I've recently become very interested in world history and the rise and fall of cultures/nations. Now in the middle of pic related, since it seemed like a good start for essential reading.
Any recommended other interesting book suggestions?
>>1182620
I've always felt that these kind of discussions always mention 'meme books'
Cuz whenever I see such a topic it are often the same books over and over again
Maybe some books are really good, but why bother reading them if everyone does? What possible novel insight can I get?
Not that it actually stops me from reading meme books...
And yeah this sounds like intellectual hipstery
I'm enjoying Heart of Europe, which is about the
>HRE
I also had fun with The Faithful Executioner and Danubia.
I'm on an HRE kick.
>>1182658
It seems that there's a book about Poland called Heart of Europe.
>books
>2016
>>1182655
I don't bother meme books. At least name recognition makes it more likely to be easily available in my language and little town.
>>1182683
Yeah, I mean the one by Peter H. Wilson. Belknap/Harvard Press.
>>1182655
>Maybe some books are really good, but why bother reading them if everyone does? What possible novel insight can I get?
This has got to be the most retarded thing I've read. Do you only read books to mine it for hipster trivia that other people don't know? What's the problem with others having read a book if it's a good book that addresses its subject well?
>>1182620
That book had been completly debunked as white apologists bullshit
>>1182727
You are right to call me out, it was indeed retarted.
No to your first question. Yes to your second.
But it does become a problem, and you can disagree with this, when the meme books are the only things being read. It creates tunnel vision.
Take Jared Diamond book in the OP, he has interesting insights, but did become a kind of meme.
>>1182806
This is what I mean with meme books. I think it is stupidity to disgard Jared Diamonds ideas competely but it is also the same level of retartedness to accept them blindly. That's why I'm not fond of meme books.
Amazing bait.
Meme books create intellectual circle jerks as you see on le reddit - this we mustn't allow
>>1182969
Calling a book a meme book is literally a le Reddit circle jerk to make you feel smart and like you're part of a group
>>1182806
>this tumblr tier nonsense on my /his/
>>1183550
not really, some books have gotten popularity because their titles are so often repeated, or these books puport to be "deep" and make the reader complacent to the point that they think they "know history" and don't have to investigate the subject any longer
Can anyone recommend a book on WWII? Just something that goes over it broadly?
>>1183582
Beevor?
>>1182706
One of my lecturers. Currently reading his work on the HRE.
>>1182620
>why you white people have so much cargo, and us new guineas have so little
"Why the Won" is a great follow up. Not authored by Diamond, still great.
I'd love to hear other suggestions
>>1183595
Thanks. The Second World War (2012) I guess?
>>1182620
Simple OP, Europeans stole all of the Guns, Germs, and Steels from the not so lucky Dindu nuffins.
>>1182620
>Now in the middle of pic related, since it seemed like a good start for essential reading.
I liked Ecological Imperialism by Alfred Crosby better. Covers the same territory, but without the white guilty pandering. He lays out the facts and lets the reader decide the morality of it all.
Here are some recommended books:
The Penguin History of Latin America by Edwin Williamson
The Unfinished Empire by John Darwin
A History of China by John Key
These are good overview books of Latin America, the British Empire and China. Nothing too heavy.
Okay OP, you wanna be /his/?
>Start with Cambridge History of [whatever you're studying].
>Then hit up the Oxford and Harvard publishing sites to see what they've published on the topic.
>After reading those books you should know if there are any other books worth reading by other publishers (look for commonly cited works).
>Then hit up JSTOR or the like to read recent articles.
Congrats; you now know more about the topic than 99.9% of the world's population.
As for recommended /his/ books:
>Hobsbawm's 'Age of' series.
>Anything by Fairbank.
>Porter's 'The Lion's Share'.
If you want to learn about a specific topic (the one's I've listed are primarily about the British Empire) then let me know.
>>1182806
Completely debunked by who, by /pol/?
Weak bait man, weak bait.
>>1184327
Little did you know that the original title for this book was 'Guns, Germs, and Steal'
We need an update to the sticky with recommded reading material and a small section on how to ask proper questions.
>>1185692
Wow. So much bullshit in one image.
>>1185699
Not an argument.
Replenishing the Earth by James Belich. Haven't read it, but did a paper with him while he was researching it and seemed like it would be pretty interesting.
Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice by Renfrew & Bahn
Not a fun read but far more valuable than something like GGS.
What does /his/ think of Peter Turchin (see pic)?
