What are some Veeky Forums approved history books?

What are some Veeky Forums approved history books?

Pic possibly related?

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.de/gp/product/3423008385/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
reddit.com/r/history/wiki/recommendedlist/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Try Peter Turchin's "War and peace and war"

where could one acquire books in digital form for as much as a janitor gets paid? asking for a friend.

MAM

can I have a clue?

He means myanonamouse. From my experience it's no better than libgen and irc.

Thanks friend

Pictured is definitely Veeky Forums approved. Hume and Macaulay's Englands; Caton, Foote, Macpherson on the American Civil War; Carlyle's French Rev; Bradford's Of Plymouth Plantation are five 'safe bet' instances.

Pic related is a good romp but Gibbon can't resist throwing a few proto-fedora groaners in there.
Also his style is dazzling at first and then starts to feel formulaic at some point (a whole lot of Enlightenment phraseology like "the indifference of his answer displayed the freedom of his mind" and shit like that) but honestly the fucking thing is like over 2000 pages so if that's the worst I can say about it then it's pretty good.

My copy's 3200 pps. Read it while going through a divorce. It kind of saved me.
One gains a good sense of how modern Europe took shape after the fall of the Western empire via the trafficking (and tracking) of barbarian hordes and the rise and expansion of Islam. The writing's fantastic throughout though (as said) evasive in places.

If you're at all interested in the French Revolution, I'd recommend Citizens by Simon Schama.

...

Pic related
Marlborough by Churchill
This

>no herodotus or thucydides yet
:o

Cecil Chesterton -History of the US
Henry Adams- Administration of James Madison
Macaulay- History of Englanf

Outside of prose a lot of the facts are out of date, obviously. And his core thesis, that Christianity led to passivity which led to barbarians/the fall, is pretty obtuse for a question like "how did Rome fall?" I mean, it's a great book for its impact and scope but it's not relevant to the modern field.

please go fuck off back to plebbit
I'm so tired of idiots like you barging into Gibbon threads like you know what the fuck you're talking about. Yeah I'm sure your autistic analysis of fragmentary banking transactions and grain counts have given you the FACTS to vastly update our conception of the history of rome.
How autistic do you have to be to think the established narrative needs to be updated every 5 years when a new pottery shard is found
>b-b-b-b-but the numismatists have extensively analyzed the shape of majorian's head on a coin fragment unearthed in 1952 that Gibbon couldn't POSSIBLY have known about
kill yourself

...

"Stalingrad: The Infernal Cauldron" by Stephen Walsh... or Welsh... can't remember which. Read it around 2013-14 or so if I had to guess, great book, lots of interesting facts, one in particular I've put to memory.

>June-December 1941
>6,000,000 Soviet casualties
>2,000,000 Soviet POWs
>Over 20,000 tanks put out of commission

Yup, the first half a year or so of Operation Barbarossa went startlingly well for Nazi Germany, and yet still didn't meet Hitler's completely unrealistic goals of taking the ENTIRETY of the USSR within 6 months before winter, or at least before spring when the snow melts and everything turns muddy making driving/marching more difficult.

Like I said, it's a great book and is a foundational text to the field but it's hardly the standard narrative anymore. A 240 year old text in any field is going to be filled with inaccuracies, invalid conjectures, and missing facts so it's folly to think Gibbon is ironclad or close to it. Good book but take it with a grain of salt in a lot of places.

>Enlightenment phraseology
That just 18th century sentence balancing. You would not have made this mistake had you only brought history to the aid of criticism.

Can anyone give me an opinion on Cyril Robinson?
Was going to start this soon.

This. Macaulay isn't widely read anymore, but he's up there with Gibbon, Hume, Fox, and company.

Is siddartha mukherjee Veeky Forums?

It's style is fantastic, but I don't recommend it all for someone who doesn't know much about Roman history. He takes a lot of historical liberties and injects his own opinions. One particularly weird one is that he kinda just shits on the Byzantine empire and turned historians off of it for the better part of 150 years. The best thing to do is get yourself an easy, readable survey and jump into progressively more niche books based on what fits your interest. Try SPQR by Mary Beard. It's very narrative-based and introduces a lot of good information.

>Try SPQR by Mary Beard

"no"

Unrelated question:
Can someone who's read Nabokov's Ada or Ardor tell me what kind of incest it is?
Is it like brother/sister or son/mother? My money is on Nabokov having an oedipus complex

Gibbon is good for literature and cultural references. But you're an utter retard if you seriously take that book as an academical narrative.

>implying our understanding of Roman history has changed significantly over the last 2 centuries
It hasn't.

Yes, it has dumbfuck. We've gained more cultural context, more physical evidence (Pompeii was hardly excavated during Gibbon's life), better understanding of migrational patterns, inclusion of environmental factors, different historiographical tools, and have found better and more reliable sources than Gibbon had. The overall narrative has largely stayed the same but the medium to fine details have changed dramatically in some cases. Gibbons thesis was likely wrong as anyone with a brain can tell you the fall of Rome was more than "christfags did it."

