/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4660523]

What are the books on history that everyone should've read?

[Anonymous No.4660538]

Pliny
Herodotus

[Anonymous No.4660545]

>>4660523
Probably the only "universal" text in English is EP Thompson's _Making of the English Working Class_; this is due to its topic, quality of writing, systematic insights, methodological advancements and theoretical position.

[Anonymous No.4660615]

>>4660523


a farewell to alms

[Anonymous No.4660617]

Guns, Germs, Steel
A People's History of the United States

[Anonymous No.4660619]

a savage war of peace

[Anonymous No.4660626]

A Distant Mirror (Wow!)
A World Undone

[Anonymous No.4660645]

The Acmeist movement in Russia it was Tacitus, Sueton and Dio Cassius. They were opposed to modernism and all the lurid autismal prose that the modernists produced.
They also liked seminal periods of Russian history - Ivan the Terrible, the Troubles, Peter the Great, Stenka Razin et cetera.


>>4660545
What are those insights?

[Anonymous No.4660660]

>>4660617
I like the former, but let's not pretend it's required reading.

[Anonymous No.4660663]

To the Acmeist movement in Russia it was Tacitus, Sueton and Dio Cassius. They were opposed to modernism and to it's lurid autismal prose. They liked seminal periods of Russian history mainly footing on the enlightenment era narrative by Karamzin instead of all the fancy new historians who sought to replace monarch-actors by abstractions such as Civilization, Social Classes or Nationality.


>>4660545
What are those insights?

[Anonymous No.4660672]

>>4660619
this guy.

also, gibbon, also, thucydides, also trotsky.

maybe also hobsbawm and barzun.

[Anonymous No.4660673]

>open thread hoping to find rare treasures
>find pop history books instead
>browsing /lit/ is analogous to sifting through mountains of garbage

[Anonymous No.4660708]

>>4660672
>also trotsky
you might also go directly for the animal farm. painting lenin/trotsky as «piggy snowball» is a fine summary how leon viewed the russian revolution.

[Anonymous No.4660739]

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Edward Gibbons
Gallic Wars: Julius Caesar

[Anonymous No.4660758]

>>4660617
>Guns, Germs and Steel

[Anonymous No.4660761]

>>4660758
>>4660758
It's a good beginner's book.

[Anonymous No.4660772]

>>4660523
Have fun.

[Anonymous No.4660779]

>>4660772
>protocols of zion
Stopped reading there.

[Anonymous No.4660785]

>>4660779
>Implying the Protocols aren't at the very least a spooky read if not legit.
Protip: they're legit

[Anonymous No.4660808]

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/general

>inb4 plebs that cry about linking to lebbit

This is a great general list, and just remove the "general" from that URL to get more specific recommendations. The list is compiled from history grad students and Ph.Ds. I will personally recommend Why the West Rules for Now as well as The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization

[Anonymous No.4660817]

>>4660772
No thanks jeff

[Anonymous No.4660820]

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

[Anonymous No.4660832]

>>4660772
them unironically recommending stephen Jay Gould is fucking gold

[Anonymous No.4660835]

>>4660617
Marxist detected.

[Anonymous No.4660840]

>>4660835
Marxism is a tool.

[Anonymous No.4660845]

>>4660808
but keep in mind it's redditors. that's where you go if you want the opinion of a school teacher from the American countryside.

[Anonymous No.4660846]

>>4660840
Yeah for you to be a manipulative, lying faggot. Just like that book's author, funnily enough.

[Anonymous No.4660850]

>>4660846
I don't know much about Marx but I'm convinced by this well-reasoned argument.

[Anonymous No.4660853]

>>4660845
As opposed to you, secret history scholar that isn't a basement whale.

[Anonymous No.4660855]

>>4660850
>I admittedly am retarded but I sure am fucking proud of it

[Anonymous No.4660866]

>>4660845
AskHistorians is probably the best history related forum on the internet

[Anonymous No.4660868]

>>4660855
I don't think you meant to make that greentext.

[Anonymous No.4660872]

>>4660868
knowing this site that probably wasn't a totally original joke but it was fucking fantastic regardless, so cudos

[Anonymous No.4660876]

>>4660868
>I'm going to keep being a sarcastic faggot because you expressed an opinion I didn't like, even though I (probably lied about) know(ing) little about the topic anyway

What is your goal here? Make marxists looks like morons? Be offended I called that guy a faggot?

[Anonymous No.4660879]

[Anonymous No.4660886]

>>4660876
More like point out your line of reasoning of "he's a faggot and so are you" isn't going to change anyone's mind and is a significantly less convincing argument than "this methodology is just one of many tools."

What is your goal here? Make anti-Marxists look like incoherent children who can't write a sentence without swearing or name-calling?

