History

>>9831649
>>>/his/

I'm trying to read pic related in Op's post.

I really can't get through it. Not EVERY fucking detail is important. I'm often confounded as to exactly what the hell the book is even talking about, because it loses it's narrative about 50 times a page in tangents and digressions.

The chapter titles are kind of funny, because I read the chapter and go back and look at the title and think, "Wait....did they talk about that AT FUCKING ALL in this goddamn mess of words?"

>>9831649
try something more redpilled, retard

>>9831649
There already is a thread look at the catalog please

File: 51c32NYZEbL._SX330_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (53KB, 332x499px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 332x499px

>>9831649
Just started pic related and its really good so far. I plan on reading OPs book eventually as well, glad to hear that its good from someone with similar taste. If you like that and The Romanovs, try Iron Kingdom by Chris Clark.

File: featured.jpg (47KB, 326x500px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 326x500px

I'm a pleb, I was gonna read Ian Morris, but haven't done so yet. I highly enjoyed Charles Mann series on the New World, as well as Peter Turchin, and I admire the latter for trying to make history more scientific. Turchin is ridiculed and some don't take him serious, but at least he provides a testable model.
Vanished Kingdoms by Norman Davies was interesting though I didn't care for some of the details.

I've read a few other books, some in my native language, all of which I don't feel like sharing.

>>9831685
I think I will give it a go, I really want another history book that I can commit myself to.

The Romanovs was fantastically written in my opinion

File: 013rubens-fallofthedamned.jpg (139KB, 531x900px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 531x900px

a savage war of peace, algeria 1954-1962.
modern ireland 1600-1972.
ian kershaw is a colossus in modern german history. "the hitler myth" as well as his biographies on hitler are essential for an understanding of german history.
orlando figes' a people's tragedy is excellent.

my only real tip is to stay away from outdated and polemical works of history. guns, germs, and steel; people's history of the us; these works either try to demolish existing interpretations (badly), apply a "radical" interpretation of history which is nearly always leftist (sometimes reactionary and far-right), or they fail to reach any sort of detail because they are "pop history" and are necessarily shallow.

history ALWAYS CHANGES: e.g. gibbon is good but don't read him until you are able to place him in comparison to our current understanding of the fall of rome and the historiography that has followed him and his times.

the above are some strong intros to history. read bibliographies and think about what you are going to read first.

>>9831815

There's nothing wrong with a view on history having a certain political slant imo. I'm more concerned about whether or not the author is a real historian, or whether they actually make good use of research and citations. The former isn't so bad if the second point is okay. And I tend to trust books that get praised by other eminent historians, but of course no one's perfect. Just do your research and you'll be fine when it comes to reliable history books.

>>9831850
I think it must be an impossible task for someone to not have some shred of bias when it comes to history. If you're historian and you spend so much of your time on subject you're bound to get your own opinions on them and if you do produce a book I feel you would let it show.

For me I am English and even after I've read about bad English kings and bad events in England I tend to remember the good points about the bad and the good more in general.

I feel as if I am escaping that a little. I can now openly say that certain kings were bad.

However English Monarchs are the thing I am most passionate about. I absolutely adore the monarchy past and present. It is the one thing I truly love. Nothing makes me feel better than reading about the great Monarchs of England.

It is something I will avoid talking about on /his/ because I know how biased I am and because you can't discuss the Anglo or French on that board without an unfiltered flood of autism

>>9831657
>/his/
>reading anything other than wiki articles (if that)

>>9831902
Honestly /His/ is a shit board, I'm more drawn to it than this board because I read literature to learn about history but I only go on /His/ to browse the front page and find interesting topics to research myself, I rarely ever discuss anything on there.

>>9831931
his is so fucking terrible, half the threads are racebait

>>9831662
You can't be serious right? I read his book on the thirty years war when I was like 14, come on anon it isn't that difficult

File: {F9F70199-84B3-49DE-905F-7AC9825AA64E}Img400.jpg (27KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x400px

>>9831649

>>9831685
Asbridge is one of the most biased hacks I've ever found. He cannot stop shilling for his ridiculous ideas. That last section trying to tie the Islamic fundamentalism of today to the crusades rather than the direct causal connections between Cold War interference and Post WW1 colonialism is just laughably bad history. It's borderline Guns Germs and Steel territory. Asbridge, Riley-Smith or even the old as shit Runciman are all far better choices.

