Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Seeing as we're all nerds here, just wondering who else wants to put up their favorite history authors? I'm always looking for something new to read.

I'll start:

William Manchester. He got me started reading history way back in high school. "The Many Arms of Krupp" was a supremely fascinating read.

John Keegan Don't have to say much about him, pretty sure a lot of us know.

Barbara Tuchman Just finished my 3rd book by her, "Bible and Sword: England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour" While not as good as some of her other work such as "The March of Folly" or "A Distant Mirror: the Calamitous 14th Century" (the latter also highly recommended for anyone that likes Medieval history), it really opened my eyes to a lot of things I didn't know about the history of the formation of Israel. Also it made me understand Evangelical George Bush a little more. In my head at least.

Sir Alistair Horne Reading the third book of this trilogy (technically the 1st chronologically speaking) about France and Germany between 1870 and 1945. Really, really, really good. I've read his book about the Battle of Verdun 3 times already. Just top notch stuff, if not a bit too much French that I'm constantly having to look up.

So then, anyone else?

I'm sure a lot of others here will know Antony Beevor's work - Stalingrad is a masterpiece of popular History Writing, and Berlin is almost as good.

See I wasn't all that impressed with Stalingrad. It was good, but not great to me.

"Bloodlands" by Timothy Snyder I just finished last month and that was amazing. I've never seen numbers become so disheartening. I had to put the book down a couple times.

Can't say I really follow individual Historians. Usually just follow subjects.

I do like reading Dennis Showalter though. The guy can get to the point concisely not waste my time and manages to keep everything nice and clear. Good old laid back, reading. Nothing hard about it.

I also really enjoyed reading J. R. McNeil. Mosquito Empires was a fun book (and I can appreciate a little black humor thrown into talking about malaria epidemics).

I'm waiting too see if my Middle East professor from college ever publishes any books. The guy is hilarious and I'm sure anything he writes will be hysterical and informative. But so far nothing.

Plutarch (c.A.D.45-c.125) Greco-roman moralist and historian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prize:_The_Epic_Quest_for_Oil,_Money,_and_Power

Practically required reading in the energy industry

Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, of course, as he is sharing the real history of the world with us.

I don't know what's crazier. His hair, or his name...

 Ahtman wrote:
Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, of course, as he is sharing the real history of the world with us.

Spoiler:

Ahtman is of course, 100% correct.

 Ahtman wrote:
Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, of course, as he is sharing the real history of the world with us.

Spoiler:

Well I did see that documentary where aliens built those pyramids in Antarctica and used us for hunting practice, so maybe he's on to something,

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't know what's crazier. His hair, or his name...

As I've pointed out before, his hair is trying to distance itself from his mouth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Giorgio A. Tsoukalos, of course, as he is sharing the real history of the world with us.

Spoiler:

Well I did see that documentary where aliens built those pyramids in Antarctica and used us for hunting practice, so maybe he's on to something,

I wasn't aware Stargate was a documentary

AvP 1 actually. And it is.

In high school we had to write a paper in AP English about a documentary, so I handed in 5 pages on Jurassic Park. Really wish I still had that paper today.

Did you teacher find it entertaining, or were they not entertained?

Richard Holmes

 LordofHats wrote:
Did you teacher find it entertaining, or were they not entertained?

I never gave up the bit so in the end I think they were just confused.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
KilKrazy what did he write?

A ton of good books.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Richard-Holmes/e/B001ITYROW/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1360620443&sr=1-2-ent

It is UK centric but some of the books have wider interest about the typical experience of soldiering.

Richard Holmes' TV series are also well worth it if you can find them.

G. S. Graber - "History of the S.S."

My favorite short (relatively speaking) history book.

Also amazing (though LOOOOOOOOOONNNGG)

"Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by Wiliam Shirer.

and

"Eagle Against the Sun" by Ronald Spector (about the Pacific War)

 Hedgehog wrote:
I'm sure a lot of others here will know Antony Beevor's work - Stalingrad is a masterpiece of popular History Writing, and Berlin is almost as good.

Yeah, that's who I came in here to mention.

Adam Rothschild's King Leopold's Ghost is excellent, if you're into something that's probably more depressing than WWII. I've been told his Russia Remembers Stalin is also excellent.

I'll probably get a few people disagreeing, but I think Jared Diamond's work is great. Everyone knows Guns, Germs and Steel, but How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed is also excellent.

Bryan Burrough is also terrific. Public Enemies is a blast, and Barbarians at the Gate is probably the best thing ever written on business.

 sebster wrote:
I'll probably get a few people disagreeing, but I think Jared Diamond's work is great. Everyone knows Guns, Germs and Steel, but How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed is also excellent.

Gah! Why Seb whhhhyyyyy! Jared Diamond is good for one thing, and one thing only: His rather lengthy text Guns, Germs, and Steel, effectively communicates a myriad of global historical themes within a single text, which is a hard thing to come by. Unfortunately, his text contains numerous historical errors (as does his next book, which is actually even worse, showing a rather patent ignorance of historical scholarship on several subjects), a lack in appropriate focus, and perhaps most importantly his premise is inherently defeatist.

He claims to have written the book to disprove racist theories about why the West has succeeded where others do not (the famous quote being "why do you have so much cargo and we do not"). And to disprove racist theories he falls on environmental determinism. The problem with environmental determinism? It's a racist theory that says westerns succeeded because their environments evolved them to be better than anyone else. Diamond invokes the theory (apparently in ignorance) throughout his book, defeating his own goal.