>>1182837
>I think it is stupidity to disgard Jared Diamonds ideas competely
They aren't even his ideas though. It's1960s-vintage archaeological theory packaged as a ''''daring new scientific approach to the past''''
>>1185742
So it is truelly a meme after all
>>1182620
>since it seemed like a good start for essential reading
>pic related
Read 'A History of the Modern World'
Rise and Fall of Nations
Civilization: The West and the Rest
These mostly focus on Europe.
Searching for Modern China
Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang (really, really interesting if you want to actually understand the Silk Road's gate into China)
I don't know many books on Ancient China desu, these mostly concern themselves with modern China
The Chrysanthemum and the Sword is an interesting but outdated book on grorious nippon
I don't know any good books about the Arab world, Africa, pre-modern Americas, or India/SEA.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195219279?pldnSite=1
Should I buy this? le Reddit seems to like it.
>>1185963
I forgot to say that im finding good single book that covers overall human history very good.
Currently reading A Day in the Life of Ancient Rome and was gifted God's Battilons: A case for the Crusades.
>>1186021
I was thinking about reading one book which covers whole history first and then start specialize to subjects that interest me. (my historic knowledge is very little atm)
>>1186039
You'd be better off reading a regional focus rather than a global focus. Like I said, there's not a single global focus book that's worth a shit. They either overrepresent significant events or underrepresent them. If you absolutely HAVE to do so, read regional books. Something that covers the four African regions, the Indian region, China, Japan, North America, South America, and Europe.
>>1185691
senior week, baby
I think Norman Davis' Europe: A history would be a good place to start
>>1182620
I have only started reading /his/ related shit for a little over a year so i have probably have shit taste but here's what i have enjoyed lately:
> The Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clarke
> Civilization by Niall Ferguson
> The Prince
> Penguin Classics edition of Magna Carta
This was interesting to read.
Discusses an often overlooked nuclear criticality accident that, despite the major suffering incurred by this man, helped advance our understanding of radiation sickness.
What is the opinion of /his/ about Oswald Spengler?
I find his view on Culture and the decline of it fascinating
Just bought this OP it's pretty good
I can't ignore the obvious bait OP has made. Guns, Germs, and Steel isn't popular because it's good, it's popular because it confirms the apologist outlook of popular society. It shouldn't really be taken seriously if you want to know how the world works.
>>1185692
>>1187888
One of my favorite books actually. Was surprised at how in depth it was even considering it's size.
/his/ suggested The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy to me, and I very much enjoyed it.
>>1188304
just got it the other day, had to finish SPQR first but I'm starting it soon.
>>1185738
great book
>>1187654
If you want to find out, why don't you make a thread about it?
>>1185967
read:
Robert Marks- The Origins of the Modern World: A Global and Environmental Narrative from the Fifteenth to the Twenty-First Century
free dl:
http://bookzz.org/book/2385146/1e7064
read along with Immanuel Wallerstein's World System Analysis: An Introduction, which is around 70 pages. It's worth to read it twice to digest what he is saying. Even if you don't agree with him he offers a solid foundation of the development of the modern world, as does Marks.
free dl to wallerstein
http://bookzz.org/book/686481/cdab42
Just finished Chernow's biography of Alexander Hamilton.
I literally teared up by the end. That might have been the most dramatic thing I've ever read.
>>1188914
> he has emotions
Read Durant. It's cannon, and you must read the expected first.
>>1187984
You're wrong. Environment plays into everything. The US, for instance, had a great advantage with farming, coal, wind and sun.
>>1185692
It is almost as if this guy never read past the first sentence of each argument.
>>1185739
I still haven't read his books but his papers seem like decent shots at hard targets. Some of the promotion is clickbaity but in general I dig his stuff and I think his historical databank project will probably lead to cool things.
>>1189366
way outdated, which is unacceptable on a history board desu
>>1187984
It might well be that "Guns, Germs, and Steel" lacks rigour, but the original ideas which he employs (it's not like he came up with those ideas, it's pophistory, not a collection of original research articles) are pretty much laws of history. E.g. Living with animals makes you immunologically hardier than those who don't. That's literally why the Americas are full of white people. Even the most conservative estimates put the death toll for Native Americans during the colonial era at 50%, more recent and better researched estimates go from 2/3 to 10/11. It wasn't that we're better, it's that we're pretty much immune to every disease in the New World, minus syphilis.
He's not right about everything he said, but he's also not wrong about many of the ideas he used.
