Is there a better historian than this man?

inb4 john green

>>995746
Nobody on /his/ likes John Green. The only people who care are butthurt /pol/tards

>>995717
Jared Diamond

>>995784
Oswald Spengler

>>995754

>you have to be a butthurt /pol/ tard to hate john green

can you faggots please stop bitching about pol every other fucking post?

Karl Marx

David Irving

>>995820
It's really hard not to after they just raided our board

>>995827
>just raided our board

no one is "raiding" you fucking faggot. People are posting opinions you disagree with. Not everything is a fucking conspiracy against you, maybe you just ran into someone who dared have a view that you dont have

shut the fuck up I cant take this shit any more. Dont respond to me just stop

braudel

>>995836
W-what?

>>995784
>>995787
Do they have pleasing southern drawls?

>>996448
I mean granted Foote is easy on the ears but he's not even close to being the best historian even on the Ken Burns series

>>996465
Explain yourself!

File: masterpiece.jpg (83KB, 318x424px)

83KB, 318x424px

>>996465
He wrote what is without doubt the best and most comprehensive history of the Civil War. Who else on the Ken Burns series had such a feat?

>>996481
best is obviously a subjective judgment and it is nowhere near comprehensive pal

>>996486
[Citation needed]

>>996486
They're 2,934 pages all together. How is that nowhere near comprehensive? What other book is as thorough or as well written?

>>996502
>>996500
...it's a glorified military history
Battle Cry of Freedom is "more comprehensive" on that alone

>>996510
Because it covered the period preceding the civil war?

>>996510
I've read Foote's trilogy, and I can say that it does discuss the political events of the time. Even then, there's nothing wrong with focusing on the military history. How can a book that is about 1/3 the length of this series give a more in depth history?

Thucydides

>>996510
One book aside, do you really thing McPherson is a better historian than Foote?

>>996524
The claim was that it was comprehensive. A focus on military history is never going to be comprehensive. The length of a work is not a guaranteed indication of insight

>>996544
Without a doubt.

>>996590
Like I said, I've read the book, and it doesn't simply discuss the military events. But even assuming that it does, what's wrong with that? It makes perfect sense for a book about war to spend much of its length discussing battles and troop movements.

File: PLINY_YOU_FUCK_HOW_ABOUT_PUTTING_DOWN_THE_BIAS_FOR_A_SEC.png (47KB, 178x238px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 178x238px

is there a WORSE historian than this?

>>995836
They literally crossposted, hard fact.

>>995754
Talk for yourself.

Lots of classic /his/ memes, e.g. "Mongols" or >H >R >E are based on John Green's videos.

Only butthurt /pol/tards hate him because he questions their Eurocentric/Germboo views.

>>996662
>H
>R
>E
Was a /gsg/ meme before it become a /his/ meme

>>998941
Was a meme before the internet was even invented.

>>998957
True but it didn't come from John Green

File: 220px-Christopher_Clark_Frankfurter_Buchmesse_2013_1.jpg (17KB, 220x304px)

17KB, 220x304px

>>995717
Chris is pretty good

>>995717
Foote was a novelist, not a historian.

File: 1431444244004.png (1MB, 1324x1422px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1324x1422px

>>995717
Herodotus

>>999004
this