Person addressed. I read Gibbon as a Classics\English guy so I already had a pretty good handle on the Greeks, Alexandrians, and Romans when I read it. Gibbon like Carlyle is still read today for its literary qualities and over all greatness as a work of art, and justly so. Historically however Gibbon (like Sismondi or Guiciardini or Burckhardt) is of interest for historiographical purposes, or for as having been a great historian and a pioneer in his field. The history itself however AS history has long been surpassed. Nevertheless I'd recommend it. It truly is a great book.

Whats a good account of the Roman civil war between Augustus, Brutus and co.?

Mary Beard is a respected academic of Roman history, what's the problem?

Appian's Civil Wars
Syme's "Roman Revolution"

Academics can still write pop history dogshit

...

Gibbon didn't take into account the length of the Roman fall. The British Empire rose and fell in half the time it took Western Rome to fall.

Taking the economic fluctuation, environmental changes (end of their forests, expensive paper etc.) into account is a fairly modern invention as well. Or rather, we know much more of it than free bread and circus.

yes he did since the decline and fall goes all the way to byzantium's fall

What are some books about Byzantine court, military, and society?

libgen

nope

yup

...

...

Pretty good book about Hitler.

Underrated.

>88

what am i supposed to make of that

...

I have not heard of those books before.

Can you please tell me why I should avoid them?

The first three Age books are alright, probably as good as a historical materialist approach can get (that's not saying much), the fourth is an exercise in communist whitewashing.

they primarily view economics and economic relations as the prime mover in history.... they also view history in a deterministic and telelogical fashion.

people prefer fairy stories to materialistic, objective, fact based, historical analysis.

plebs

Myths and Legends of the First World War

Really dispells the retarded sensationalist bullshit of "THEY WERE BOMBED EVERY MINUTE WAR IS HELL *cow mooing*"

People always say Gibbon is out of date, so what books would you recommend for a current history of rome?

outdated == redpilled

Is this any good? I found it in my parent's garage.

Trying to find an unabridged copy right now in the original German, but it's a major pain; most copies are in Germany and shipping costs around $40.

I don't think I can trust Schama after he crashed and burned while trying to debate pseuds Mark Steyn and Nigel Farage on the European migration crisis.

Gibbon is still GOAT for the macroscopic narrative of the fall of the Roman empire, recent historical advances aside, and is worth reading for the prose alone.

nice cover. their cover of plutarch's lives is pretty cool as well, reminds me of midnight marauders

>Gibbons thesis was likely wrong as anyone with a brain can tell you the fall of Rome was more than "christfags did it."

Wow for someone with such a profoundly detailed understanding of Rome you would think that you could manage a more nuanced caricature of Gibbon's thesis.
This is exactly why I hate idiots like you. You've never even read Gibbon and here you are telling us he's "outdated" (whatever the fuck that means) while in the same breath telling us the overall narrative has stayed the same. It's like you're actually retarded.

""""""""""""""academical narrative"""""""""""""""""""""""

HAHAHAHAH HEHEHEHEHE HIHIHIHHIHIH HOOHOHOHOHOH

What mistake?

Matt Damon?

>Trying to find an unabridged copy right now in the original German, but it's a major pain; most copies are in Germany and shipping costs around $40.
I just bought mine yesterday for ~7€ (living in germany, with delivery):
amazon.de/gp/product/3423008385/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
Where are you from? I am sure we can find a way to get it cheaper to you.

The general shape, parts, and abilities of a car has stayed the same but the internal workings, quality, and efficiency of the car has changed immensely from the Model T to a modern car. No one is saying that the Model T wasn't a landmark, not a great car, or not appreciable. However, no one would drive a Model T as their day car. Gibbon's overall history, his macro reasoning, and sources we're groundbreaking at the time but now we appreciate it for facets outside of it's accuracy or core thesis. The general narrative has stayed the same but every part of the book is Model-T level (and cars still use parts that work/appear very close to Model-T parts like modern historians agree on a lot of what Gibbon said, generally). It's not the Constitution or a living document, it's a text that was written in the late 1700's before Leopold von Ranke was even born and scholars seriously stopped to consider historiography post enlightenment. No one in this thread is promoting some revisionist history of Rome and no one has said Gibbon is anything worse than a cultural landmark. Yet, they all say he's not relevant to modern scholarship and, yes, outdated due to the absolute lack of historiographocal tools, post Gibbon scholarship, and inclusion of new discoveries. Just because something is a monolith in legacy and impact doesn't make it relevant to modern studies.

Why not just go all the way and type up a food analogy

>argument by analogy

The Book, Amazon Shipping to me and international one to you should add up to max 15-20€.
Message me on plebbit in case you're interested/ I forget the thread

/user/Kirschkernkissen/.