>>1187598
>The Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clarke
Iron Kingdom as well. I've enjoyed both of Clarke's books and he has a pretty nice writing style that's very clear and engaging without straying too far into trying to be, I dunno, pop? Although he really loves the phrase "on the contrary" in The Sleepwalkers.
I really enjoyed The Pursuit of Glory by Tim Blanning as well which is a nice overview of the early modern/Enlightenment period of European history.
Anyone have any recommendations regarding the Gilded Age/post-Reconstruction to McKinley's death era?
>>1188330
>SPQR
I was thinking of getting it but just about every single review on Amazon mentions that it's boring, rambling and that she spends most of her time telling you about how we don't actually know X and Y instead of telling you what happened.
>>1190202
all memes aside, the askhistorians subreddit has a nice book list. Here's the section on North America which itself contains a section on the Gilded Age
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/americas#wiki_united_states
>the spanish conquered the new world with only a few hundred men due to technological prowess
This is the retarded kind of shit the anon in this thread said he writes about, like people believed this 100 years ago but not anymore, and thats the entire of his book in a nutshell. Read Spengler instead.
>>1187598
>> The Sleepwalkers by Christopher Clarke
careful about it - in an attempt to dissect the july crisis and the events leading up to it across the spectrum and with regard to all other sides, he literally ignores evidence pointing towards germany (e.g. the 1912 war council conclusions)
>>1189377
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that Diamond is a naturalist and not much of anything else. It isn't that environment doesn't play a factor, it's that he ignores the possibility that anything other than environment could play a factor.
>>1189747
I mean, the ideas of a lot of the stuff he says are valid, but he uses his pophistory to come to questionable conclusions that exist only to explain away the possibility of people being different, either because of culture or race. He basically makes his case seem rock solid by entirely ignoring any evidence to the contrary of what he believes, even though there's plenty. Just read this though, seriously.
>>1185692
>>1190371
>it's that he ignores the possibility that anything other than environment could play a factor
He fell for the memes (because he doesn't read).
Here's something in another of his books
>Diamond also states that "it would be absurd to claim that environmental damage must be a major factor in all collapses: the collapse of the Soviet Union is a modern counter-example, and the destruction of Carthage by Rome in 146 BC is an ancient one. It's obviously true that military or economic factors alone may suffice".
>>1190389
The downfall of Westerners(ish) is at the hands of Westerners(ish), but the failure of others is not in any way their own doing.
>>1190403
So? I was just mentioning that just because he focuses on environmental factors doesn't mean that he discounts other influences.
>>1190412
But he does discount those other influences when it's politically convenient. That's the important part. He's more politically driven than accurate. It's not really something someone should read if they're interested in unbiased, objective history.
>>1190420
Unbiased doesn't exist, or do you think books focusing on a specific aspect rather than the totality shouldn't be published? And I don't believe you've even read it.
>>1190425
I won't say I read it because I didn't read all of it.
Unbiased may not exist, but some things are much more biased than others. Of course I think anything should be published if someone's willing to throw down for it, I just don't think that makes it good.
>>1190425
It's not even that he focuses on one subject, more that he tells downright fibs about things within that subject. Many people that did not develop advanced societies had perfect access to all the crops and livestock they would have needed to do so - and they certainly had the means to obtain them. Many of them actively had such things. What's more, biome doesn't seem to have any notable effect on agriculture or ability to organise, so long as it isn't so cold that crops can't grow.
>>1190431
Of course it's not the best book, but I think it raises some points that are normally omitted, and that it's reputation on /pol/ etc is largely undeserved.
>>1190444
>Many people that did not develop advanced societies had perfect access to all the crops and livestock they would have needed to do so
Of course luck and circumstance are still hugely important, but the option wouldn't have even been there if the species weren't present.
>What's more, biome doesn't seem to have any notable effect on agriculture
I doubt this, pic related.
>>1190453
>you can only have a civilisation when you have wine
I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. There are lots of different crops for lots of different environments,
>Of course luck and circumstance are still hugely important, but the option wouldn't have even been there if the species weren't present.
So do you not think there's more than luck, circumstance, and environment?
And the issue isn't that he claims an unavailability of crops is a problem, but that he attributes that problem to groups of people to whom it was not a problem.
>>1190453
For the record, when I said agriculture, I meant a society's capacity to have agriculture. Obviously you need certain environments to grow certain crops.
>>1190460
>There are lots of different crops for lots of different environments
And some crops and environments are more productive, was highland agriculture in papua new guinea equivalent to meso-american agriculture?
