I love Will Durant's style and even though a lot of the material is dated it's still just such a fun read. Just going back and rereading the first book, how he lays out what civilization is and how we got there just enthralls me all over again.

>Eurocentrism

I read Caesar and Christ, it did a great job of telling the material in a more narrative driven form, which made it easier for me to read when I was young. It's a good introduction into history for people who want to read more ancient history, yet are put off by the dryness of historical works at times.

>>284750
general histories tend to be shit

I'd rather have in-depth knowledge on a certain field so as to have actual conversations about them whilst being ignorant of everything else,
t b h

>>285173
This.

>>285173
But if you're an introductory level reader then isn't it better to get a general history so you can become interested in certain periods and then focus on them, learning more?

>>285195
This

Also a friend of mine has the whole collection and read the whole thing years ago, also to note is that he read every single contemporary ancient greek and roman source he could get his hand on and new a massive amount about what Durant covers in general, to this day, he told me that Durant did a decent job.

So it's worth a read, which is how I got into reading Caesar and Christ

It's a good start

>>285173
It is general. But it will go into specifics on important material (in Durants' eyes). For instance, he attributes part of the fall of the Roman Republic partly to economic issues, since wealthy land owners were using slave labor too much, so freemen were forced to go into cities to find jobs. This was part of another issue of too few land owners to vote (if I remember correctly). All of this helped contribute to Rome's struggles of providing for the poor in the city of Rome ( a good deal) which lead to riots and civil war and calls for reform.

How does it compare to HG Well's "Outline of History"? It's my favorite book.

>>284750

Some of those titles are aren't fair in defining the era he is describing I thought - the last four titles in that series for instance are overwhelmingly around France.

It is heavily eurocentric (and he acknowledges and apologises or this in the first book 'Our oriental heritage) but he does at times in the books after the OOH discuss some of the other contemporary civilizations at the same time point.

He never comes across as particularly biased in his assessments and his narrative and prose were a joy to read.

It was a mammoth task he undertook and for any person looking to get into history I would suggest it as a fantastic starter. Even to indulge further and study a particular period in depth I would suggest his books again for they contain many references which serve as a springboard for further study.

>those titles

Ah when historians weren't afraid of being franco-centric.

>>285466
>the last four titles in that series for instance are overwhelmingly around France.
Probably because those eras were overwhelmingly around France.

>>284750
Outdated lies and eisegesis in a genre which particularly reproduces lies and eisegesis, by a man whose mission was to reproduce lies and eisegesis.

I prefer my fiction to have been written as such.

>>285119
Implying chinks and poo in loo stay revelant

>>284750
I'm currently reading vol 9 "Age of Voltaire"

>>286340
>history

>>286340
you're on /his/ not /pol/ nor /int/

>>286320
wew lad

Careful you don't cut yourself with edge.

>>288745
2bh, we share 90% of our users with /pol/ and /int/

>tfw series were never completed because both authors died
>tfw we never got books about Victorian era

>>285119

go away. nobody else ever did anything worth mentioning

>>284750
Based.

>>284750
Great general history