/lit/ - Literature

>>7001325

Not fucking Gibbon.

>>7001325
I don't think we made a list for history yet.
It's such a varied topic, the few history buffs haven't bothered.

Hobsbawm should definitely be on it. Gibbons is quite nice from what I've read.

Herodotus, The Histories is a great one.

A Short History of Nearly Everything if you're a pleb.

>>7001325

Considering the fact the the field of history is always moving forward, I prefer my history books to have up to date historiography.

>pic related

I have more book titles if you are interested.

>>7001325
Gibbon is only worth reading for the story. If you want factual and well researched books on the Late Roman Empire go for modern historians like Peter Brown, Peter Heather or A. H. M. Jones.

>>7001345
>Gibbons
>s
so you've read none, yeah?

>>7001387

Peter Brown's Through The Eye of a Needle is a heavy read, but damn is it good.

>>7001325

>>7001325
For the medieval period, specifically warfare


J.F. Verbrugge Medieval warfare 800-1340
Jean de Bieul (forgot the book name)
Christine de Pisan (forgot the book name)
Johan Huizinga Autumn of the middle ages
Jonathan Sumption Three part series on the 100 years war
Memoirs of chevalier Bayard
Memoirs of Phillip de commines


Bonus: Thomas of Aquino and Dante

We should make a history list.

Divide it into four or five parts (antiquity, rome, medieval, modern and contemporary)

The Bible

>>7001415

>>7001331
Care to explain?

>>7001325
Is this actually readable without a thorough understanding of Classical references?

The portions I have read would not be enjoyable to just sit down and read, given all the tongue and cheek references he makes at certain emperors

>>7001521
does anyone have a book about the decline of aristocratic ethos and its replacement by the bourgeois (modern) culture? Or is this too specific?

does anyone have a book about the decline of aristocratic ethos and its replacement by the bourgeois (modern) culture?

>>7001600
Quite possibly one by George Mosse. I haven't read anything by him, but judging by his lecture series on European culture I'd say he was very interested in this.

>>7001600
You mean post 1800 stuff?

>>7001325

This thread was fucking brilliant for Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages. People wanted it stickied and no mods bothered.

>>/lit/thread/S6849002#p6850376

>>7001600
Evola might be what you're looking for. But that's 1900s, so it's a bit retrospective.

>>7001652
>>7001815
thanks for the suggestions.

>>7001584
He's been debunked by near-to-every Roman scholar since 1800.

Not a single man after Carlyle is worth your time.

>>7001600

I would also be interested in this. The major cause of the decline of the aristocracy in Europe was World War I, which simply destroyed a large amount of the accumulated wealth of European nations. This is a major part of the message of Capital in the 21st century. The so-called Transylvanian Trilogy is an amazing sequence of historical novels nostalgically depicting the Austro-Hungarian aristocracy in the years leading up to World War I (highly recommended). Also films such as La Grande Illusion deal with the decline of the aristocracy at this time. But I do not know of any scholarly historical work which solely focuses on the decline of the aristocracy.

>>7001600
Karl fucking Marx

>>7001851
>Carlyle
Fuck yes.

>>7001853
It's not a historical work, but I think you'd enjoy the work of Julius Evola. Revolt Against the Modern World is his aristocratic, reactionary, Traditionalist philosophy. Men Among the Ruins is arguing for an impossible reactionary revolt, and Ride the Tiger is his realistic work about how one with the soul of an aristocrat should live in the modern age.

>>7001857
Holy shit, actually end your life.

Robert Carlyle was a child who had less comprehension or regard for historical methodology than even a Nazi revisionist.

>>7001871
Robert? Well, forgive my idiocy, I thought he was referring to Thomas Carlyle.

>>7001871
Also he's a fuckin' psycho smackhead who glassed that lass in a pub that time.

>>7001878
I'm the idiot here, I meant Thomas but recently watched Trainspotting and slipped up.

>>7001895
Oh. What's wrong with Carlyle? His "The French Revolution: A History" was great, if a bit odd in style.

>>7001325
Do you want to read "classics" of historiography? Or do you want to read good history books?

>>7001895
Just Googled criticisms of Carlyle. "The French Revolution: A History has been bitterly criticized for its style of writing, which is highly unorthodox within historiography. Most historians attempt to assume a neutral, detached tone of writing, in the tradition of Edward Gibbon." Ah well, not a fan of Gibbon anyhow.

>>7001345
He wrote like an elderly Marxist even when he was in his 30s.

