作者:
Victor Lieberman
出版社: Cambridge University Press
副标题: Volume 1, Integration on the Mainland: Southeast Asia in Global Context, c.800-1830
出版年: 2003-5-26
页数: 510
定价: USD 39.99
装帧: Paperback
丛书: Studies in Comparative World History
ISBN: 9780521804967
出版社: Cambridge University Press
副标题: Volume 1, Integration on the Mainland: Southeast Asia in Global Context, c.800-1830
出版年: 2003-5-26
页数: 510
定价: USD 39.99
装帧: Paperback
丛书: Studies in Comparative World History
ISBN: 9780521804967
这本书的其他版本 · · · · · · ( 全部2 )
以下书单推荐 · · · · · · ( 全部 )
- History,Geography,Map,etc (sinol)
- 书单|清华大学全球史课程推荐书单 (手痛的辛弃疾)
- 帝国史 (俄狄浦斯)
- 东南亚区域研究 (Southeast Asian Studies) (@~@)
- 英文人文社科书籍备忘 (涉江)
谁读这本书? · · · · · ·
二手市场
· · · · · ·
- 在豆瓣转让 有217人想读,手里有一本闲着?
订阅关于Strange Parallels的评论:
feed: rss 2.0
1 有用 RM Ngwini 2016-09-26 14:29:20
lone师推的新文章,突然想起来这本书。说起来,现在的西洋书的取名风格,其实还蛮像波斯-伊斯兰世界的。《Mumāθala-yi ġarība》大概在旧印度或者奥斯曼都不算出格的书名吧。
0 有用 黑 2014-02-19 02:55:24
Ambitious project and good research on integration and consolidations, but still working within a framework of retrospective regionalism (western-middle-eastern mainland), and, most irritatingly, why ... Ambitious project and good research on integration and consolidations, but still working within a framework of retrospective regionalism (western-middle-eastern mainland), and, most irritatingly, why Dai Viet, at all? Sanjay Subrahmanyam's critique is fair. (展开)
0 有用 洛水 2020-03-21 23:56:03
跳读。
0 有用 momo超强版 2022-09-20 06:03:06 美国
Theoretically ambitious
0 有用 耆夜 2016-10-26 08:48:42
牛。就是专有名词太多,看得头晕。
0 有用 momo超强版 2022-09-20 06:03:06 美国
Theoretically ambitious
0 有用 洛水 2020-03-21 23:56:03
跳读。
0 有用 耆夜 2016-10-26 08:48:42
牛。就是专有名词太多,看得头晕。
1 有用 RM Ngwini 2016-09-26 14:29:20
lone师推的新文章,突然想起来这本书。说起来,现在的西洋书的取名风格,其实还蛮像波斯-伊斯兰世界的。《Mumāθala-yi ġarība》大概在旧印度或者奥斯曼都不算出格的书名吧。
0 有用 黑 2014-02-19 02:55:24
Ambitious project and good research on integration and consolidations, but still working within a framework of retrospective regionalism (western-middle-eastern mainland), and, most irritatingly, why ... Ambitious project and good research on integration and consolidations, but still working within a framework of retrospective regionalism (western-middle-eastern mainland), and, most irritatingly, why Dai Viet, at all? Sanjay Subrahmanyam's critique is fair. (展开)