What history books have you read lately Veeky Forums?

City of God. It was difficult at times but definitely a good text about the fall of Rome from a contemporary source.

Weird.
Not long ago i read La Araucana, from Alonso de Ercilla.
>You will never watch how a handful of chilean injuns defeats a glorious spanish cavarly by holding their ground on a steep, tight mountain passage and reducing their mobility.

Normies tier book

From Dawn to Decadence by Jacques Barzun, would highly recommend if you're interested in patterns of thought throughout time/ intellectual history

Reading 'The Books that Shaped Art History'

horrific that the HRE isn't discussed in the west anymore, as it's basically the beginning of the west as it's own branch of history.

I bought this about a couple of weeks ago, alongside The Romanovs, The Plantagenets and The Hamsburgs

I'm currently on the Romanovs but I'm not sure what to read after that out of the selection

...

I'm very interested in the hapsburgs but I haven't read in-depth on any of those subjects. personally I'd like to find something great on the proto and early history of brittany when I'm done with this.

Stop Voltaire please no bully

yawn. his joke isn't even accurate and makes people think that studying a millennium of western history is pointless

>coronated by the pope, the representative of holiness
>not holy
>significantly structurally and culturally roman, at times enveloping the papal state
>not roman
>headed by the christ-backed emperor of this plane of existence
>literally an empire by our modern understanding for much of it's history
>not an empire

I agree with Voltiare but I very much believe it is worth studying.

>Holy
This is just like the Great in Great Britain, I'm sure some cock will say Britain isn't great.
>Roman
It isn't Roman, when Charly formed the HRE it was huge and actually looked like it could be the Roman empire's reformation but it wasn't and in Voltaire's time it was quite pathetic. I'm not sure when Voltaire's quote was but there was the 7 year war in his life time which could have inspired the quote.
>Empire
It was so decentralised I can understand why you wouldn't call it an empire. It is sort of like calling the current European union an empire.

But personally I would say it is an empire, it is not Roman and the Holy part doesn't matter

It's a shame how much of our history isn't taught in schools in general. I think back to my history classes and how much time was spent on useless shit, like every single February.

Tragedy and Hope.

I took History for my GCSE and all I learned about was the history of medicine which to be honest I couldn't give the slightest shit about. And also about the rise of Hitler, which though interesting was far too modern for my interest

I think it's kind of silly to consider anything from italy to england "not roman", as it has all literally been roman and directly inherited roman culture. I think it's a historically ignorant view of what is and is not "roman", based more off of geography than actual culture, social structure, and technology(even though much of the HRE has been geographically roman in the past).

voltaire was around towards the end of the HRE, and the definition of "empire" had changed since the formation of the HRE. ironically the word comes from the roman use of what is ruled by the "emperor", of which there was only one to this plane of existence, and did not have the meaning associated with it that we have today or that voltaire had during his time.

also, for hundreds of years it was literally a centralized empire as we consider empires to be today.

It wasn't roman per se but carolus magnus was crowned by the roman pope (derived his autority from rome) in rome and the plan was the renewal of the (west)roman empire

ofc when Voltaire was alive these were times long past but still

I feel like history education is mostly used for agendas of governments and powerful people(often intertwined), and that's where the focus lies. for example, here in america, we talk about how badass we were in wars, how evil and twisted our enemies were, how welcoming the native americans were, the bravery in manifest destiny, etc. etc.

the HRE is so relevant to our world wars yet we don't discuss it. senseless to me. it's also an example of a functioning group of polities, and we ignore it in building the EU in favor of the soviet union's system, which fell apart. maybe I'm just stupid and tunnel visioned.

I agree with it being an empire however I can't call it Roman:

When the HRE was formed I would say it could be called Roman, when it had France, Germany, Italy. I think that warrants the term Roman.

I think because the Romans were so great in comparison to anything we have seen since (Bar maybe GB at it's greatest, Russia at it's greatest, France at it's greatest, Germany at it's greatest) Nothing really compares to it and to use their name for what for large amount of it's time was Germany, Austria, Low countries, Burganrdy, Northern Italy and Bohemia to use the Name of the Romans who conquered that what 10 fold? (Not sure if it was to that extent) Doesn't sit right with me just because the people who lived there also lived under Roman rule.

Could we not call the Ottoman empire Roman because they owned land that once belong to the Romans?

The purpose of mass education is not to make everyone experts in every subject, but to give a minimum knowledge foundation to every citizen. As such obviously history which directly impacts America/American culture will be emphasized if you're American.

