图书标签:  

喜欢 A History of Eastern Europe 的读者还喜欢

Not very recommended for whoever only looking for a concise history of Eastern Europe, as the authors include much more than that. As its subtitle"Crisis and Change" suggests, it is written in a way more like academic papers instead of a chronicle, so there are too many debates, arguments which might not be useful for some readers.

Not very recommended for whoever only looking for a concise history of Eastern Europe, as the authors include much more than that. As its subtitle"Crisis and Change" suggests, it is written in a way more like academic papers instead of a chronicle, so there are too many debates, arguments which might not be useful for some readers.

Not very recommended for whoever only looking for a concise history of Eastern Europe, as the authors include much more than that. As its subtitle"Crisis and Change" suggests, it is written in a way more like academic papers instead of a chronicle, so there are too many debates, arguments which might not be useful for some readers.

Not very recommended for whoever only looking for a concise history of Eastern Europe, as the authors include much more than that. As its subtitle"Crisis and Change" suggests, it is written in a way more like academic papers instead of a chronicle, so there are too many debates, arguments which might not be useful for some readers.

Not very recommended for whoever only looking for a concise history of Eastern Europe, as the authors include much more than that. As its subtitle"Crisis and Change" suggests, it is written in a way more like academic papers instead of a chronicle, so there are too many debates, arguments which might not be useful for some readers.

这书的翻译糟糕，其他的人已经说了。上半本里面一个波西米亚搞成波斯尼亚大几十页。这校对的还号称是老专家。估计都是手下研究生干的吧。 至于内容，只能说作者是有翻案癖的粉红色社会主义者。分章评判一下 第一部分：到一战时的巴尔干半岛。此章写的极糟。作者不断的为奥斯曼...  

这书的翻译糟糕，其他的人已经说了。上半本里面一个波西米亚搞成波斯尼亚大几十页。这校对的还号称是老专家。估计都是手下研究生干的吧。 至于内容，只能说作者是有翻案癖的粉红色社会主义者。分章评判一下 第一部分：到一战时的巴尔干半岛。此章写的极糟。作者不断的为奥斯曼...  

这本书在文字上是有这样那样的问题，但对我这个门外汉已然足够了。瑕不掩瑜。文字上的缺点没必要像其他人说的那样激烈。当然，不出现这些的问题是最好。主要也是因为我是读闲书的，所以没那么严谨的要求。 巴尔干、中东欧，在三五百年内看起来挺像清朝，当然也有很大的不同，但...

94页，“1197年，教皇亚历克修斯三世（1195—1203年在位）曾经……“ ——人家是拜占庭皇帝，不是教皇。1195-1203年的教皇是塞勒斯汀和英诺森三世。 69页，“马其顿和色雷斯受到了土耳其保加利亚人的侵犯”。 　　 　　——刚开始我还觉得奇怪，“土耳其保加利亚人”是个啥...  

这本书在文字上是有这样那样的问题，但对我这个门外汉已然足够了。瑕不掩瑜。文字上的缺点没必要像其他人说的那样激烈。当然，不出现这些的问题是最好。主要也是因为我是读闲书的，所以没那么严谨的要求。 巴尔干、中东欧，在三五百年内看起来挺像清朝，当然也有很大的不同，但...