[Anonymous No.4660894]

>>4660886
>>4660876
>>4660868
>>4660855
>>4660850
Stop. This isn't going to get anywhere and doesn't answer OP's question. make a new thread if you want to have the hourly /pol/-/lit/ debate. Right now it just makes both of you look annoying

[Anonymous No.4660895]

>>4660879
I was amazed by his mythology cycle.

[Anonymous No.4660898]

Don't read Gibbon OP if your looking for a concrete historical analysis of the Late Roman Empire. Its severely outdated and reeks of 18th century moral prudery...this a good read though

though still a good read.

Pliny, Tacitus, Herodotus, Thucicydes, Polybius and Caesar should also be ignored if you do not have a good background in general Greek and Roman history.

Books by Adrian Goldsworthy, Paul Cartledge, Anthony Everett and Donald Kagan are a good place to start for your a beginner.

If you really want an in depth analysis of the Classical period I would move on to the Roman Revolution (Ronald Syme), Last Generation of the Roman Republic (Erich Gruen), Alexander to Actium (Peter Green, be warned though he can be pompous at times), The World of Late Antiquity or Power and Persuasion (Peter Brown), The Classical Foundations of Modern Historiography (Arnaldo Momigliano, he's a good starting point if you want to read the Classical Historians mentioned above).

These are but a few, I have shit tone of more recommendations if need be.

[Anonymous No.4660899]

Some james cambell

[Anonymous No.4660903]

>>4660898
fuck, *good place to start for a beginner

[Anonymous No.4660907]

I like how the resident commie janitor deleted the comment chain but left the ignorant faggot and his toadie being pointless and saying "OH SICK BURN MAN THAT MAKES UP FOR YOUR IDIOCY"

Like I said, manipulative pieces of garbage.

[Anonymous No.4660915]

>>4660907
holy shit you sound like a butthurt faggot. Its just am imageboard, kid

[Anonymous No.4660919]

>>4660866
if you don't know a thing about the subject it might sound impressive indeed. they have answers for questions that do not and cannot have an answer. theirs is usually just the belief in the us american academy. some of their «flaired historians» are American bureaucracy, others work in a think tank and do not deny it, their big expert on late antiquity is otherwise a clergyman. it is naive to pick out reddit out of everything else found on the internets. In particular if you're not just out for a good mark in an america hogeschool.
>>4660853
so you are the debasement whale?

[Anonymous No.4660924]

>>4660915
We were talking about politics, dummy and xD UMAD carries no weight speaking about societal and economic consequences. If you don't like the fact that I swear, I recommend you get the fuck over it, you faggot.

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4660943]

>>4660907
>>4660924
Take a nap. You're just cranky. Go.

[Anonymous No.4660950]

>>4660919
so, what, you subscribe to some unorthodox analysis of history that prompts you to get annoyed by the more acceptable responses of scholars? I also don't see what the deal is with what their profession is, as long as they have formal or rigorous education in the subject, which I believe they have to prove to be flared.

>it is naive to pick out reddit out of everything else found on the internets. In particular if you're not just out for a good mark in an america hogeschool.

Have you found something better? I really like the fact that I can distinguish who's educated in the subject, and it is active enough that I can get answers about obscure questions.

> they have answers for questions that do not and cannot have an answer

Whenever I have seem something approaching that, which is rarely, it is usually accompanied by a fair disclaimer

[Anonymous No.4661082]

>>4660950
>you subscribe to some unorthodox analysis of history
historiography is educated guess-work. it's not a hard science. it's story telling. they are trying to make one narrative seem more probable than another. a greek would that «rhetoric». and i don't see why i would prefer the latest credo of the american orthodoxy over everything else.

ask the reddit historians about the bombing of hiroshima, about vietnam, about whatever vonnegut was going on about in his slaughterhouse 5 and you will get a wholesome /r/murica style reply. but i don't get why you would want orthodoxy.

i prefer closed fora that are bound to some sort of a hobby tangentially related to history. or good reads. or primary sources. f.e.here's a site on hiroshima held by a american physicist dabbling in history:
http://www.dannen.com/decision/
his sources state clearly that what is a complete heresy to any official US army historian and they'll be a part-heresy to most american universities. they'll not be a heresy at all to a French or a German academic or to any random american who's seen their sources or some circumstantial evidence himself. i do not see a reason to pick out the narrative subscribed to by the /r/askhistorians mod demographic.

[Anonymous No.4661130]

>>4660950
>you subscribe to some unorthodox analysis of history
historiography is educated guess-work. it's not a hard science. it's story telling. they are trying to make one narrative seem more probable than another. the Greek term for that stuff is «rhetoric». and i don't see why i would prefer the rhetoric of any particular orthodoxy .

ask the reddit historians about the bombing of hiroshima, about vietnam, about whatever vonnegut was going on about in his slaughterhouse 5 and you will get a wholesome /r/murica styled reply.