>>9832101

I kind of wonder if it even is a book about the thirty years war, or just a detailed account of everything single thing that happened during the thirty years war, minus the whole thirty years war thing.

>>9831685
>>9832182
Iron Kingdom however is fucking amazing.

>>9832095
how's that different from here?

>>9831685
The crusades and Iron Kingdom are good. Iron kingdom drifts into some pretty boring aspects of Prussia from time to time, but overall good.

>>9831850
Reading slanted history is okay so long as you are examining with a historiographical lens. Understand that the information you're being provided is to some degree influenced by the historian's personal bias and it would be immensely helpful to read historians with very different views. History can be as dialectical as philosophy is, you rarely get something that's so definite it's not debated at all and by not engrossing yourself in the ogoing discussion that is history you're just doing yourself a disservice.

File: C75EAD50-0E54-4D01-B972-B08546471D32-1691-000001F7CB9F82B0.jpg (34KB, 224x346px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 224x346px

>>9831649
>upon coming across his "Eugene et Clisson," written during his days as a lieutenant, Napoleon remarked "the boy who wrote this should have been shot."
Great bio of an incredible man. Roberts maybe jerks him off a little too hard though.

>>9831897
You read starkey's book on English monarchs? Regardless of his personal views he's an exceptional chronicler of the English monarchy

A history of Greece to the death of Alexander the great by J.B. Bury was good. It is the only Greek history book I've read that wasn't a primary source. It gave a solid base for Herodotus and Thucydides.

>>9832186
This is the mind of the modern man, hooked to instant gratification and quick summaries, any attempt at an actual full explanation of a topic is rejected. So fucking pathetic

>>9832182
I'll keep that in mind as I read, thanks for the heads up. I'm not especially interested in the Crusades at the moment, just one book of many I have lined up for the medieval period.

>>9832197
I agree some parts of Iron kingdom could be stale but I preferred the book telling me boring stuff about Prussia than a bloated latter half explaining everything everyone already knows about WW1 and 2.

File: CpQ0qSlVUAA_1LS[2].jpg (209KB, 932x1200px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 932x1200px

>>9822825

>>9832211
Yeah I have it is impressive. It's true he doesn't show and bias and it does baffle me.

>>9832250

When the narrative completely changes from being about the thirty years war, to just summing up every minute, meaningless detail of the time period, I'd say there's a big problem then. Has little to do with quick summaries or instant gratification. When you repeatedly forget the actual topic you're talking about in multiple tangents about irrelevant detail, that's autism or something.

>>9832335
>why is there all this history in my history book? REEEEEEEE

>>9832335
>There is no possible way to fill 1000 pages talking about a conflict involving 12+ countries and 200+ states, tens of millions of people, the culmination of centuries long conflicts (political and religious), spanning 30 years, killing millions, and setting up the foundation on how the world views themselves in relation to their country for the rest of history. All that relevant information on this incredible era of history that is mandatory to truly understand it is meaningless detail

kill yourself

>>9832187
I was going to recommend that

Is john Julius Norwich a good source for narrative introductions to topics? He doesn't seem to have any specialty, which is odd

>>9831649

Frankopan's The Silk Roads was great. China is building a new silk road so it's worth to read about the earlier one.

SPQR by Mary Beard is a fantastic introduction to Rome.

File: 18901112[1].jpg (44KB, 305x475px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 305x475px

Ok, so Tom Holland's style can be quite irritating at times, but this book is fascinating. It covers the period from the dying days of the Western Roman Empire to the rise of Islam.

I've always been interested in the Late Antiquity period, and the exploration into the possible origins of Islam is completely fascinating. Very recommended.

I'll also say that there's no pussy-footing around the Islam stuff because of political correctness. Holland's quite fearless in that department.

>>9833661
>Woman
>A fantastic introduction to Rome
Could I please get another suggestion lol?

>>9834228
Mary Beard is good