Don't worry OP, I got ya. I've also been working on a Roman history and a WW2 entry core selection so watch out in history/recommendation threads in the near future.

>>7001840

People read Gibbon for the prose. He is still worth reading, just not as your sole source on Roman history. Unfortunately primary sources on Roman history are not great. Livy is fun to read but is a copy of a copy of original works. Tacitus and Sallust are great but cover very little ground chronologically. Suetonius is entertaining for some anecdotes about the emperors but that's about it. And the rest are mostly mediocrities.

Btw, to change the subject to Greek history, everyone reads Herodotus but no one reads Xenophon. Xenophon's Hellenika is pretty great, it picks up at the end of Thucydides and covers some of the most fascinating events in the history of Athens. His Anabasis is good too but it's more of a personal account than a historical work.

I haven't read widely in modern history but one thing I read and liked, although it's kind of entry-level, is The Years of Lyndon Johnson (4 vols., one more forthcoming). It's not just presidential biography. It gives a lot of perspective on the formation of the modern American political system (with LBJ basically inventing the modern political campaign in 1948) and the third volume in particular has a lot of information about the practical workings of the Senate in the '50s, and global politics at that time.

Anyway, more recommendations please.

Anyone got any good books for Ancient Egypt? How's Joyce Tyldesley?

>>7001950
Too many author repeats for how short a list it is. Book choices fall far short of the stated goal (Christian history) and clearly intend another goal (Roman Catholic history).
Very weak list. OP, this list is not recommended.

>>7001986

This x1000

>>7001950
>christian history
mild kek

>>7001960
The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt by Toby Wilkinson is nice

>>7001950
>>7001986
Any good books on Orthodox history specifically?

>>7001387
At this point Gibbon is most valuable as a primary source on eighteenth century perspectives of government, history, religion, and civilization.

>>7002164
I'm interested in this too.

Also, can anyone recommend books on Russian history?
Since I know very little about Russia I would be interested in earlier history, the medieval period as well as imperial Russia all the way up to the Soviet Union.
Books of fiction that compile Slavic mythology would be nice, too, I know of some fairy tales and that painting with the three bogatyr but that's about it.

At this point I only own a copy of To the Finland Station that I haven't read yet, as the title suggests it deals with communism and it's origins.

>>7002258
Orlando Figes' work is GOAT. "A People's Tragedy" is a history of the Russian Revolution and is one of the best books I've ever read. His "Crimea" is possibly the only good history of the Crimean War I can think of.

>>7001986
Anyone who's researched the area well enough knows literally all protestant history books tend to be extremely heavy going and therefore not, as the list is, entry level. Plus the most pivotal moments in Chrsitian history (e.g. the Crusades and the Great Schsim) are all Christian-centric. Plus, only two authors are repeated and frankly they're the best in their field.

The Conquest of New Spain

>>7001903
>>7001920
That's not really what he is known for.

Thomas Carlyle believed that "history is merely the biography of few great men", and that social change only happened in response to the actions of "heroes". Therefore, an army can be reduced to the strategic skill of its general, and bureaucracy is irrelevant to foreign policy.

He was a deeply conservative historian, believing firmly that slavery should not have been abolished and that nobility were inherently superior to common folk. He opposed all democracy, greatly influenced fascist theory, and his thoughts are widely accepted by /pol/ types today, even though most haven't heard of him.

Curious how good are the loeb library publications? Any worth checking out in particular?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loeb_Classical_Library

http://www.amazon.com/Arrian-Anabasis-Alexander-Classical-Library/dp/0674992601

>>7002258
Heystory:
Klyuchevskii - why Russia is developing as developing. It helps to understand the essence of all internal processes.
Karamzin - filed the story in the form of glorification of monarchy.
Solovyov (George Martin of history, wrote his work life) - the story is filed in the form of glorification of liberalism.
A lot of letters, so it is best to choose Klyuchevskii and read any textbook on the history of Russia. Immediately nauchishsya sift through the propaganda.

And never see Radzinsky. Radzinsky - not a historian, he is a playwright. He wrote his book only to retell them in a television appearance (by the way, he was the best speaker since the time of Cicero's).

From the literature there Peekool. But it is quite tendetsiozny look. He glorifies the heroes and denigrating rock characters (such as Rasputin), and it has many factual errors. He's the same writer as Perez Reverte or Akunin (Akunin fiction too, but cheaper, it does not know what to praise - whether the cadets and young ladies, or liberalism). If you read Mario Puzo's family, then you know what awaits you in the books Pikul.