>Have you found something better?
i prefer closed fora that are bound to some sort of a hobby tangentially related to history. or good reads. or primary sources.

[Anonymous No.4661139]

>>4661082
I respectfully believe you are very mistaken in holding the views that you do, but I'm sure you feel the same toward me.

I've found almost everyone interested in wholesale dismissal of a given field's academia is at wrong far more than the scholars they criticize. If that makes me some kind of shill, so be it.

[Anonymous No.4661142]

>>4660907
I like how anyone who disagrees with you is human filth. That is the sign of an intelligent man who has interesting things to say and comes to thoughtful conclusions after considering all available evidence. And then calls everyone a faggot.

[Anonymous No.4661218]

>open history thread
>some kind of gay flamewar
>pop history books
>the dude who uses underscores for emphasis and constantly recommends E.P. Thompson

/lit/, i..

[Anonymous No.4661237]

Any iranologists or classicists of Late Antiquity on /lit/?

I'm doing a research paper on East Roman (300-600) and Sasanian relations with the pre-Islamic Arabs, and while I have a gigantic stack of books to find a thesis in, it never hurts to get some early leads.

I was thinking of looking into Anastasius' foreign policy a bit since he seems to like converting enemies of his enemies to Orthodox Christianity.

[Anonymous No.4661459]

>>4660663
>What are those insights? [in E.P. Thompson's _Making_]

The self-constitutive nature of emergent working classes: materially, politically, narratively. The role of methody and religion. The importance of the London Mob in recapitulating the radical republicans crushed in the early 90s. The independence of the formation of the class from the factory system per se. The importance of the "early class" such as frame knitters. The presence of King Ludd as a viable revolutionary resistance movement from the first moments of capitalism. A demonstration of the overthrowing of structuralism and the validity of humanist marxism grounded in historiography: key empirical demonstration overshadowing the howls of French theory. The continued utility of narrative in English historiography. And, returning to the class, the self-constituitive nature of the working class in both its waged life and in its transcendence of the wage relation—that the working class was there at its own making and that it made itself.

[Anonymous No.4661462]

>>4661218
>>the dude who uses underscores for emphasis and constantly recommends E.P. Thompson
In plain text underlining indicates italics. Titles of works are set in italics, not for emphasis, but for clarity.

[Anonymous No.4661519]

>>4661130
>historiography is educated guess-work. it's not a hard science. it's story telling. they are trying to make one narrative seem more probable than another.

Aren't there forms of historiography which argue against narrative methods?

[Anonymous No.4661574]

>>4661519
Social science history, theory informed history.

Basically read anything critical of 'the narrative turn' in historiography. I'd recommend humanist and structuralist marxism, cliometics (as right wing as marxist history is left), economic history, history of wages.

There's plenty of "social science" history out there.

[Anonymous No.4661576]

In undergrad I wrote a paper on Charlotte Bronte's Shirley and how it's all lies, using Thompson's Making, was good fun.

[Anonymous No.4661577]

>>4661574
>structuralist marxism

What is this in historiography? Because I mostly know this as a term for Althusserian shenanigations.

[Anonymous No.4661582]

Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Montaillou

[Anonymous No.4661622]

books written in an essayistic, re-readable style, which i'd take on a lonely island. often they pop up in the bibliography of modern books, cool passages are quoted, supposedly to illustrate the history of opinions or something. but in reality because the modern authors suck at coming up with interesting observations themselves.

vasari - lives of the artists
voltaire - history of charles XII
montesquieu - causes of the greatness of the romans and their decline (instead of gibbon)
schiller - history of thirty years war
de staël - considerations on the principal events of the french revolution
caulaincourt - with napoleon in russia
kantorowicz - frederick II (HRR)
huizinga - waning of the middle ages
burckhardt - age of constantine, culture of the renaissance & reflections on history
friedell - history of ancient & ...modern time
spengler - decline of the west
liddell hart - other side of the hill
yates - rosicrucian enlightenment

[Anonymous No.4661633]

>>4660617
>Guns, Germs, Steel
A mental image of a thousand historians weeping and holding their heads just leapt into my mind.

Weird.

[Anonymous No.4661637]

>>4661459
>A demonstration of the overthrowing of structuralism and the validity of humanist marxism grounded in historiography: key empirical demonstration overshadowing the howls of French theory.
Does Thompson critique structuralism/post-structuralism directly? I should really read the book, actually...

[Anonymous No.4661642]

>>4661577
Bunch of historians of ideas like Perry Anderson adhere

[Anonymous No.4661646]

>>4661637
He does in poverty of theory; but his big balls right to is _Making_

[Anonymous No.4661647]

Raymond Williams' Culture and Society is pretty cool.