Almost finished this

I consider both the ottoman empire and the HRE branches and direct descendants of roman culture. I consider contemporary western culture largely this also(I mean, inspect the language we are discussing this concept with), but things only become more "roman" as you move backwards in time and closer to the source.

you're talking to someone who considers western civilization to be largely mesopotamian, though, using the same logic. the abstract labels we place upon civilization as it branches, moves geographically, and gets represented by various states in my opinion doesn't change what it is at it's core and where it came from. the same as I consider much of the east to be expanded YRV civilization. "roman civilization" is just a more specific branch of western civilization, "anglo civilization" a more specific branch of roman civilization. obviously there are other influences, but civilization itself is a technology centered around language and society, and these things can be traced directly backwards to these sources as "grandparents", so to speak.

I NEED TOMES.
I NEED HISTORY TOMES.
REAL DOOR STOPPERS ABOUT HISTORY.

EVEN METAPHYSICAL ONES.

GIVE THEM TO ME. I NEED HISTORY.

when I think back of what I learned in public school I can pretty much only remember how cool we are, how good people like us and how we fucked up evil people, though, in terms of history. maybe going to a rural school was a factor in this, but I don't remember learning a lot of context for the country I lived in.

I admit that the Romans have influenced the world than anyone else Bar the Brits/Spaniards/Portugeese/Chinese

However I don't see it fair to attribute the achievements of say Britain to the Romans, though heavily influenced and owe the Romans for their empire but that doesn't make it Roman.

The same way that I can't justify saying that the Americans achievements are British.

I think we can acknowledge when a country learns from those who conquer them but we can't give them their achievements

Kys

I guess the way I see it is that the "achievements", though I would use a word more like "features", are inherited, not stolen. where many people pay attention to states as borders of cultural heritage, I prefer to look at civilization as a sort of trail, similar to a human migration pattern. for example, everyone other than sub saharan africans and australoids share common ancestry with cro magnid populations, and in a sense can be considered "cro magnid". I see the same in that the inheritors of mesopotamian civilization are in a sense "mesopotamian", obviously not geographically or genetically but culturally. we have inherited mesopotamia's "achievements", and I see no reason to separate ourselves from them in such a context.

That really doesn't sit right with me. As an Englishmen I feel it is fair for me to feel proud of what my ancestors have done, be it the conquest of French land or becoming the largest empire the world has ever known. I also hold no personal pride of what the Romans did. They had the greatest empire the world has ever known and since my people aren't Roman/Italian I don't claim their achievement as that of my country. I do recognise that the Romans were great and as an Englishman I owe them my respect and gratitude for the technological advance they bought with them

The rise of theodore roosevelt by Edmund Morris

The Lawful Revolution: Louis Kossuth and the hungarians in 1848-1849

Frank Lynn - Marcus Aurelius

Book starts off really strongly but gets boring af by the last couple chapters.

Is it good?

A History of Rome: Down to the Reign of Constantine by M. Cary
Really like his format of describing history even though it is extremely simplified and I need to research the military stuff more in depth because the strategies are nearly never descibed
I like his focus on roman society and culture though

The Ties That Bound: Peasant Families in Medieval England by Barbara Hanawalt. It's fucking hilarious to read about how English peasants bit the dust. Like your pet bear escaping and killing your daughter or robbers pushing your shitty house's wall over on you.

>makes people think that studying a millennium of western history is pointless
>the point

William Durant's 'The History of Civilization: The Reformation' when I am at home, and 'The History of Modern Assassination' or somesuch, focusing mainly on the blunders of intelligence services throughout the formation of the modern spy networks.

The idea is to get through the entire 'History of Civilization' series before I start my third year in uni.

>History of Civilization

it's the story of civilization dumbass, but i do agree that is an encyclopedic work covering the entire history of western civilization, if u can make it through that whole shit u will be well on ur way to patrish status (assuming u then follow up and read all shit shit he mentions)

I don't have any of the volumes in front of me, but I own an original copy of the first edition 1954 set. Don't call me a dumb-ass and then post like a shitter, mate.

My parents have a print of this painting
heh

shhh

Fack uff pseud
Let the man enjoy his ghost written inspiration porn

I picked this up mid May and dropped it halfway, it was just absurdly fucking boring.

I went in expecting more hands on treatment of the battles I guess, but I got dry, broad strokes and political relationships mostly.

Ever since I read Bernard Cornwell's great book on Waterloo I'd been looking for more stuff on the Napoleonic Wars but this may have killed the enthusiasm a little bit.

Generally I've always considered myself a military history buff but anymore its kinda "meh".

Also got sort of interested in reading about the Thirty Years War recently but I was worried I'd just get more of the same so I'll probably hold off.

Did you read a translation?