's surrender. 

Discussions of interactions with Lincoln.  Candid assessments of many of the generals - Sherman and Sheridan his favorites, he also much liked David Porter (admiral key to Vicksburg and some subsequent campaigns).

He often quotes from orders issued during campaigns - the brevity and clarity is striking - these were handwritten often at night, often when the situation wasn't clear.  Impressive.

Yes it's autobiographical and sometimes you can sense when he's providing details intended to respond to criticism that had surfaced along the way.  But that's OK.

Recommended.

The March of Folly - From Troy to Vietnam (Barbara Tuchman, 1984)

(411 pages)

Somewhat similar to this collection by the same author - she writes a number of essays each interesting in its own right, the puts them in a book and seeks to bind them together by a theme that feels a little forced.  But each is valuable, and the whole is much worth reading.

Four essays here -

First she reviews the "folly" of the Trojans in accepting the Greek gift.  I was reading this concurrently with the Odyssey, and hadn't recalled that the Trojan horse story is recounted in the Odyssey (not the Iliad).  Also hadn't recalled the role of Laocoon, and the serpent-y events that inspired the famous statues.  Cassandra's gift/curse.

Next - she discusses the Renaissance popes and the events just prior to the Reformation.  I've oft read about the sale of indulgences but she provides an interesting discussion here; the idea of expanding the market by ruling that indulgences can benefit poor souls in purgatory - profitable!  Also interesting to think about this book about the early Church, and just how far the Church of Rome strayed from its roots by this era.  Consequences of Constantine. 

Third is a section reviewing the "folly" of the British government in dealing with the colonists - the view that independence was not inevitable.  Lots of detail from the British perspective, most of it new.  I do like that she points out that Britain wasn't "ruined" by loss of the colonies - instead Britain advanced to its apogee - mistaken belief that colonies enrich the mother country - individual entrepreneurs can and do make out quite fabulously (especially if armed with government-sanctioned monopoly) but mother country as a whole doesn't seem to profit.

Fourth is a discussion of the folly in Vietnam - so resonant with today's Middle East/Afghanistan errors.  More of a focus on World War II and the French days - that part was new to me.  The other aspects have been covered pretty well via the Ken Burns documentary, I also liked this book quite a bit.

The Odyssey (Homer, 8th century BC (7th century?)) (translated by Emily Wilson)

(525 pages)

I much enjoyed reading this then-new translation back in 2008; this 2018 translation was receiving rave reviews so I gave it a try. 

It's great - highly recommended.  Translator is remarkably skillful at using short words, active phrases.  In the introduction she explains that she decided to use iambic pentameter - different than the original Greek, but customary/suitable for English.  She also states that she decided to restrict herself to the exact number of lines used by Homer - a "difficult constraint" - she "wanted a narrative pace that could match its stride to Homer's nimble gallop".  (That phrase from the introduction gives a glimpse of what she did with the translation.)

Her introduction runs 80 pages and is uniformly helpful, interesting.

I'm not seeing a reason to recount the plot because it's so well known (and because I briefly did so in the above 2008 link anyway).  So many stories that are essentially immortal in their own right, let alone to consider that they are all collected in this single epic. 

Also needless to say - this has been read and enjoyed for centuries (millennia, actually) - that won't stop.

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Volume I (Edward Gibbon, 1776)

(567 pages)

Volume 1 of 3. (Volumes 4-6, which I've not purchased (and not sure whether I will), address Constantinople.)

"Introduction" is excellent on its own - discusses why someone like Gibbon (and others of Enlightenment era) were so interested in Rome's failure - considering potential seeds of failure in their own intellectual/political world, what could they learn from the Roman experience?  Gibbons's interaction with David Hume, Adam Smith, Johnson & Boswell (unfriendly); Joshua Reynolds does his portrait - what an era.

Gibbons commences with a summary from the second century AD (now CE); this volume moves into the fourth century.  The names of the emperors; all of the battles; the dates; the details - little of this will remain in memory - yet the work seems indispensable.  All the familiar issues.  The Praetorian guard getting out of control - reminds of the Janissaries or the Streltsky.  Dictatorial powers.  Several "good" emperors who can hold the borders and generally restore internal order.  Many bad emperors - they are vilified, while the good/popular ones are deified.  Succession challenges - family members by birth or adoption, etc.  Long stretches where no emperor dies a natural death.

Lengthy discussions of the barbarians, including the Germans in particular.  Hiring barbarians to assist with defense; significant downsides from doing so.  Battles in east and west.

Discusses Rome's use (or non-use, in the early days) of physical walls in various areas, in a manner consistent with the discussion in this book.

Emperors recognize that the size of the empire had made governing unwieldy for a single individual.  Experiments with more than one emperor (groups of two and even four), designated successors; eventually the eastern and western parts split permanently.

The famous passages considering the effect of Christianity on the empire; recall that Gibbons is writing during the Enlightenment and with awareness of clerical issues over the centuries.  He takes widespread criticism for these passages, seeks to defend them.

His writing style is quite wonderful.  Dense; can pack contrasting concepts in just a few words, often landing in an unexpected place.  It draws the reader along.

The discussion of religion among the pagans is similar to that included in this work.  Lengthy consideration of Constantine (also as done in that same work).

I'm genuinely looking forward to volumes 2 and 3.