Although for a single must-read, Keywords would be a good choice. Not exactly thorough, but it covers a hell of a lot of ground in describing where the words we use to discuss the world come from.

[Anonymous No.4661652]

I know I'll get called both reactionary and pleb, but dammit Simon Schama writes well. Reading the third part of his History of Britain at the moment and he makes most historians look like they're not even trying to be readable.

[Anonymous No.4661739]

Hobsbawm trilogy about the 19 century plus The Age of Extremes.
Eliade trilogy about the history of religious Ideas.

[Anonymous No.4661752]

>>4661739
hobsbawm has a marxist view of history, so much materialism made my soul shrink.
i'd recommend reading anything with a critical eye, reading Gunnel would be handy for the task

[Anonymous No.4661760]

is Hobbes' Behemoth a good read? It seems important for understanding Conflict of Faculties (which I don't know enough about the French Revolution to really understand)

[Anonymous No.4661841]

>>4660523


carlyles history of the french revolution.

[Anonymous No.4661929]

>>4661752
Hobsbawm is the greatest historian of the past century

[Anonymous No.4661954]

>no Story of Civilization

Seriously, it's a classic work of literature spanning multiple volumes. Long as hell, but each volume alone gives you more than enough information on its subject. Seriously quotable too.

[Anonymous No.4661981]

>>4661752
>so much materialism made my soul shrink
Watch out, if it shrinks too much it might disappear altogether.

[Anonymous No.4662875]

>>4661929
>Hobsbawm is the greatest historian of the past century
You badly misspelt Chris Hill.

[Anonymous No.4662915]

Historical newfag here. Why does everyone hate Guns, Germs, and Steel?

[Anonymous No.4662920]

>>4662915
It is trivial reductionism and its arguments are so large that they're trivially demonstrated to be false.

Also he's not a fucking historian is he? Do you want me doing your surgery?

[Anonymous No.4662980]

>>4662915
It's the same old arguments for European exceptionalism only this time the reasons are climate and physical geography.

[Anonymous No.4663019]

>>4662915
Because they haven't actually read it, as evidence from the previous comments.

[Anonymous No.4663029]

>>4663019
So, friend, given the "general orientation of mountains" in Eurasia why didn't rice spread as a staple to the entire Eurasian landmass?

Why can't Diamond answer the "China" question at his scale, given that his analysis precisely suits the Needham question.

Why does the Needham question need to be answered with a 40 book series of detailed history of science on Chinese material practice rather than a reductionist survey level geographic determinist account of history by a non-historian?

[Anonymous No.4663047]

>lots of birmingham school recommendations

My niggas

Also, RIP in peace Stuart Hall

[Anonymous No.4663054]

>>4662920
>Do you want me doing your surgery?

I dunno, how much you charge?

[Anonymous No.4663065]

>>4663054
-/2/6 no liability.

[Anonymous No.4663075]

>>4660523
All of them.

>>4660545
How did you come up with this hypothesis among all other books in the history section of a good library?

>>4660615
I think you mistook the question for mediocre works of fiction.

>>4660617
These two out of all of them? Or did you mean, these are the one you read so you only qualify to mention these, which I can appreciate.

>>4660619
>>4660626

I haven't even heard of these titles.

>>4660663
It's funny how some people might take this seriously and not realize he completely made it up.

[Anonymous No.4663081]

Watching this thread :3

[Anonymous No.4663082]

>>4663075
>How did you come up with this hypothesis among all other books in the history section of a good library?
1) Social History.
2) CPGB Historians Group.
3) The widespread critique specifically of the book, not of its contents, but of the book's role in English language historiography

Most history books make their contribution with a gentle humility than even Thompson displayed. Thompson's book was and is compulsory reading for any historian working in English as it is the seminal work of modern social history, and social history is the child of labour history and the parent of cultural and thus contemporary "intellectual" history such as the history of emotions etc. Social history also refigured political history in its defeat. So every major form of historiography has been affected by the work in _Making_. Hobsbawm's work in contrast is only discussed in relation to 19th century survey.

Books "everyone" should read are rare in history. And in English its Thompson.

[Anonymous No.4663098]

>>4663082
Having built for himself an unassailable fortress of pretense around his garden patch of opinion, he set about pacing the parapets, until one day he should die, and the little garden patch might wither away.

[Anonymous No.4663126]

>>4663098

Not the guy you're replying to, I just want to know what that's a quote from.

[Anonymous No.4663131]

>>4660523
none. there are no historical books/texts that are essential. good history is written narrowly. specific topics, societies, for limited amounts of time. most pop history books like the previously mentioned and deservedly scorned people's history and diamond cover time periods and geographic spreads too large to be useful, meaningful, insightful, etc.

if you pick a particular place/society and time period you can get started. there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of monographs on american history for example. and thats just the 250 or so years "america" has been a thing. now apply the same knowledge to other societies both currently existing and extinct that have had a lifespan of thousands of years, covering much larger geography. the oft-desired "global history of mankind from speciation to present" can only be written with such a loss of resolution that you'll learn nothing by reading it.

