Am I the only one who really can't read anglo-saxons historians

>>282842
>this faggot
>historian

File: 1443727828929.jpg (5KB, 244x250px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 244x250px

History isn't a science. It's literature.

>>282889
Obviously, the pic isn't related.

File: 1442144344640.jpg (85KB, 940x659px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 940x659px

>>282842
it shows only one thing: that americans have poor vocabulary and poor syntax.

are you talking about modern Anglo-Saxon historians or ones from the Anglo-Saxon period?

>>282942
>science and literature are mutually exclusive

>>283350
modern

I'm alright with British historians, except when it comes to British history. Fuckers think too highly of themselves.

The exception being John Keegan, but he deals with mostly military stuff anyways.

History isn't science you moron.

>>284522
Historiography is.

File: Franks_Casket_vorne_links.jpg (44KB, 250x225px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 250x225px

>>282842
>Am I the only one who really can't read anglo-saxons historians ?
No. I can't read this shit either.

>>284570
No, it's not.

>>284614
Yeah, it is.

>>282842

See, if you'd named names then we could maybe have an interesting discussion. Instead, you've accompanied your post with a conformist children's author who runs a historical YouTube series as a side project.

So its hard to take your critique seriously when you don't provide any historical examples.

Anglos are shit at this point in everything, not only history. A inane culture.
>>284614
This, a subject like history shouldn't be limited by the modern conception of science.

Stop spamming John Green you fucking shitposter we have already had a thread about him

>>284650

>a thread
>No dozens

>>284623
No it most certainly is not.

>>284650
What the fuck, do you want to discuss spengler or racist crap like that? They are irrelevant now because I said so, you need to move on and watch guys like John Green.

>>282842
There is an extremely large difference between academic history and pop history. Nobody on this board seems to recognize that.

>>284685
The pic wasn't related, I picked him because I had no one else in mind.

>>284696

You should have, you are complaining about them after all.

Green is not terrible considering the breath and scope of what he is' trying to cover. Serious historians generally focus on an area and a time frame. You can 't be right about everything or have a sophisticated option when you're trying to cover all of human history.

>>282942
>>284522
Science itself is an art.

>trying to make this nonsensical distinction in the first place

>>284726
But art itself is a science.

Yeah I can't stand the Venerable Bede, he's such a holier than thou asshole.