Will I learn about history by reading this?

Everything is a part of history, so yes.

>>9508148
the holocaust isn't

>>9508148
not game of thrones

>>9508128
You will learn Tolstoy's philosophy regarding history, but other than that, it's just realistic fiction. But as a work of importance, you would also be appreciating a piece of history.

>>9508177
OP here

see, I have a history-exam in december about european 1750-1945 history, and, yknow, napoelon & russia definitively pertains to that. but if its only worth reading as "historically significant literature", then I think ill have to pass, even though its tempting

>>9508189
It's main use in a situation like that would be that War and Peace is an argument for a certain perception of history which can probably be summed up as: the common man is the mover of history. It criticises historians that only look at what "great people" did.

You could probably get what you need out of part 1 or 2 of the epilogue, in which he just splurges his philosphy onto the pages without any narrative linkage besides some references to the story

>>9508216
oh lol, i thought the book was more machiavellian war of roses-type shit. like a fictionalized account of some more roughly outlined real events?

>>9508223
There is a good narrative there, but he also jacks off a lot. It would be better if he didn't repeat his ideas over and over and just saved it for his epilogue.

I don't know what you mean by the war of roses/machiavellian thing tho desu

Yes, and you'll also get long essays of Tolstoy's thoughts on historiography.

>>9508189
You definitely learn about the Napoleonic war so it won't be a waste. The second epilogue is also an interesting discussion on history which has a lot of interesting insights.

The only problem is that it's very long, so if you don't have a long time to read it, stick to textbooks or specific history books.

>>9508161
Game of Thrones is practically The War Of The Roses with dragons

Not with that translation, you won't.

>>9508315
alright perfect, i will read it then.

and im gonna listen to it on audiobooks while working out, so hopefully its length wont be a problem

>>9508241
alright thanks.
by machiavellian shit.. i mean basically game of thrones-shit. dynasties fighting, etc. the war of roses-type narrative, but with actual historical context

>>9508339
?
if you are referring to the pic in OP, its just the first one that popped up on google. but whats wrong with it, then?

>>9508424
>the war of roses-type narrative, but with actual historical context
(yes I am well aware that the war of roses is an actual thing. poor phrasing. whatever)

>>9508128

Yes

>>9508223

No. It's the lives of the Russian aristocracy during the Napoleonic wars, there's no amount of political fighting and intrigue, they're all against Napoleon, who is invading Russia and no one is overthrowing the tsar.

I suggest watching a short documentary on the life of Napoleon, or the history of Russia or the Napoleonic wars themselves before you read it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrbiSUgZEbg

>>9508558
alright, but it still sounds very much worth reading for me. i will read it, and im already watching that documentary you linked. thanks dude

>>9508128
>>9508128
What on history I have to know/read before reading War & Peace.

>>9508655
....what?

>>9508660
I mean i was asking which topics in history (I suposse Napoleonic Era) i have to know in order to understand in high degree W&P.

>>9508128
What do I need to know before reading this?

>>9508684
oh. OP here, ive no cuntclue. Thats why im gonna read it. but some other guy here linked a documentary >>9508558

War and Peace will give you some serious misconceptions about the history of the Napoleonic Wars, and Tolstoy was outright wrong in some of his descriptions of events.

For example, the burning of Moscow, most records say Rostochpin did it. Tolstoy strongly asserts that he did not and that Moscow burned entirely by accident.

As well as this the account of Napoleons time in Russia is riddled with flaws in general. Like the attack on Murat that results in the Napoleonic retreat. Be sure to look up the inaccuracies if you're going to use the book as a historical resource.

>Dude Napoleon was just a guy who was lucky to be at the right place, at the right moment. Anyone else could have replaced him
>Every battles don't go according to military plans, it's just luck dude
>also Napoopan is fat, sweaty and a meanie

>>9508148
what about tomorrow?

Unless you skipped history after elementary school, no

>>9509279

Yeah, this.

One assertion Tolstoy made was that even if Napoleon had ordered his army to stop at the Polish frontier it wouldn't have happened, at that point control of events was wrested out of his hand. There was a sort of historical determinism and Napoleon was inexorably pulled on by it

Depends if "Napoleon was fucking wank desu" counts as history