Salutations,

Could you please point me in the direction of some cogent books/articles that address the historiographical debate surrounding histories status as an art or a science.

I recently read Hyun Jin Kim's The Huns, Rome and the Birth of Europe (CUP, 2013). I was quite excited about it because I think that the “Hunnic” experience hugely contributed to the shared warlord culture of Late Antique Germanic kings and chieftains, and that a lot of elements usually analysed as “Germanic” are more satisfactorily explained as an ensemble of cultural horizons that had spread in this milieu of 5th century commanders. However, I have to agree with Mark Whittow's remarks in his recent review: “in practice it is a missed opportunity.” The properly “Hunnic” side of the book is frustating; even for someone like me who has a pet interest in Central Asian history and the steppe, it is hard not to find that “Eurasian” perspectives are sometimes lacking in detail and explanatory comments. His explanation of the 450s, on the other hand, is fresh and interesting.

However, the most disappointing element (for me) is the last part—though I agree with his views on the role of Hunnic political culture, his discussion of their impact lacks focus, and as a result tries to encompass too many elements at once. Saying that co-kingship in early Germanic kingdoms has counterparts in the steppe is a fine point; creating a fuzzy and all-encompassing category of “feodalism” to describe a great variety of political interactions is not. I also missed a good archaeological discussion of their role—Childeric's cicadas? Burgundian skulls? (even the Sutton Hoo “scepter” might have steppe parallels). Overall, it is disappointing not to see a more thorough engagement with (non-written) evidence. On the upside: a monograph on this theme is something I would really like to write—guess there's still room for it!

A poster on another subreddit recently shared a recently published article concerning 'area denial' in the Gallipoli campaign, using mines, coastal forts, and the geographical conditions which complicated Churchill's plan to 'hold constantinople hostage'. I thought it was really interesting reading.

Choi, T. (2014). Nowhere May They Roam: Ottoman Area-Denial Operations and Lessons for the Strait of Hormuz. Journal Of Military And Strategic Studies, 15(3)

Hecht, Neil S., ed. An Introduction to the History and Sources of Jewish Law. Oxford : New York: Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press, 1996.

This book is incredible. Read it. Now. I actually got it a year ago when someone moved, and it languished on my shelf for all that time, until I happened to see it while reorganizing and thought it was worth a read.

It's a comprehensive text about the historical development of Jewish law, including a discussion of the legal system presented in the bible, other ancient texts, and Rabbinic texts. The format is a series of articles by experts in a particluar field, designed to give a chronological and thorough narrative. It spans thousands of years, and discusses topics that are usually ignored, such as Karaite and Samaritan law. Want to know about a practice whereby people could air their grievances in synagogue by interrupting services and not letting them resume until their complaint was addressed in the Middle Ages? This book discusses it (sadly not at great length). Wanna read about the formation of the Rabbinic establishment in Spain? This is the book for you.

But since legal texts are perhaps the most voluminous written record of Jewish communities, it uses the window provided to give a more social history perspective, too. It talks about the difficulty caused for families because of the number of men who were merchants, spending years apart from their families, for instance. It tries to describe the communal context of the law being discussed. The sheer amount of texts the authors seem to have reviewed is incredible.

Can anybody recommend a good survey of the Nuremberg Trials after the Second World War?