Does this accurately portray history books? Think of a history

Depends on the topic


>Top Left:
The Spanish Civil War; Hugh Thomas
>Bottom Left:
The Battle for Spain; Antony Beevor
>Centre:
The Spanish Civil War; Paul Preston
>Top Right:
???
>Bottom Right:
The Spanish Holocaust; Paul Preston

Not necessarily. A long spanning, thick book can be great and not pop. It's necessarily not going to be as in-depth as the same scholar covering a particular event or century, but that doesn't detract from quality.
I like to read a good overview of a subject before delving into the minutiae. If you don't have a basic grasp of British history, how are you going to fully understand a thick tome about the English Civil War?

>>1473961
You do realise the fact that there is big amount of solid, based research works , fully dedicated to short fragments of timeline due to complexity of considered events?

>>1474054
>A long spanning, thick book can be great and not pop.

Not really. The rigor required for scholarly work makes that impossible.

>It's necessarily not going to be as in-depth as the same scholar covering a particular event or century, but that doesn't detract from quality.

Who said pop history can't be high quality?

>>1473961
I don't think so as there are short books that portray a certain period of history much better than longer stuff.

>>1473961
Yes and no. Length of time period isn't the most relevant metric. Scope of study is more relevant. A narrow scope and vast time scale will be an impenetrable scholarly work to the layman.

>>1474054
Long and Long Time Period can make for a great broad survey.

But i wont go as far as to call it pop history.

>>1474997
>Not really. The rigor required for scholarly work makes that impossible.
Not impossible, but a gargantuan work that probably takes a lifetime of research to put together. Fernand Braudel's books come to mind.