Diamond should stick to studying birds. He's better at it.

Rant Over

Thats not what its saying. It just says that the west had the best luck of the draw with respect to resources.

I don't think Environmental Determinisim is racist in the slightest. Its mearely saying that western civilization had all the resource componants to succeed while other areas did not. It says that people use what is avaliable. If one group has better stuff, of course they will do better.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thats not what its saying. It just says that the west had the best luck of the draw with respect to resources.

I don't think Environmental Determinisim is racist in the slightest. Its mearely saying that western civilization had all the resource componants to succeed while other areas did not. It says that people use what is avaliable. If one group has better stuff, of course they will do better.

Then explain why Europe, ironically the geographically least likely to end up dominating the world, came out on top through the 19th and 20th centuries? As most global historians will tell you, China was ahead of everyone by leaps and bounds for centuries. Environmental factors fail to account for why China fell behind. Geographically, using an environmentally determinist model, China and the far east should have won (this is not to say environment doesn't matter but environmental determinism is the consideration of environmental factors to the ignorance of all others).

This is one of the inherent flaws in environmental determinism that historians found through the mid-20th century leading to its rejection (that and evolution actually is integral to the theory as it originates among 'historical' Darwinists). The theory just doesn't work. He actually argues against it in his own book when germs destroy European attempts to colonize Africa but ignores that germs were an advantage to Europeans in the Americas. So on one hand, germs help Europeans conquer the Americas, but stop them from conquering Africa, and he never accounts for why Africa never succeeded (he actually probably would have benefited from reading Mosquito Empires as that book alone disproves his entire chapter on the colonization of Africa)? Best yet he blames the failure of African colonization on diseases that were equally common in the Carribean (historical failure here). Jared Diamond's ignorance of the historical field enabled him to invoke the theory without overt racism, but the theory is the basic outcome of his work and the theory is hinged on racism.

Of course that's just the most basic criticism I can level against Guns, Germs, and Steel. I won't bother going in detail into his massive failings in understanding colonial history, which I don't think he researched at all when writing his book. Go ask a expert on Aztec history why the Aztec civilization collapsed. They'll curse Jared Diamond to his grave (not to mention the scholars of Indian History or the Incas).

EDIT: And here is my problem with Diamond's work. The layperson is libel to walk away from it with a very bad perception on the themes he discusses, which have been framed in a very faulty context leading to historically inaccurate conclusions.

If soon to be future which will be history at some point in time counts, then I like Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451."

How is Europe the LEAST likely to dominate the world?

China does have that, true. But they had isolationist policies preventing them from expanding. Plus they are isolated from the rest of Asia by the largest mountain ranges in the world.

Europe on the other hand has good agricultural land and climate that allows for a wide range of plants and animals to thrive(specifically the domesticable kind)

Domestic animals are very important, specifically ones that can pull carts or assist in ploughing.

These things give you a growing population. With a growing population you have incentive to expand, and more people that can be devoted to scientific progress.


I'm not saying the theory is 100% correct, but it definitly has something.

 Grey Templar wrote:
China does have that, true. But they had isolationist policies preventing them from expanding. Plus they are isolated from the rest of Asia by the largest mountain ranges in the world.

This is the point. This is a political issue not an environmental one, i.e. China's environment does not account for why Europe ended up winning the race to global dominion. Environment can't explain why Mesopotamian civilization thrived in a (quasi)desert when the earliest Indus river valley civilizations just collapsed. Environmental determinism is just wrong. It can't be historically supported.

And to answer your first question, I'll just point out that when the Europeans had only just started to realize copper spears worked better than wooden clubs, the Chinese were already writing dissertations on military theory.

Europe on the other hand has good agricultural land and climate that allows for a wide range of plants and animals to thrive(specifically the domesticable kind)

So does China (and India for that matter). In fact China has an even more diversified land scape than Europe.

I'm not saying the theory is 100% correct, but it definitly has something.

\

The theory is false because its pretexted on environmental predestination. Geography and environment most certainly matter, but the problem is that Diamonds conclusion can be summed up as "Europeans have more cargo than you because they're from Europe and that made them better." Which is first off, wrong, second off underpinned in racism, and third not even supported by his own book.

This helped me to realize I need to read more.

Stupid family keeps wasting my time!

If you really want to laugh, watch the NatGeo 3-part series on his book. The only impression I got during it was he felt bad about being white. Also the scene of him shooting a musket is hilarious. He turns away and basically has another guy behind him shoot it lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've always been curious to read about Medieval Russia if anybody can lend a hand there.

 Hedgehog wrote:
I'm sure a lot of others here will know Antony Beevor's work - Stalingrad is a masterpiece of popular History Writing, and Berlin is almost as good.

Im a huge fan of Beevor as well. Anything by Max Hastings is very good for WW2 as well. Armageddon is one of the best books on the late WW2 period I've ever read.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
The only impression I got during it was he felt bad about being white.

That's the impression I got as well. Granted, I think the series is WAAAAAAYYYY worse than his book. His book is just poorly researched and hindered by his own ignorance of the subject. The series is just... just so awful...

Also the scene of him shooting a musket is hilarious. He turns away and basically has another guy behind him shoot it lol.

Indeed it is

I can only think that when pissed off rednecks think about "pussy liberal college professor's", he's the first thing that comes to mind. He's like a caricature.