I feel as though I have a large gap in my historical knowledge and understanding. I have surface level knowledge on most major historical events, but want to delve deeper. Any recs?
I'm open to anything. Major historical events, wars, political events and famous figures.
Other urls found in this thread:
khanacademy.org
twitter.com
You might find Peter Turchin's War and Peace and War interesting.
If you are interested in the Americas you could go with the books by Charles Mann.
I sort of enjoyed "Forgotten Kingdoms" by Norman Davies but parts of it weren't that great.
>I can't Google bibliographies, gaise!
I would also recommend The Politics of Heroin by Alfred W. McCoy
Peloponnesian War by Thucydides.
>2015
>trusting google
Mein kampf is all you need, friendo. Thank me later.
Read Barzun and Kojeve
>trusting Google for more than one minute after you first heard of them.
Retard.
>2015 was 20 years ago
Taiko and Musashi are great, but enormous.
What do you mean? God-tier as in nice to read, inspiring? Or as in, well-researched and thorough?
For the former, Napoleon: A Life by Roberts, or just biographies of great statesmen and generals in general.
For the latter, go to your local university and pick a book on the topic that you're interested in
This
...
start with what is history by e.h. carr
Not really. His morphology is complete bogus and many of his "historical examples" are party or fully fictional, especially in regard to ancient cultures.
Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda - Roméo Dallaire for the Rwandan genocide
The Poetic Edda for Norse myths (Neil Gaiman just released a book titled Norse Mythology. It's alright but not brilliant)
The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine - Eusubeus for, as the title suggests, history of the church.
History of the Peloponnesian War - Thucydides
Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege, 1942–1943 - Beevor, Antony
The Rape of Nanking - Chang, Iris
The Conquest of Gaul - Caesar, Gaius Julius
The Templars - Michael Hagg
I'm forgetting a lot here. I'd also check out Jared Diamond. Except for Collapse his books are all pretty good
The Agony of the American Left by Christopher Lasch
A Distant Mirror by Tuchman
Six Days of War by Oren
Diplomacy by Kissinger
Is this book worth reading at all if the historical bits are nonsense? As
This dude said?
This has been a fun read. I sometimes post it around here and people ignore it probably thinking I'm /pol/ but it's nothing like that, pol would most definitely disagree with the contents of this book.
stop reading different versions of the same book.
>Jared Diamond
>He hasn't taken the r/badhistory pill
McNeill, Pursuit of Power
Fehrenbach, Lone Star
Michael D. Coe, Mexico
The Landmark Herodotus/Thucydides/Xenophon/Arrian
Spengler's Decline of the West isn't really a history, it's a guy fitting history into his pet theory of civilization. Haven't finished reading it, but his ideas have some merit imo. Civilizations DO outgrow the conditions and norms of the people that founded them, and this can become a problem later in their existence.
Atlas of World History - Patrick O'Brien
You're welcome.
>any year
>trusting Veeky Forums
10 bucks says if Schopey fund a nice gal he would have renounced
This book is an absolute doorstopper. Is it sluggish to read as well? I don't have time to read such a thing.
The Bible
Not him and can't be bothered to look it up but I would imagine a lot of those pages are pictures
Nope
this book is so fucking good i want to burn it and inject the ashes into my eyes
My diary desu
>I'd also check out Jared Diamond. Except for Collapse his books are all pretty good
>pol would most definitely disagree with the contents of this book.
Please explain. I have not picked it up yet.
I breezed through it since the subject is so interesting but that depends on you
>Pizzaro
>Believing conquistadors' tall tales
>not acknowledging their victories were only possible due to large armies of native allies
Because it proves the war crimes happened by quoting from the journals of the perpetrators.
It points exactly to where Hitler was most definitely wrong in his decisions and the clivage between him and reality.
It doesn't glorify Nazism, it details the effects it had on the regular people.
It showed how Hitler lied to his people and refused to seek a way to peace.
Or you know, you could just look up a review or preview in less time than waiting for a reply. Probably give you a better answer too.
You talk like ((reddit)),
Interesting, i'm /pol/ but probably wouldn't disagree with those things.
Then you should go back.
I'm just telling you the things pol seems to believe in, I'm making a generalisation
Whatever you do stay away from A People's History of the United States and Guns, Germs, and Steel.
Those two books have successfully contributed the dumbing down of the Western public to a truly harmful degree.
For US history try:
>Washington, A Life by Ron Chernow
>John Adams by David McCullough
>1776 by David McCullough
>Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin
For Roman history read:
>SPQR by Mary Beard
>Caesar by Adrian Goldsworthy
>The Fall of Carthage by Adrian Goldsworthy
For British history there's a great new series out by Peter Ackeroyd called The History of England that's broken up into several volumes.
For Chinese history China: A New History by John King Fairbank is generally considered to be the essential work.