[Anonymous No.4663132]

>>4660846

This, you only ever see idiots praising that book.

[Anonymous No.4663246]

>>4663131
It could be argued that survey history is useful in a Wittgenstein-ladder sense but the obvious problem is that most people never throw away the ladder.

[Anonymous No.4663254]

>>4663246
My metaphor is science teaching's "lies for children."

[Anonymous No.4663288]

>>4661929/
What an outrageous claim. How can you say someone is the best historian of the WHOLE last century? Think of the thousands upon thousands of historians who have contributed to the field. And you probably haven't read more than several dozen at most!

[Anonymous No.4663294]

>>4663288
4/10, mainly due to the fallacy of counting the entire set.

[Anonymous No.4663325]

>>4663294
I dont understand. Are you saying that he's allowed to pass judgement on who's the greatest historian without having read many other seminal historians?

[Anonymous No.4663334]

>>4663325
Here's a simple problem of sets and logic:

Is the set "many seminal historians" and the set "every historian in the 20th century" identical?

Another:

Is the set "many seminal historians" exhaustable?

Finally a simple historiographical question:

Do historical review articles and reviews provide adequate accounts of texts and their meaning for the purposes of survey and importance?

[Anonymous No.4663383]

How is the trilogy?

[Anonymous No.4663417]

WW1 related /lit/:

Buildup to the war:
The Proud Tower by Barbara Tuchman
Dreadnought by Robert Massie
The War That Ended Peace by Margaret MacMillan

Outbreak:
The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman - This is one of my favourite books, and tells the story of the war's outbreak in a gripping way. Excellent coverage of the troop movements and commander reactions during one of the most crucial campaigns in world history.

Overall War:
A World Undone by GJ Meyer - This is a good book for someone who knows nothing about the war. It distills the war into its most important events while providing interesting "Background" chapters. It's an easy read and is a recent book, so it takes into account modern research.
The First World War by John Keegan - This is a more /k/-tier version of the overall war, with a greater focus on the tactics, logistics, strategy and technology of WW1. Some parts of it are downright powerful, especially the very beginning.

cont.

[Anonymous No.4663424]

>>4663417

Fronts/Theatres:
The Eastern Front 1914-1917 by Norman Stone - Incredibly detailed look not just at the Eastern Front, but also the war economy and political developments within Russia. You learn a lot about the dysfunction within the army and in the economy as it deals with the war.
The White War: Life and Death on the Italian Front 1915-1919 - Looks not just at the military aspect but also the social aspect and focusing heavily on the individual Italian soldier's experience. You also learn quite a bit about Italy's political and cultural development.
The Great War in Africa by Byron Farwell - Covers fighting in all four of Germany's colonies, as well as vividly describing tangential stories, like the Konigsberg chase and the battles of Lake Tanganyika.
The First Iraq War: Britain's Mesopotamia Campaign, 1914-1919 by AJ Barker - Excellent /k/-tier coverage of the Mesopotamian front. Barker tends to go off on in depth analyses of things like terrain and tactics, which are cool to learn about for any self-respecting /k/ommando.
The Last Crusade: The Palestinian Campaign in World War 1 by Anthony Bruce
The Gardeners of Salonika by Alan Palmer

Individual Campaigns/Battles
The Price of Glory: Verdun 1916 by Alistair Horne - An incredible description of Verdun, which examines the battle at all levels, from the very top (Petain, Falkenhayn) down to individual soldiers' accounts. Describes everything from grand strategy to squad tactics. An excellent read.
Somme: Heroism and Horror of War by Martin Gilbert - More of a "soft" history, which, instead of organizing the chapters by logical topic, is organized into chronological chapters. It does delve somewhat into strategy and tactics, but mainly focuses on the experiences of individual soldiers.
To Conquer Hell: The Meuse-Argonne Offensive by Edward Lengel
Passchendaele by Robin Prior and Trevor Wilson - A "hard" military history that delves into a lot of the potential solutions to trench warfare, such as using artillery ranges rather than geographical objectives as guidelines for offensives. Also covers a lot of the political wrangling behind the scenes.
Gallipoli by Alan Moorehead

cont.

[Anonymous No.4663427]

>>4663424

Memoirs
Infantry Attacks by Erwin Rommel - Another /k/-tier book. Somewhat dry but very interesting if you happen to be interested in pure military analysis and observation. I, for one, think the events detailed within would make a great video game. Rommel writes clearly, and his exploits are downright insane sometimes.
Storm of Steel by Ernst Junger
Goodbye to All That by Robert Graves

I tend to post this on /k/ sometimes, hence the /k/ references. It also seems that many of these are pop histories based on what I'm reading from this thread, so keep that in mind.

