Is there a good book or series which details a lot of modern history but also to a good degree?
I find myself reading about a historical event, such as a period of civil unrest and then end up going down a hole into learning the history leading up to the event, the belief systems of the parties involved, the society in which the event occurred, etc.
But currently I just happen upon these historical events. It would be good if there was some collection of these important events which also didn't have some inherent bias as to which events were noteworthy. For example, if someone were to leave out a pogrom because of their own beliefs then I would consider the collection to be compromised in some way.
Does such a collection exist?
Not sure but check out Hobsbawm's 19th century trilogy at least
>>8149603
This is the most vague request I've ever read. Try Citizens by Schema or Humes history of great Britain.
>>8149603
>modern
>history
Read a world history textbook. That is basically what you're asking for. Then look at the "further reading" section at the end of the book/each chapter as well as the bibliography and take a look into those books that are about whatever event you want to know more about.
>>8149990
Whats wrong with history since ~1500?
>>8149972
It's intentionally vague because I want a history of facts backed up by sources but I don't necessarily want to read all the source material of every historical event. I want it to also be comprehensive, giving equal weighting or consideration to all parties involved, but again distilled enough to not have to worry if I am missing something based on the author's bias.
just going over politics and events isn't 'detailed' history. just read wikipedia or something
>>8150068
You have a very narrow view of history don't you.
Like someone else said just check out a couple of textbooks and work your way from there. If you want a truly comprehensive history of anything you're going to have to read more than just one book/series by more than one author.
A single source as a reference is fine. If you want a single source for all of history you're just lazy.
>>8150079
Yes my view is narrow and I would like to expand on it. Do you have any good quality textbooks you could recommend?
Most history self-consciously tries to be nonpartisan OP, especially these days after successive generations of historians-claiming-to-be-nonpartisan have been found to be highly partisan. Here's a very famous quote of E.P. Thompson, often considered a hallmark of the birth of "history from below" as a field of study:
>I am seeking to rescue the poor stockinger, the Luddite cropper, the “obsolete” hand-loom weaver, the “utopian” artisan, and even the deluded follower of Joanna Southcott, from the enormous condescension of posterity. Their crafts and traditions may have been dying. Their hostility to the new industrialism may have been backward-looking. Their communitarian ideals may have been fantasies. Their insurrectionary conspiracies may have been foolhardy. But they lived through these times of acute social disturbance, and we did not. Their aspirations were valid in terms of their own experience; and, if they were casualties of history, they remain, condemned in their own lives, as casualties.
But E.P. Thompson was a card-carrying Marxist, in an era whose Marxists were criticised for their focus on society and economy over culture, and of course of leaving out all kinds of marginalised people. These days, historians are really focused on vindicating EVERY marginalised group, of using all kinds of postmodern critical techniques to pry back any process of marginalisation whatsoever. So I wouldn't be too worried about missing out on a pogrom. A few countries in Europe still have nationalist bias to their writing, but everyone else is desperate to show just how "below" they can go.
The problem is that the time of the Grand History Book is kind of passed. All of this stuff is contained either in specific monographs, to keep the diploma mill of academia running, or in an endless train of synthetic, topical textbooks that leave out tons of basic facts and chronology, under the bizarre assumption either that they are no longer important, that students already know them, or that students are too stupid to handle all that information. Most history students are pretty lousy at knowing "facts" these days. But they know a lot of postcolonialism jargon.
If you want a comprehensive historical survey, you probably want to go back to older books, which will have more biases (at least, relative to our presentism) the farther you go back.
>>8150084
These are some of the ones I used during undergrad.
Africa in World History by Erik Gilbert and Jonathan T. Reynolds
The American Pageant: A History of the American People, AP Edition by David M. Kennedy, Lizabeth Cohen and Thomas Bailey
Traditions & Encounters: A Brief Global History (two volumes) by Jerry Bentley, Herbert Ziegler, Heather Streets Salter
Ways of the World: A Brief Global History (two volumes) by Robert W. Strayer
Western Civilization by Jackson Spielvogel
They were all pretty informative, especially American Pageant (which I actually used for AP U.S. in high school). Again these should mainly be used for reference and as broad introductions. Definitely look at the further reading/bibliographies.
Seeing as they are textbooks you would probably want to check them out from a library or buy the cheapest listing on amazon
Isn't there like a 30 volume set of Oxford history books?
>>8150119
>Thank you, is there a particular order I should read them in?
It's really up to you. If you do decide to look into these books you will probably want to start with one of the world history books or the western civ. book.
In your OP you said modern history, so that would be the second volumes of the world history books (since 1500)
>>8150127
>Ways of the World: A Brief Global History (two volumes) by Robert W. Strayer
This is going to sound dumb but is there much value in reading both volumes. I understand how ignorant that sounds, but is there a fundamentally different understanding to be gained from learning about ancient civilisations versus just reading about the 1500's plus.
>>8150142
In regards to textbooks like these, no not really. Of course that is just my opinion. They are designed so you can read one volume independently from the other. In the second volume there will be a very brief overview at the beginning, a chapter or less, of history before 1500 to orient you.
But if you want the whole sweeping narrative you'll want both volumes. I'd recommend just starting with volume 2 since you are more interested in modern history. That way you will know if you actually want to keep using textbooks for reference. You may find that it does not suit your needs, to which I would say take a look at these bibliographies
http://pastebin.com/u/jonstond2
I know this isn't the broad compendium you requested in your OP but these bibliographies give you titles of the best books on particular subjects.
>>8150172
>http://pastebin.com/u/jonstond2
Thanks!
