Will I learn about history by reading this?

Will I learn about history by reading this?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=MrbiSUgZEbg
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Everything is a part of history, so yes.

the holocaust isn't

not game of thrones

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

Not with that translation, you won't.

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

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

?
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?

>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)

Yes

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.

youtube.com/watch?v=MrbiSUgZEbg

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

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

....what?

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.

What do I need to know before reading this?

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

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

what about tomorrow?

Unless you skipped history after elementary school, no

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