[Anonymous No.4663471]

If anyone is interested in history as a study but not really interested in reading dry-as-fuck methodological tracts, I'd recommend The Historian's Craft by Marc Bloch. It's a difficult text, not helped by its being unedited and unfinished because Bloch kind of got shot by the Nazis before he could finish, but it's a beautiful, short book.

I'd also recommend Henri Pirenne's Economic and Social History of the Middle Ages to anyone looking for serious history beyond political narrative and primary sources but not looking for anything necessarily cutting edge or daunting. It's just a beautiful book, again.

[Anonymous No.4663502]

>>4663471
If you're into medieval social history, I recommend reading into the economic history of the great quest for an English wage price series. The wiki article on the economic history of England in the middle ages is a good start. Power, Postan, Past & Present. Fun times. Measuring worth has "the series" but unless you understand the limitations you can't know what a penny was worth.

[Anonymous No.4663507]

>>4660898
The World of Late Antiquity by Peter Brown does a great job with the late Roman empire and beyond; he paints a vibrant picture of an era that laypeople are wont to dismiss as the "dark ages," with some interesting commentary on the conflict between paganism and Christianity, Persian incursions, and even on the rise of Islam. Lots of stuff going on at that time, certainly not a cultural and intellectual vacuum without which we'd have flying cars or something like that. His prose is really great too!

[Anonymous No.4663573]

>>4661237
That's a sweet topic. I hadn't read your post when I posted my bit about Peter Brown. Anastasius was one of the emperors that came from a professional rather than an elite background, right?

Incidentally, I'm grappling with a thesis topic of my own: rule of law in Britain's African colonies, interaction between English law and native law, incongruities in treatment of European and native subjects, possible reciprocal effects on English law. That sort of thing. I'd be appreciative if anyone has any reading recommendations or knows anything about recent historiography of Africa.

[Anonymous No.4663578]

>>4660879
One of the best books I've ever read in my life.

[Anonymous No.4663583]

Why don't we like Guns, Germs and Steel again?

[Anonymous No.4663609]

>>4663573
You've read Black Jacobins of course?

[Anonymous No.4663614]

[Anonymous No.4663621]

>>4663609

Afraid not, I'm very new to the continent! I'll look into that.

[Anonymous No.4663622]

>>4663614
Not a fucking history.

[Anonymous No.4663623]

>>4663621
Black Jacobins is CLR James writing about Haiti's slave revolution. So three continents coming together as one.

[Anonymous No.4663634]

>>4663622
LOL.

Commie detected.

[Anonymous No.4663640]

>>4660523
Allan Macinnes - Union and Empire

It's about Scotland but it frames it within a wider context and it's just so goddamn comprehensive; it is basically required reading if you want to know jack shit about the establishment of the modern British state. However, I will freely admit I have taken his classes at university and there are view points that differ greatly from his on the whole union debate. It also has a lot of transatlantic stuff about early American colonies and trade. If you're American it will give you real insight into the foundations of the country that haven't really been explored by more Anglo-Centric histories.

[Anonymous No.4663647]

>>4663634
1) Yes I'm a communist
2) No it isn't a history
3) There are quite a number of decent histories of the GuLag. Prearchivally I'd suggest Conquest's Great Terror. Conquest is a British labourite, so he has no love lost for the Soviet Union.

[Anonymous No.4663651]

>>4663647
>Yes I'm a communist

Stopped reading there. The Gulag Archipelago is one of the most important pieces of literature ever written. Sorry that your shitty ideology won't let you see that.

[Anonymous No.4663652]

>>4663651
>The Gulag Archipelago is one of the most important pieces of literature ever written. Sorry that your shitty ideology won't let you see that.
I didn't deny it was one of the most important pieces of literature ever written.

I denied it was a history.

I'm sorry you're functionally illiterate.

[Anonymous No.4663657]

>>4663651
Why would you stop reading, I'm not that guy but good history doesn't play up to political biases - at least not within reason, obviously every author and person comes at certain things with an interest and certain amount of inherent bias but you really shouldn't be discounting someones view based on their political disposition.

I major in history, I mostly do Early Modern stuff but the anon recommended something that wasn't favourable to his particular viewpoint. Really you look like the dick here for just dismissing him out of hand.

[Anonymous No.4663666]

>>4663651
As if Solzhenitsyn could ever even dream of receiving a Nobel if he wasn't an Anti-Communist

He is a shit-writer.

[Anonymous No.4663667]

>>4663651
>Stopped reading there.
Stopped reading right there. Dilettantes aren't allowed on /lit/. Back to the mouth-breathers you belong to, peon.

[Anonymous No.4663677]

>>4663652
How is it not history when it's a historical firsthand account of the gulags?