As for a good fantasy series Wolfhound.

Im looking for detailed literature on the napoleonic campaigns, anyone has some tips?

>>7002603
Good luck finding it
http://www.amazon.com/The-Campaigns-Napoleon-David-Chandler/dp/0025236601

>>7001600
This process really started during the Reformation. Protestantism and the rise of new money have been joined at the hip up until modern times.

>>7002480
Interesting. Is his book on the French Revolution accurate? I don't mind all his personal beliefs and writing style as long as it's accurate.

>>7002666
I guess it is reallu too broad of a subject.

>>7002698
As an accounting of events yes. It presents them as more of a narrative though.

>>7001950

Robert Ventresca's "Soldier of Christ" should be there.

Thread:

Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Richard J. Evans for the history of Germany.

>>7002726
I'm fine with that, thanks.

Do you know of any other good books about the French Revolution?

>>7002258
riasanovsky is standard english language russian history survey textbook

it is nationalist biased but solid

>>7002498
probably get the landmark arrian

loeb is fine and fun if you get a bunch for cheap but no especial reason to read them over anything else

usually it's best to go by translation individually for each work, and if the best translation happens to be available in a loeb edition, and you like the layout, why not

>>7002783
I wrote a historiography paper on the French Revolution, so I guess I could. Strict bare bones would start with Carlyle and his aforementioned work. Then move onto Alphonse Aulard's The French Revolution, a Political History, 1789-1804. The most memorable of the Marxist camp was Georges Lefebvre with his The French Revolution. Cobban formed the revisionist camp with his lecture "The Myth of the French Revolution" but it was taken to it's current position by the work of Furet and William Doyle (the latter writing the Oxford History of the French Revolution).

>>7002783
>>7002849
Also for a laugh read Abbé Barruel's Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism for an old time conspiracy theory.

>>7002849
Great. Thank you very much!

>>7002849
Interesting stuff Anon. Where would you put Simon Schama's book on the French Revolution?

>pic related

>>7002883
>reading about pussy Commie "revolutions"

I know people on here hate reddit but I genuinely feel the booklist for /r/askhistorians is great and very extensive in terms of its breadth

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books


I've read almost a third of it and have yet to find a bad book.

>>7002883
I haven't read that, so I can't really comment. Just looking at buzz it's generated though I'd place it on the revisionist side.

>>7001325
For first historiography read:
E.H. Carr. What is History?

Have a list of some general history books (in no particular order):
G. Kramer A History of Palestine
Why is it good? A lot of history on the area is mostly about either the Middle Ages or the modern state of Israel. The treatment under the area by the Ottomans and then the British is fundemental in our understanding of the modern Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not enough people know enough about it.

V. A. C. Gatrell The Hanging Tree
How and what was the purpose of capital punishment in British society? How was the "bloody code" challenged? How often were people unwilling to return guilty verdits in fear of condemning someone to death?

H. Pirenne Mohammed and Charlemagne
History is about debate. Pirenne asks the qustion, how did the Roman Empire fall? In his opinion, it was the eventually conquests of Islam that caused the real break in Roman history.

J. Gallagher and R. Robinson Africa and the Victorians and their article 'The Imperialism of Free Trade'
What drives Imperialism? And the questions concerning the idea of 'informal empire'.

P. J.Geary Before France & Germany
A transnational period, long before our current states came to be. How did Merovingian civilization shape our world today?

>>7001325
History doesnt work like that OP. Gibbon's work is admirable yes, but in general "catch all" histories are pop histories that dont really delve.

To find a core history work, you should be doing 3 things.

1. Reading primary sources
2. Studying the Historiography
3. Reading the works of the towering figures that come out on top through general critical consensus within the historiography.

Wikipedia is not the best source, but its a great source for sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_French_Revolution

If you went through the sources on this page (to use your ration abilities to determine if the authors deserve to be there), you would draw up a list of authors too read. Then you would read them. Then you would create your own thesis and use the works within to defend it.

I mean, I could tell you to just read Guns Germs and Steel, or Herodotus, or Spengler, but a passing mention of "colonization" doesnt really tell you what it was like for actual native communities suffering from disease and tax rates. That comes from actually doing honest historical work, and paying due deference to both literary and archaeological sources.

>>7001950
I read The Popes and The Crusades: A history. Recommend cv wedgwoods thirty years war, was a good one

>>7002783
>>7002849
>>7002923

Schama's Citizens is a fucking great book, and it really riled up some historians. The reason it got people going was that he considered Violence to be a primary mover of revolutionary thought (instead of just a symptom of) after the failure of the constitutional monarchy.