For individual biographies my personal favourites are:
>Hitler by Ian Kershaw
>The Bully Pulpit by Doris Kearns Goodwin
>Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson (Essential reading for anyone interested in the development of personal computing in the late 20th Century, as well as a great view of modern American business)
You're the outsider friendo
Go look for digits someplace else
"The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements" is the only answer to your question
Came here to recommend Napoleon: A Life. Brilliant book, and more interesting than most fiction I've read.
Also that's a good point about university reading. For a real rounded look at history you need textbooks that cover the dry minutia of details. The problem with most biographies and single-volume books is that they tend to reduce history to narratives with protagonists and antagonists and clear-cut cause and effect events. Look at pop-history like the supposed Tesla and Edison rivalry. It's bullshit, but it's an easily digestible story so it gets read and recycled.
That Stalingrad book is very good.
Read all the old authors like Plutarch (inb4 not a historian) Herodotus, Xenephon, Tacitus, suetonius etc.
About 1/3 of the way through "from dawn to decadence" and from the book jacket I got the impression that this is the culmination/condensation of his life's writing. Is that true? Anything else I should check out from him? I'm enjoying it a lot.
>etc.
You know that "etc" contains literally years of reading? There are fucking tons of "old authors" even just of history.
>Caesar by Adrian Goldsworthy
>The Fall of Carthage by Adrian Goldsworthy
I can second these.
>etc
Literally rest of your life and that of everyone around you.
I mean, you are right although most scientific historiography is completely useless outside of academic research, since a lot of modern historiography pretends that prose is evil and so history students never really get taught how to write in a style that isn't just autistic recapulating of source research and the same formualic phrases that everyone else uses. Ideally, you would have something that doesn't pretend that objectively true history is reachable and keeps an element of storytelling, without delving into trash pop history. Although i'm not sure if that balance is really obtainable.
t. BA in history
>not just reading the primary sources
Just read Caesar, Appian, and Polybius.
>stein
It is. Just not every student of history is a writer, or even aware there is a problem.
A history of the english speaking peoples, abridged version
What's wrong with Guns, Germs and Steel?
Got anything on C-canadian history?
definitely gonna pick some of these up. been looking for a good English history
...
...
Just read anything that sounds interesting to you as long as
1. The author is an actual historian with real and relevant credentials
2. There are plenty of citations and notes showing the book is well researched
3. There's no immediate ideological agenda or biases (sometimes it isn't as obvious as on the cover, but just reading the intro should inform you of these)
Also an important note: books that focus on more specialized subjects, or specific events, tend to be more reliable than larger ones, which tend to fall flat on its own ambition.
Wait with buying Ceaser books. Landmark will release a good version of Conquest and Civil War in october
Been wanting a copy of this for a while, partly for research and partly because WW2 was a fascinating era.
>1. The author is an actual historian with real and relevant credentials
Also I want to point out before someone else does that there are many exceptions to this one. There are some authors who aren't professionals but can still write a good book through hard work and passion. However if the other two points I listed don't apply then I would be very cautious.
I bought a three volume set of the History of Britain edited by Kenneth O Morgan...Anyone know if it's any good? It looks old, got it at a used bookshop. Reviews on Amazon for newer editions are mixed
I'm reading 1066: The Hidden History in the Bayeux Tapestry.
I think it's good, but I don't have much reference for good historical non-fiction books.
If you think ww2 was fascinating that book will captivate you completely, I promise on my user heart
OP, if you like WW2 history, then you may enjoy Patton and Rommel, by Dennis Showalter. Whilst its not a god-tier book, it's definitely a nice read.
don't read herodotus or thucydides on their own. consider a general history of ancient greece, then focus on something that will be more in line with your specific interests. primary sources need to be sifted through carefully, critically, always seen in light of their context. just think twice about everything you read.
likewise avoid partisan writing/overly biased writing. gibbon's thesis that christianity was the major force leading rome to ruin was a result of his enlightenment context. likewise zinn's liberalism makes him skew sources in order to fit the narrative most convenient to him. while these guys aren't bad reads, you shouldn't take every word for gospel. think critically.
a very general history like SPQR does not and cannot delve into the same level of analysis that, say, a scholarly work on one aspect of the augustan principate can. keep in mind when reading something general, or pop history-like that they are necessarily shallow. not a bad thing in itself, but an obstruction of you want more sources, more detail, more scrutiny toward evidence and nuance.
history is maybe the most important thing to study other than philosophy in regards to everyday life. a critical approach to the things you see gives you a fine-tuned bullshit detector. it might make you consider reading multiple newspapers.
Agreed this book is great..
It's not /pol/ version of "hitler dindu nuffin"
What are some good books or ways to tell what is a good general history?
Could someone please recommend one great book each on the
>French Revolution
>Latin American wars of independence (looking at South America here, I would view Mexico as it's own thing and Haiti can fuck off)
>Spanish Civil War
I have limited knowledge on each of those topics and want to LEARN
Can't attach an attention grabbing image because I'm on my phone
collingwood - idea of history
For a history of money, credit, and exchange, read Debt by David Graeber.