>>4663667
>Dilettantes aren't allowed on /lit/

This might be the most hilarious thing I've read on /lit/ in awhile. This is fucking 4chan, you faggot. Not a fucking Mensa forum.

>>4663666
>shit-writer

So are you. Keep using more pointless hyphens, shitdick.

>>4663657
>I'm not that guy but good history doesn't play up to political biases
>Meanwhile, he exclaimed it's "not a fucking history" because of his political biases

0/10, apply yourself

[Anonymous No.4663678]

>>4661954
This, Durant is my nigga.

[Anonymous No.4663679]

>>4663677
>How is it not history when it's a historical firsthand account of the gulags?
You answer your own question. Your ignorance of what history is is astounding.

[Anonymous No.4663685]

>>4663677
>Not a fucking Mensa forum.
Mensa isn't allowed on /lit/ either apart from discussions of Duns Scotus Eriugena's humour, and even then it would be tabula.

[Anonymous No.4663687]

>>4663679
Oh, so now we're going to have a quasi-philosophical debate on what constitutes "real history" because your leftist professor has indoctrinated you into some believing it's some sort of loopy post-structuralist nearly impossible to define and pin down (except on your own opaque terms) specter.

Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.4663694]

>>4663687
kill yourself fag

[Anonymous No.4663696]

>>4663657
>>4663652
I had a great class on the Stalin era with a professor whose views on the subject were pretty revisionist. He mentioned that Gulag Archipelago and Robert Conquest's stuff didn't do the entire era justice. Most of what we read dealt with whether changes in policy and culture "betrayed" the revolution.

There were some pretty stark contrasts between the asceticism and revolutionary zeal of the 1920s and the conservative turn (by Soviet standards) in the 30s. Just the material culture alone was a dead give-away... it went from spartan to quasi-bourgeois (everyone became obsessed with wallpaper and table-cloths... decadent capitalist comforts!!!). Trotsky famously made the "betrayal" claim, Timasheff later called it the "great retreat."

By the time we got through the critics of these positions, there was hardly any time to talk about the purges and WWII! The historiography of the Stalin era is really engrossing if you're willing to do the legwork.

[Anonymous No.4663698]

>>4663678

[Anonymous No.4663700]

>>4663698
Fuck Kevin Durant

[Anonymous No.4663701]

>>4663677
>>shit-writer
>So are you

>he seriously said "no u"
Flounce harder, pleb.

[Anonymous No.4663703]

>>4663696
the people that kill me are the whiners who think trotsky ever could have been dictator of russia, he's a fucking jew and russia is one of the most anti-semetic countries, do you really think russian peasants who lived under jew landlords forever are going to go for a jew in charge? sorry, but trotsky just never realistically had a chance

[Anonymous No.4663704]

>>4663696
If you want post archival work I'd suggest Sheila Fitzpatrick, but obviously our friend who has no idea what historiography is (apparently a well agreed politically independent methodology for reading texts is "leftist" and "post-structuralist" quick someone tell Ranke), would deny the utility of Fitzpatrick and flee into the arms of Applebaum—the journalist.

[Anonymous No.4663705]

>>4663687

[Anonymous No.4663706]

>>4663701
I'M RUBBER YOU'RE GLUE

[Anonymous No.4663708]

>>4663705
Don't interact. Someone who suggests that historiography is post-structural is so idiotic that not even Zen pedagogy could beat method into their skull. And Zen masters had the right to beat their students to death.

[Anonymous No.4663716]

>>4663703
People tend to circlejerk about Trotsky. It's a common "what-if." I don't know much about him; if he had been dictator, he couldn't have matched Stalin's bloodletting. But that wouldn't automatically make him a good ruler!

[Anonymous No.4663722]

>>4663716
Conquest's account of Trotsky in the great purge is decent. Trotsky alienated every other bolshevik, and his politics of power were identical with Stalin's: repression of the soviet working class in field and factory.

Trotsky was there when Kronstadt was put down with fire and ice. Trotsky argued against every workers democratic trend in the soviets and bolshevik party.

He was fucking scum.

The only useful parts of Trotsky are his early critique of Lenin's substitutionalism, which he abandoned in 1917, and his conception of the transitional programme as the solution to the crisis of the programmes.

Trotsky was nomenklatura plain and simple: He was an enemy of the proletariat.

[Anonymous No.4663725]

>tfw all the dudes in my history classes play paradox gsg
>tfw not one chick
>tfw no history major vidya gf

[Anonymous No.4663731]

>>4663701
>he seriously just posted an anime reaction picture

Autism harder, double pleb.

>>4663708
That wasn't the suggestion I was making, you fucking cretin. The dismantling of so called "western historiographic metanarratives" is real, and clearly is in effect on this forum.

