Are there any other historians as incredibly good at writing

File: Hobsbawm - Age of Revolution.jpg (45KB, 317x500px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 317x500px

>>8236933 (OP)
Gibbons.
Hobsbawm
And you might also like Fernand Braudel

>>8236933
Trotsky

He's okay but it's pretty obvious that this is an older book. He has the same wrong opinions that were common in the earlier parts of the last century. Reading his entry of Nietzsche is every bit as wrong and misleading as Russel's.

>>8236985

>Hobsbawm

Another Marxist, yawn.

When will people realize that the Marxist theory of history actually cheapens the subject?

>>8236933
it's really eccentric. just 10 lame pages on ancient phil post Aristotle + the middle ages, no Descartes or Leibniz, long fawning chapters on Spinoza and Voltaire (????)

idk it definitely has its merits (great chapter on Kant, for example,) but I was wayyy underwhelmed overall.

>>8239022
Feeling the same here.

>>8238896
>his section on Schopenhauer
>"just b urself"

Not that he was wrong, "snap out of it" really is the appropriate response at times, but still.

>>8236933

>Durant
>Good at writing

Pick one.
He has a few tricks that he uses ad nauseum.
I keep his history books only because they have godly indices.