Name the best History of the World and justify it

Name the best History of the World and justify it.

I have just finished pic related and it excludes too many details.

>Name the best History of the World and justify it.
There are no good Histories of the World therefore there are no best histories of the world. This is because "world history" is whig shit.

>t. pansexual genderqueer trans-racial two-spirit

I'm sure you think Marxist historiography is perfectly valid though, right?

And to answer your question OP, I've only read "the outline of history" by H.G. Wells. The prose is, imo, one of the best prose I have ever had the pleasure to read. The history in itself is slightly more debatable: H.G. Wells is a communist and he lets his commie feelings seep through from time to time. But definitely an entertaining read, I heartily recommend it.

Some are. Thompson's is for example. Althusser's theory of history is dreck. As is Lukacs.

Try reading specialised monographs. Tulipomania. MM Postan's Medieval economy and Society.

t. 15 year old babby's first nihilistic philosophies

There is literally no correlation between postmodern identity liberalism and Marxist historiography. One is the product of oversocialisation from luxury and the other is a worldview of societies changing because of societies rather than because of a handful of individuals

Fuck off please

>There is literally no correlation between postmodern identity liberalism and Marxist historiography
Except that the former was birthed by the latter?

>le identity politics is totally not related to marxism meme.
Why are all marxists pathological liars?

I haven't read any of the books you listed, but are you sure you're not conflating marxist historiography with simply economic history?

From reading a brief summary of Postan's book, it doesn't seem he was a marxist.

>Except that the former was birthed by the latter?
Let me rephrase. Identity politics was birthed by Marxism. I never implied that marxist =>historiography

No, Postan ISN'T a marxist. I am recommending Postan because he conducted work in the specialised monograph mode.

All right. You're shifting the goalposts though, since we were explicitly talking about marxist historiography.

OP here. I dont care about flowery prose. Ideally I want a comprehensive history that doesn't ignore social/economic factors.

Remove all reactionary opinions about real philosophy. Capitalist ideologues please go.

>societies changing because of societies rather than a handful of individuals
Is this known as historiography? That is in essence what I am looking for, specifically covering the ancient/classical eras.

Do you know of a book (or books) that cover that period in greater depth?

*in greater depth, while still applying broader international context as the point of world history is.

>Try reading specialised monographs.
I'm sorry you're illiterate, get that seen to.

Nobody going to answer my question?

Does Veeky Forums actually read?

Aren't there four distinct world histories? Afro-Eurasia, Americas, Australia, and Pacific?

>There are no good Histories of the World therefore there are no best histories of the world. This is because "world history" is whig shit.
Asked and answered.

About the longest you'll get that historians will barely tolerate are Wallerstein, Braudel, Hobsbaum.

No. Your implicit theory's showing and you've not thought it through.

>there are no good histories of the world
Nobody gives a sloppy shit about your personal issue with semantics

Post books that are worth reading or gtfo

Braverman Labor and Monopoly Capital
Hill Century of Revolution
Thompson Making
Gollan Radical and working class politics
Babcock Gompers
KIMH The Korean War

"History of the World" books are meant as overviews. For more details you have to go narrower. I would recommend you read "Europe: A History" by Norman Davies next.

>Afro-Eurasia, Americas, Australia, and Pacific

No, there's the Fertile Crescent, Europe, Asia, and America. Everything else is irrelevant.

...

>History of the World
>Easter Island head on front cover
Would've picked something else as the front cover image desu

Well isn't your opinion so important.

fuck off cunt
graphic design is extremely important, and that one is shit

>t. Louie the Rapa Nui

>graphic design is extremely important
Firstly you don't know about the history of penguin in british graphic design

Secondly, fuck off to

I don't give a shit, that cover is fuck-ugly.

So again, your recourse is to your opinion. I don't know you from shit, and that's what your opinion is worth less than. For as Mao Zedong said, you can feed shit to a dog, and you can use dogshit to fertilise the fields.

Fuck off fifel

Lick it.