Unlevened bread in a world of sliced raisin bread.

>Yet, they all say he's not relevant to modern scholarship and, yes, outdated due to the absolute lack of historiographocal tools, post Gibbon scholarship, and inclusion of new discoveries. Just because something is a monolith in legacy and impact doesn't make it relevant to modern studies.

You're just cementing more and more exactly what I hate about the reddit brigade going around with their iconoclast anti-Gibbon ideology.

He's not relevant to modern scholarship? Excuse me but who the fuck cares?
Are you aware that no one here is a scholar of ancient Rome?
Do you understand how outrageously specialized you'd have to be to make an original contribution to ancient Rome scholarship in fucking 2017?
That field has been thoroughly plowed bro.
We don't want grain count records we just want a functional understanding of the history in order to frame our cultural thought.

What would be a good roman history books that's relevant to the modern field?

just read Gibbons and all the other classics, you aren't by profession a historian are you now

SPQR is pretty modern and good and Tom Holland or whatever his name was

We Wuz Patricians: A Historiographical Approach
by Na-tash Cotes

Using corn records Cotes revolutionizes the population estimates in support of his scientifically demonstrable thesis that only black virility could account for the growth variable K under such corn constraints

>dude just go read pop history garbage lmao

Fuck off Mary

Thinking about getting a few books out of the Oxford History of the United States.

Has anyone read them? I'm starting only with "The glorious cause" as of now.

>Gibbons
>SPQR
>Holland
>pop-history garbage

OK DONT READ ANYTHING THATS NOT ACADEMIC STUDY PAPER DUDE FUCKIN EVERYTHING ELSE LMAO TOO BUD BUDDY IF YOU CANT ACCESS OXFORD LIBRARY WOOPS

>Robert Middlebrow

I was specifically referring to SPQR you dip, that is clear as day pop-history garbage

What does Veeky Forums think of Mommsen?

B-ok.org
Libgen
Gutenberg

So much rage inside you, user.

i know.
who hurt me?

I don't know. I think it's time to let go though, user. You cannot change the past.

Thanks.

Thanks guys, I'm living in the USA right now. This copy on amazon is actually perfect though; the shipping is real cheap.

>outdated

I really wish this meme would fucking stop

Can't believe I actually typed this shit on Amazon, am I retarded?

No offense my man but I think you might be

It's not your fault man.
We live in a clown world and it's becoming increasingly impossible to tell satire from reality.

Opinion on Bryan Ward-Perkins and his "The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization"?

Holy shit, decide already motherfuckers, is Gibbon outdated or not? What book should we read on roman history that's accurate?

>Do you understand how outrageously specialized you'd have to be to make an original contribution to ancient Rome scholarship in fucking 2017?
You could say that about almost ANY field like chemistry, linguistics, other national histories, physics, etc. Linguists recognize the importance of the Grimm brothers and their work factors into the framework of the field but no linguist solely applies their theories to the field. The age of generalists is dead. And then problem with Gibbon, like I said, is his thesis is limited in scope and depth to provide a sufficient answer for a complex question like "Why did Rome fall?" Obviously it's not really as simple as "Christfags did it" but he doesn't reason that environment, economics, populations, or some specific administrations could have significantly factored into the fall when they demonstrably did. He provided great framework and a good direction but he's not "relevant" in the sense that there's 230 years of more scholarship after him.

Just because their has been more scholarship it doesn't mean it's better

>scholarship just progressively gets better

Does Amazon.de ship directly to you? Otherwise just message me.

>but he doesn't reason that environment, economics, populations, or some specific administrations could have significantly factored into the fall

He actually literally does this.

Gibbon is historically accurate. His conclusions on some things are his own.

>tfw you get no good history book recommendations because everyone here (no one having read Gibbon of course) is sperging out

Oh stop being such a faggot

I have a giant folder full of history book recommendations they really are not that hard to come by

Actually I just ordered Gibbons work due to all this butthurt.

What do you mean by "accurate?"

There's two different things going on here. Gibbon tries to provide a narrative and an analysis at the same time. Modern scholarship would not analysis Roman history in the same way that Gibbon does, but the received narrative is virtually the same.

I want to read Gibbon but I have fucking 71 unread books on my shelf

Of course I brought this onto myself and I have no one else to blame, but I'm still enraged and frustrated all the same

user, Gibbon's masterpiece was written at the end of 18th century.

It is outdated.

If you want to read Gibbon to know roman history, avoid it; if you want to read Gibbon to know the thought and the thesis of an eighteenth century man on roman history, on "the Fall of Rome", read it.

The same discourse can be made with authors closer to our times like Syme, Spengler, Carcopino or Croce.

You Angloamericans are lucky, beacuse there are many informative (?) history books.
Author like Goldsworthy, Powell, Brunt, Fields

reddit.com/r/history/wiki/recommendedlist/

There you go, thank me later.