>>47984
Nope.
Dindu Nuffin: The Man
>>47984
pic not related
>>47984
currently reading Colossus.
Bought it without noticing that its already 10 years old, and that it was written right after the Iraq fiasco. Its going to be a rather different type of reading than I originally thought, especially considering the huge ammount of stuff that happened since then that has everything to do with the theme of the book
>>47984
>/his/ approved
Oh God no, another circle jerk board
>>48622
It's impossible considering the /lit/ and /pol/ influences.
Antony C Sutton
>>47984
>pic unrelated
![julius_norwich_sum_1850705a[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/pAs6ex0.jpg "julius_norwich_sum_1850705a[1].jpg")
>>47984
What about him, /his/? His work on Venice is pretty damn good.
>>49200
>dude primary sources lmao
>>49252
>tfw historiography will never return to a Rankean approach
It's only post-modernism now.
>>49313
What's wrong with postmodernism?
It's the only type of historiography that doesn't delude itself about what it produces.
>>47984
>wrote two books felating the Rothchilds
>/his/-approved historian
Na.
>>49382
Yes, they are very open about the fact that they use history as propaganda for a coming communist revolution.
>>49471
Do you actually know what postmodernism is, or am I wasting my time even giving you a (You)?
>>49536
You're wasting your time on anyone who conflates post-modernism and communism.
>>49619
>tfw I've seen no real historiographical discussion yet
T-the board's just settling in...
>>49647
Search the archive for the last Niall thread.
>>49536
yes it is a practice which mixes up 3rd order effects with 1st order effects
Simon Schama is pretty decent as a source for the study of the French Revolution, albeit pretty bias as he thinks Robespierre is pretty much the second coming of Satan.
Both Iron Kingdom and The Sleepwalkers are pretty great books.
David Irving
>>49619
Hi there!
You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of 4chan are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!
Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bait to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!
The one that not even you lot could argue about.
>>50759
Reminds me of Ludwig von Pastor. His history of the Popes is still the standard one century later.
Macculloch is good, I have been reading wheatcroft's habsburgs : embodying empire and while it seems a little bit spotty on details on many of the habsburgs (particularly the earlier ones) it was great for Charles V and Philip II (and Ferdinand if you want to count him). It very Much seems to focus more on the family itself than the history, so it is good for understanding the functions of a dynasty but not all that good for learning the events of Austrian and Spanish history.
>>49811
At least you don't agree with the more Marxist schools of Rude and Lefebvre. I always prefered Cobban and Ellis(I think that's his name, I am studying the Tudors as well so that may be a early modern historian) to schama though.
