Why are so many history books filled with so much fluff?

Context.

>>1645784
What the fuck does this even mean?

>>1645815
"What [person X] didn't realize, however, was that this decision had in itself a major flaw, a flaw that would go down in history for centuries to come as a turning point for life as [person X's nation] forever."

Just stfu and tell me what the flaw was!

History that's "just the facts" usually reads as very dry. Remember that lots of historians are trying to tell a story using the facts, rather than just delivering facts. Because most people don't read really dry history, which means they don't sell books.

I think there's a time and a place for concise precision, it's very handy when you're doing research and want to get to the meat of something quickly. But if you're reading history for entertainment, I think a bit of fluff is good, so long as it isn't dishonest.

>>1645803
This. Context is one of the most important elements in History.

>>1645887
It's because you're reading pop history.

>>1645922
But what about for people who want to cut the crap and get the info as fast as possible?

>>1645969

Too bad. Find another book, I guess?

Some history writers are pretty concise. I'm reading a history of the 30 years war right now where the writer basically divides every statement he makes into a few paragraphs, each with a heading. The heading summarizes the paragraph (IE "The bohemians look for aid from foreign powers."), and the paragraph just explains the heading further. Sometimes you just need to put up with it.

>>1645784
Because reading paragraphs upon paragraphs of numbers and percentages and dates is pretty boring desu senpai