It had a place of honor in my bookshelf

>>7002377
>>7002568
>>7002836
Thank you very much for the recommendations

Also, has anyone here read The Power Broker?
What did you think of it?

>>7002932

is that Perinne book a rehashing of the goubert thesis?

I am very ignorant regarding history. I just forget historical data very easily. Do you guys make notes or something? I think this would be less of a problem if I read more hist. books, but anyway, just wanna find out how you guys do it.

>>7001600
-The Court Society, Norbert Elias
-Adamson's "The Princely Courts of Europe"
-Dickens's "The Courts of Europe: Politics, Patronage and Royalty"
-Duindam's "Vienna and Versailles: The Courts of Europe's Dynastic Rivals, 1550-1780)

>>7001372
I'm very interested.

>>7001325
EP Thompson, Making

>>7001952
>tfw this is the only time you've heard of anyone else having read Xenophon

I just finished Hellenika and Anabasis, and am starting Cyropaedia (but am leaving Memorabilia for after I dip into Plato).

Xenophon is fun as fuck, and I've only ever seen him recommended on one of the three "start with the greeks" charts we have floating around, and I've certainly never heard him discussed before. He seriously falls short as a real historian, especially compared to Thucydides, but his Socratic dialogue (especially in Anabasis) more than makes up for it, as long as you're not reading him for the sake of knowing the history itself.

That's an idea which I imagine you're quite comfortable with, considering your defense of Gibbon (which I actually just picked up at a used book store today, in the 1946 Heritage Press print in 3 volumes with slip cases, for just under $20). Have you read Gibbon? Did you enjoy his text?

>tfw you respond late and worry about a missed connection with your Xenophon bro

>>7002883
>Where would you put Simon Schama's book on the French Revolution?
Well I am running short on toilet paper.

>>7001952
>>7003723
Oh, and which Xenophon translation did you read? They were seriously lacking compared to Herodotus and Thucydides. I tried out the Rex Warner translation of Hellenika (aka A History of My Times), and it was rocky for about 15 pages after finishing Thucydides, but I ended up liking it and stuck with it, also picking up the Warner copy of Anabasis.

>>7002993
>has anyone here read The Power Broker?
Yes, and I fucking loved it. Granted, I had an existing interest in the history and urban landscape of New York. But I think the book is still totally worth reading if you're interested in the history of urban development. The biographical elements of the book--about how this young idealist became a cynical, powerful pragmatist--are quite interesting.

Caro is a master at ferreting out the little details and side stories and anecdotes that make history come to life.

What do I look for if I want a history book and there's several on the same subject? How do I know which one is the best?

I've skimmed Glubb's generalized overveiw of the idea that great civilizations undergo consistent cultural and sociological trends that eventually culminate in their failure, the so called "Fate of Empires."

Would anyone recommend reading on this idea or on the general similarities between the path of long-lasting civilizations that eventually marks their fall from grace?

>>7004138
The one not written by pathetic Marxists
Look for how they talk about Ayn Rand and capitalism. If it's good, the book is good. If it's bad, the book is shit.

>>7003723
>>7003733

It's me again.

To be honest I've only read a bit of Gibbon (like 100 pages). I will get around to him eventually. I really enjoy his style and, like I said, I think that is the main reason to read him.

Cyropaedia is cool and was influential in antiquity, I'm guessing, because I've seen it referenced by both Cicero and Seneca.

I have the Loeb Classical Library edition of Xenophon in 7 vols. I am not that great at Greek, but I know enough to get something out of the Greek text in a bilingual edition. I would rather have a bilingual edition with a shitty English translation than a good English translation without the Greek text.

>>7004138
The one whose author has the least jewish sounding name.

>>7004300

watch out for the cryptos as well

How about Chinese history book /lit/?

Why is it that most of the stuff I read seem to be full of bullshit exaggeration and obvious myth.

>>7004366
Because chinamen lack the aryan mindset.

Only aryans can into literature. Think about it.

>>7004366

I audited a class that used The Search for Modern China as a textbook. I liked it a lot; it's not too dense for general interest reading. It's very good for the downfall of the Ming dynasty (17th century) to the present day. Idk about earlier Chinese history.

So many idiots here just regurgitating the
>read Gibbon for prose
>his history is outdated

Its a very thorough work that will give you a very good idea of Roman history

>>7004271
Cool, I've heard that Loeb is top notch for Greek/Latin works, but damn if it isn't pricey.