>Zen pedagogy
>implying Mahayana McBuddhism has anything to do with method or discipline

Christ almighty.

[Anonymous No.4663732]

>>4663722
well he did write a nice book about literary theory (literature and revolution) so leftist professors like him, but i agree he was no friend of the working class not the peasants

[Anonymous No.4663740]

>>4663731
You were suggesting that a primary source is immediately trustworthy. You failed basic Ranke.

[Anonymous No.4663744]

>>4663740
>You were suggesting that a primary source is immediately trustworthy.

[Anonymous No.4663745]

>>4663744
I'm sorry, its basic fucking methodology. If you don't get it then fuck off.

[Anonymous No.4663746]

Salt.

[Anonymous No.4663752]

>>4663745
You know what else is basic fucking methodology? You being another buttblasted Commie that can't stand Solzhenitsyn's work for very fucking obvious reasons.

Yawn.

[Anonymous No.4663762]

>>4663731
>>4663740

I think historiography only gets really meta and post-modern when people make statements like "there are no primary sources." That strains my credulity; one should be mindful of bias in primary sources, but bias is not sufficient reason to lump all sources together!

[Anonymous No.4663763]

>>4663752
Thanks mate. I think you've demonstrated the case that you've got no training in historiography at all; that it is you who values politics ahead of the basic rules about involvement in what you're writing about, distance from sources, and suitable reliance; and, that you are an utter cunt of a human being.

[Anonymous No.4663764]

>>4663763
Reply forever

[Anonymous No.4663765]

>>4663762
1) There's no such thing as metamodernism.
2) Historiography fought off the "narrative turn" effectively

[Anonymous No.4663780]

>>4663763
>no indoctrination in leftist ideals of what "history" means

Fixed that for ya, commie.

>it is you who values politics ahead of the basic rules about involvement in what you're writing about

Toppest of keks. You basically just did a "NO U" using a bunch of words. Hypocritical faggot.

[Anonymous No.4663785]

>>4663677
>How is it not history when it's a historical firsthand account of the gulags?

Because sources aren't history.

[Anonymous No.4663795]

>>4663780
That's all communists ever do

[Anonymous No.4663806]

>>4663731
There's no Mahayana in Zen, just a lot of cut cats and twisted noses.

[Anonymous No.4663896]

>>4663765
Yeah, I dropped "meta" into my piece sarcastically; recent intellectual movements are all Greek to me. I guess I'm a little jaded about them because I don't understand them, but my impression is that people who make statements like "primary sources don't exist" miss the mark int the same way.

As to the narrative turn, a little cursory reading is turning up a side to my subject that I hardly knew existed until just recently. How deep does it go? I hope I don't have to answer that question until long after graduate school.

[Anonymous No.4663914]

>>4663896
You do realise that "the narrative turn" was implicitly a right wing call for a return to great man political history?

Welcome to the rabbit hole of historiographical conflict. Choose your side, and choose a defensible one.

I suggest you read E.P. Thompson before you go any further. In history, Marxism makes a sense that is surprising to most undergraduates before they realise how bat shit insane national cultural narratives and great men are.

Choose wisely. Methodology is your grail.

[Anonymous No.4664024]

>>4663765
>Historiography fought off the "narrative turn" effectively
>>4663914
>You do realise that "the narrative turn" was implicitly a right wing call for a return to great man political history?

Isn't the focus on narrative stronger than ever, considering the current obsession with identity politics and 'minorities' stories'?

[Anonymous No.4664030]

>>4664024
>Isn't the focus on narrative stronger than ever, considering the current obsession with identity politics and 'minorities' stories'?

You'll be hard pressed to find cultural history positing identity politics when the social history mantra, "Race Class Gender" is still so strong. If you can't tell the difference between identity and categories of social relationship then you need to read more theory.

Narrativisation, as a communication technique is very different to "the Narrative" an analytical technique which does, as you rightly observe, lead to identity politics in (for example) gender studies, discursive sociology, critical and cultural studies, etc.

btw, your phrasing "minorities" seems to indicate you've already taken a theoretical position in historiography. It is generally considered generous to indicate your position a little bit more clearly. As my defence of "social history" above indicates my position.

[Anonymous No.4664041]

>>4664030
Oh, that wasn't me posting, I haven't taken much of a position on anything. It's too late in my timezone to write anything that sounds remotely informed. I need to take a close look at some foundational material when I'm less tired.

Thank you again for your recommendations, and for being so civil.

[Anonymous No.4664046]

>>4664041
No worries. When you use historiographically correctly, you can't go wrong, regardless of your theoretical position. Archives keep us honest. Archives are what sets us apart from sociologists and literary critics and the rest of the filth.

[Anonymous No.4664497]

>>4660523
Gates of Fire

It ruined the 300 comic for me though. As in "That isn't what fucking happened.." type ruining.