The Ghost Map - The Story of London's Most Terrifying Epidemic - and How It Changed Science, Cities, and the Modern World (Steven Johnson, 2007)

(256 pages)

Book club selection (via Nick; session held 17 February 2019).

I liked this - a good reminder of medicine's primitive state in mid-19th century.  Main objection (from me and the other readers) - the author probably had enough material for a lengthy article, but not enough for a book.  Much of the second half was just meandering on more or less related topics.

I refer to medicine's then-primitive state - yet much of the discussion reminded of how humble everyone should be to this day when it comes to medical matters.  Confirmation bias continues to reign; widely-accepted recommendations continue to be drastically changed; etc.  Such a difficult field.  (Said from the perspective of a thoroughly uninformed layperson.)

Many echoes for this so-interesting book - some progress by 1918 but not all that much.

The hero of the story - John Snow - very impressive - from a time when an individual could be an expert in more than one area.  In addition to helping track cholera - he had a very successful pioneering career with anesthesia (hired to assist Queen Victoria).

The Triumph of Christianity - How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World (Bart D. Ehrman, 2018)

(294 pages)

I wouldn't say I loved the book, but I definitely would recommend it.  Author gives some ideas on how to think about the period between Jesus's ascension to heaven and the late Roman empire.

Interesting discussion about what it meant to be a "pagan" to those who were pagans.  The term didn't exist.  Religion wasn't organized with any hierarchy (though priests or temple officials had varying degrees of authority and/or respect).  There wasn't really any contrasting religious approach (except a few Jews who didn't fit the prevailing narrative) - everyone just knew that it was appropriate and helpful (or at least not harmful) to observe the various rituals, mostly sacrifices.  Multiple gods - generally with supra-human characteristics - and always room to accommodate more gods.  Religion didn't really involve ethics - mostly cult sacrifices - ethics were thought of separately.

Which helps explain why Christianity was so disruptive.  Its adherents rejected all the other gods and were willing to be martyrs - this level of intensity was unusual, and attention-grabbing.  And conversion was a zero-sum game for the first time - one more Christian meant one less "pagan".  A future of religious wars lay ahead - so much more at stake in this new religious construct.

Author talks at length about how early Christianity - mostly lacking any hierarchy - a religion for losers, mostly populated by losers (though always some upper class devotees) - managed to get traction.  St. Paul was absolutely critical to the process - hard to imagine how the religion would have spread without him.  The miracle stories were compelling.  But Jesus of course had written down nothing - so many details to sort out - so much disagreement - including basic things like the relationship between the Father and the Son.  How to determine which interpreters of Jesus's life were correct?  How to determine which fill-in-the-blanks for things not addressed by Jesus were correct, and authored by whom?  Amazing that anything coherent was finalized.  Reminiscent of the discussion in this book about how the Koran and related writings evolved.

Lots of discussion of Constantine - no matter how one interprets his conversion in 312, the consequences were huge.  Including the council at Nicea in 325 (to this day we use the Nicene creed), where Constantine learned that getting theologians on the same page was even more difficult than ordering around soldiers or administrators.

But now the wheels are in motion for a hierarchical structure for the church that significantly echoes the Roman imperial structure - yuck.  Bishops gaining temporal power . . . one can see the trajectory to behaviors that led to the Reformation.

Author also plays with some numbers - assuming x Christians 10 years after Jesus and growth rate of  y%, how many by 312?  Growth rate thereafter?  Again, it's interesting to think about going from a few hundred to millions over say three centuries.

He alludes to Gibbon's famous discussion about the effect of Christianity on Rome, which I happened to be reading at the same time.

Walls - A History of Civilization in Blood and Brick (David Frye, 2018)

(248 pages)

Book club selection (via me; session held 13 January 2019).

I felt like the author could have done more with the topic - but it was sufficiently interesting that I made our book club members read it.  And the discussion was quite good, perhaps because the current government "shutdown" - in significant part over DJT's proposed border wall (or so they claim) - helped focus attention.

Author's main thesis is that one way to look at history is to divide folks into just two camps - those who built walls, and those who lived outside them.  Simplistic?  Yes.  But helpful, and interesting.  Without walls, not much would have ever been built - the marauders were out there and all too ready to destroy.  So civilization depended on walls.  Yet a funny thing happened to the wall builders - they often became weak, timid - to the point where they often had to hire outside-the-wall types to serve as a defense force.  Author walks through examples, including Rome.

He talks about "fear" driving the wall-builder decisions, but that seems over-wrought - sure there was an element of fear, but putting up walls and outsourcing defense seems rational; comparative advantage!

Lots of discussion in the book about the steppe hordes, China, Persia.  Tough folks on the steppes, they never would have built a wall.  Sparta similarly wired.  Reviews the Constantinople walls.  Rome with no internal walls for centuries - the legions were the walls - that changed as conditions deteriorated.  Hadrian's wall.

Walls no longer all that effective for military purposes - but remain relevant, and pretty effective, for border control purposes.  More walls going up in recent times than have been constructed in a long-long time - because they work, if imperfectly.  Often demonized, but deep down how many folks truly believe in open borders?

We lock up our homes, fence our properties - what does that tell us?

Also discusses Berlin wall, though that was a "keep them in" situation. 

Reminder:  civilization is fragile.  Destroying is easy relative to building.