And I do think more is involved, obviously cultural differences etc.
>but that he attributes that problem to groups of people to whom it was not a problem.
What do you mean? I see it as descriptive, as in the lack of agriculture (and all that follows from the presence of agriculture) in Australia predisposed them to being more easily colonised than other regions.
>>1190472
>And some crops and environments are more productive, was highland agriculture in papua new guinea equivalent to meso-american agriculture?
Yeah, but that's not really the point. You can have a highly successful agricultural society in most environments, including those that never developed any in spite of having the tools to get the job done.
>I see it as descriptive, as in the lack of agriculture (and all that follows from the presence of agriculture) in Australia predisposed them to being more easily colonised than other regions.
But when applied to West Africa, it is not descriptive, but rather misleading. There is probably some truth to it with Australia, although agriculture in Australia IS possible, and they had as much or more access to crops via trade than did the Maori, who managed to develop some agriculture anyway, so the argument starts to seem less and less relevant the more you think about the other factors. This doesn't stop Jared Diamond from making sweeping conclusions as if those other methods of analysis didn't exist. And even if he pointed out that he didn't intend to have his theory interpreted as universal at every step of the way, it wouldn't stop misguided people from interpreting his theory as a catch-all that explains away any notion of racial or cultural imbalances.
>>1190506
>But when applied to West Africa, it is not descriptive, but rather misleading. There is probably some truth to it with Australia
I completely agree, the differing degrees of importance in different regions is difficult to gauge.
>interpreting his theory as a catch-all
This isn't really a problem exclusive to diamond though.
>>1182620
Civilization: The West and the Rest by Niall Ferguson for the opposing point of view to Diamond. Perhaps opposing is the wrong word, but certainly ahppier with the outcome.
Anyway Diamond is a fag.
>>1190506
>than did the Maori, who managed to develop some agriculture anyway
As far as I know, the polynesians had agriculture when they arrived, found an abundance of moa to hunt, became hunter gatherers and later returned to agriculture after the moa had been driven extinct.
>>1190522
>This isn't really a problem exclusive to diamond though.
True, but I can't help but get more mad that his false catch-all is the prevailing catch-all of the day. If the catch-all of the day was a racial explanation, I'd probably be mad at that in much the same way.And yet I can't stop myself from blaming Diamond himself. His willful inclusion of misleading information and exclusion of counter-arguments that lie within the same lense of observation tells me that he has an explicit agenda in a way that most writers of history or science don't.
>>1190536
>As far as I know, the polynesians had agriculture when they arrived
They did, but then so didn't the Australian Aborigines? I suppose it's hard to know, but the people they're related to up north certainly have agriculture, and they certainly traded with those people. Learning how to maintain that agriculture would still have been an issue, but people can usually figure things out.
>>1190558
>but then so didn't the Australian Aborigines?
No, they arrived around ~50-60,000 years ago, while Maori arrived in the 12th century. Australia had some contact with Asia, largely because of trepang 'fishing', and the introduction of the dingo was due to this contact.
>>1188914
On the same topic, read Nancy Isenberg's biography on Aaron Burr's life. It is an amazing read and it will even out the slightly bias perspective (understandable, given the theme being treated) of Ron Chernow. Also, a wonderful book denouncing the dangers of over glorifying certain historical figureheads.
>>1190368
>GERMANY DID IT ALL IT'S ALL THE FAULT OF THE RANCID, VILE TEUTONIC RACE
t. Edward Grey
The book doesn't really absolve Germany as much as say everyone else shares the blame. Really goes into the rampant Germanophobia present in the French and British governments as well.
>>1182706
how good is his hundred years war book? is it as good as his HRE?
>>1183582
B. H. Liddell Hart as well
>>1191488
the problem is it literally ignores evidence of Germany angling for war and actively working towards it
which i feel is kind of a big deal when talking about the causes of WW1
(and which is not something so easily said about the largely anti war government of, say, France)
Jared Diamonds book is a load of wank
read Rise of the West by William mcNiell instead
>>1191671
seconding Mcneill
In college I did all the work for one course in 2 nights. I read that book in one night while answering detailed questions about it. Then I did text book essays the next night. I got an A in that course.
If that book was anything more than a meme then I shouldn't have been able to get such a good mark
>>1194264
It's a short book. There's no reason you couldn't write a book review on it in a few hours, even if it weren't a meme, unless you were a giant sperg.
t. /his/ major
