>History book is organised thematically instead of chronologically

File: 50b557c4aafb6d2de7da14a65fae0991.jpg (28KB, 350x238px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 350x238px

>Let's focus on cultural history now

>>2362486
Hey fuck off, that is often times useful. Chronological is often done for books lecturing absolute beginners in basic historical events, and not into the nitty bitty details.

>>2362637
Who /doric/ here?

File: photo_41319045924143.png (686KB, 700x450px) Image search: [Google]

686KB, 700x450px

>>2362637

Cretean style is Best style.

>>2362486
I find that the only way to make any sense out of history is to study the history of everything except states (or state-like entities). Production, trade, commodities, technology, people and so on are good subjects but things like states are vague and artificial and ultimately just products and expressions of the actual relevant processes. I guess it makes me a materialist because I believe that material circumstances precede ideas, since all forms of creativity draw from the information produced by the physical world.

File: B3279052-3F22-4C00-A41F-0AA058A0F319-325-00000077DFEC694F_tmp.jpg (50KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 800x533px

>he reads books

>>2362486
If you don't read a book organized thematically, you have little idea why shit was going on, If you don't read a book organized chronologically, you have no idea when it was going on.

Both are useful in building up a more nearly complete, or at least more nearly accurate, impression of what the fuck happened.

All historians should be forced to write both versions, included in the same binding.

>>2364179
That's dumb. For certain subjects, one or the other is more effective, there's no reason to write the less effective version as well.

>>2364179
>>2364193
there are history books that do that. they're usually general historical works