Interesting to hear that Cyropaedia doesn't just get totally forgotten; I haven't reached any Roman works yet, and only heard of Cyropaedia because I was looking more in depth into Xenophon's works, and it seemed compelling (his commentary on horses did not strike me similarly, although I could be wrong).

>>7002698
It's his least shit work, but his ideology still shows through.

>>7001325
>Does /lit/ have a core history books list?
We could easily make them for different time periods if we got our shit together.

What do you guys think about Christopher Clark? I 've read The Sleepwalkers and his book about Prussia and they were pretty good

>>7003396
>goubert thesis
Other way around. Pirenne thesis came before.

>>7001462
>Respectable history list
>terms like ''medieval'' on it
>nothing between medieval and modern

>>7005261
My professor was very positive about The Iron Kingdom, and he used to shit on everything else, really.

Well, it's a very big field.
You have to ask yourself, what precisely do you want to read about? Place, timer period and all that.
Personally, I try to find university reading lists, it filters out pop trash written for a quick buck.
For example: http://www.hist.cam.ac.uk/undergraduate/tripos-papers/part-i-papers-2014-2015

Gibbon is very entertaining to read but you miss out on the 300 years of progress in classical studies if you solely rely on him.

On the topic of history, what did /lit/ think of Bernard Cornwell's recent book on Waterloo?

It's the only book I've read on the battle so I'm unsure if I should believe it word for word or not.

>>7001325
I just finished reading this. It was quite good. More of a narrative than an analytical work, but still very very interesting. It's part of a trilogy called 'Byzantium'.

>>7006316
Battles (despite what John "Just Cuck My Shit Up" Green says) are super interesting and a core part of history. It'd be best if you read more on Waterloo yourself, rather than asking for a predigested opinion from /lit/. Watching a comprehensive series like the Great War on youtube has taught me that military history is anything but a series of various actions by commanders. There are some people who make very poor decisions and some people who make very good decisions and their arguing far behind the lines has huge ramifications for the conflict.

>>7004579
Its standard 4chan contrarian bullshit. No shit a book from centuries ago is outdated, they act like this is some big revelation lmao
Its not like modern historians dont read it anymore and base their books on what he got right. Besides, its a fuckhuge book and probably more thorough than many modern roman histories

>>7006326
That's what I found to be interesting about this Cornwell's Waterloo. I thought he took very special care in describing the reasoning and thought process of commanders during the battle in detail, then the effect that had on the fighting. Thanks for the tip tho, I'll read about it more.

>>7006379
I think it's just due to the way we're taught in school. They rarely have time to go into battles so it's at best reduced down to a "Napoleon lost at waterloo after constant attrition due to the Russian army denying his troops resources" or at worst a simple "Napoleon lost at Waterloo, triggering the end of his imperial ambitions" which completely fails to account for the huge impact that the various players had on the battle. I understand Great Man history is outdated, but there are some important aspects in it that I feel should be preserved.

>>7006480
Where are you from good man?
I'm in UK and the only decent battle we learned about is 1066 Hastings. Other battles were mostly about suffragettes or the Indians being oppressed and asking for independence.
Would be pretty nice if people today would spend more time to find idols of the past, like Napoleon felt about Alexander The Great.

>>7006515
USA so all our in depth battles are about you. We sort of got into a couple of the battles from the Peloponnesian War (no idea why though)

Pic related was great. It gives you a rather quick overview of history of the Mediterranean Sea starting with the first civilizations on the islands and coasts

Remarkable in scope as it is in insight, Jared Diamond shows us why he claimed the Pulitzer Prize in his historical accounting of the development of civilisation. A true tour de force.

>>7006550

>>7006527
Lucky at least you had in depth battles. Hastings was basically "Saxon's were tired from marching across England. Whereas the Normans just got off a boat and also had modern units and equipment. Therefor they won."
As a kid I was often fascinated by battles and Great Men. Which naively led me to take History in Collage. I have never been so disappointed.

Reading through pic related and realizing how little I know about French history. What are the best early French history books?

>>7006588
Wasn't a major part of Hastings also due to King Harold being killed by a volley of arrows? I'm not big on English history (prefer French though so I do get some English as a result) but to simplify it to that is just laughable.

>>7006600
for a brief overview I enjoyed Sedillot's An outline of French history

>>7005366
Oh I see, how interesting. I'll definitely give it a read then. Thanks