>3. There's no immediate ideological agenda or biases (sometimes it isn't as obvious as on the cover, but just reading the intro should inform you of these)
I don't believe this is a killer, as long as condition 2 is met and the tone isn't hyperbolic. I've read books by people who are very upfront with their biases, or through their use of terminology (this mostly applies to Marxist historians), and they are still scholarly, so long as you are aware of how the author is filtering the information. This doesn't apply to Howard Zinn; he simply ignores what doesn't suit him, and justifies it with "well, it's MY narrative".
I generally agree with this, but with the caveat that journalists tend to be terrible history writers. Even if they cite voluminously, journalists often omit a lot and distort what they do cite, which I chalk up to a lack of expertise in what they are writing about, inexperience in doing historical research, and maybe a lower standard for "cite your source" in journalism than in academia.
>Spanish Civil War
You are probably going to need multiple books for this one, there still isn't really a consensus, most of the books have a visible conservative, liberal, or left-wing bias.
There probably isn't any topic that you could read just one book and be done with
I have to start somewhere though, right?
>I don't believe this is a killer, as long as condition 2 is met and the tone isn't hyperbolic.
Fair enough. Though it's definitely something any reader should consider.
I'm mostly keeping in mind books with subtitles like, "The secret history of..." or "what they didn't teach you in school!" or "the liberal's/conservative's guide to..." or whatever stupid shit they put there. That's where hyperbole comes in, where they're obviously just trying to get attention or market to a specific crowd for sales.
"Europe: The Struggle For Supremacy: 1453 to the Present" by Brendan Simms
His historical account is fairly accurate and to my knowledge it is one of the few non utopian theories of history. Caroll Quingly has also a decent one and some good books.
what are some good books about ancient civilizations, specifically the various eras of ancient Greece and Rome?
Decent advise.
True. History was always partly a tool of those who wrote it and tried to determin the Future by it. But in the recent history it has become exponentialy worse, there is only the narrative, with little intrest in detail or complexity.
I'm not OP but is there some sort of starter pack for retards that didn't learned one fucking thing in school? Like maybe even one book trying to simplify general history? (I doubt it but yeah)
Utter crap
Go and hug your mother.
I was lucky enough to speak to the writer of this book. He's really interesting, unsurprisingly, he advocates for political globalism by a diffusion of borders and free travel.
He's really tall too. The book is excellent, but not nearly as tall as the writer is.
>diffusion of borders and free travel
w e w
>not being european
The new history of the world by J.M. Roberts
Just wikipedia historical events or figures for the basics and then read books on whatever you want to learn more about. As I said before, history books that focus on broader subjects (especially "general history") tend to be less reliable.
here ill teach you how to go to the library
>go to the library
>search the catalog for what youre looking for
>go there
>look at all the dank books you could choose from
heres where it gets interesting
>grab a couple that look good and go have a seat
>check out who recommends what in the sources to see whos the authority
>read whatever you want cause you now have a huge selection to choose from and youre a grownup
>go to the library
>search the catalog for what you're looking for
>there are only a few books available and they're all shit
Could someone recommend a good book on the history of the old west? This has been my favorite era of US history and I don't know where to look.
good, frequent, and fair use of sources. ideally the author supports their evidence through footnotes/endnotes rather than just a bibliography at the end.
you can read up on scholarly reviews about the book to see how it compares to other similar works. for example, ian kershaw is now considered the foremost hitler scholar; i would look toward him moreso than shirer's "rise and fall..." for a history of nazi germany, which you see recommended here and on goodreads. shirer's work is journalistic and uses only evidence available to him. kershaw is writing in the late 90s and therefore has so much more evidence and scholarship to build on.
A People's Tragedy by Orlando Figes is an example of a good general history. it's around 1000 pages, but considering it covers 1891-1924 there is some room for length. once again people will put his thesis under scrutiny, so consider, please consider, reading reviews on the book on jstor or sci-hub; as long as you think critically about what you read.
no book is perfect, except for maybe moby dick.
Looks interesting, thanks user!
fyi its "Debt: The First 5,000 Years"
you indict "a people's history" and "guns, germs..." but recommend but four mediocre biographies of presidents as representative of us history? a bit silly.
reach for Foner's Give Me Liberty! for an undergrad-style intro to US history. get more specific as you develop your interests. look into McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom for an intro to the civil war as well.
i myself am a big lincoln fan, mostly for literary reasons. kaplan's lincoln: biography of a writer and ronald c white's lincoln's greatest speech give insights to maybe my favourite orator.
bibliographies; lists of books; reviews; articles; journals on specific aspects of regional, national, and specific history; these resources are free and everywhere. use them.
I've said it once, I'll say it again. Atlas of World History by Patrick O'Brien. It's fucking fantastic. Read that for breadth, and you'll know enough to discover interesting topics and have a solid enough framework to supplement your understanding with more specific books and articles.
post your feet
Personally, I found 1491 to be a well-written book, even though Mann is a journalist. I can't speak for other journalist-historians.
