I read this entire thing, and I still don't feel like I have a comprehensive understanding of history, who where when, doing, thinking and feeling what, at all the interesting points.
Should I just kms at this point?
I read this entire thing, and I still don't feel like I have a comprehensive understanding of history, who where when...
Juan Nelson
Hunter Turner
>a summary of thousands of years of history doesn't go in depth
At least you learned. Now stop reading summaries and start reading primary sources
Levi Walker
History is boring as fuck famalam, if you really want to understand, you'll have to read about a topic that you think is interesting and then read a lot of different books on that topic. History is actually underrated in how difficult it is. I find learning math and reading philosophy much more easy. My brain simply doesn't register history. I read, read and reread and i still have no coherent picture of human history.
Adam Thomas
depends on the history you're reading. Can you give an example of what you've read? Cause a textbook summary of an event isn't nearly as interesting as a primary source account of it.
Carson Hill
I read an earlier edition of that book that my Dad bought in the 70's and enjoyed it very much, maybe you had unrealistic expectations to begin with.
Ultimately though, consider this; if you cannot find supreme satisfaction and complete contentedness in the pure experience of being, in the very moment of awareness itself before all thought, than how could you expect to find that from reading a book? If you learn to be content with and discover the bliss within being itself than you won't need to read history books or develop and understanding of history to reach satisfaction.
Gabriel Russell
Yeah, now that you mention, i haven't read any primary source at all. Do you have anything to recommend? It can be whatever you think interesting.
Angel Foster
based reply. I wish I practiced meditation and awareness more often. thnks
Samuel Perry
Just read certain sections over and over, or read other books on parts of history that might've interested you.
Jose Green
How do I get an apartment like that without being a trustfund kid?
Jayden Perry
It's hard to recommend because I don't know what you like. Is there a period you're interested in? Greek and Roman history is easy to get into because they're filled with drama and excitement
Daniel Young
Herodotus' Histories for the Greco-Persian Wars,
Records of the Grand Historian for an extensive account of Chinese history till the days of the Han dynasty,
Suetonius' Lives of Twelve Caesars for some information on the Roman heads of state from Julius Caesar till Domitian.
Noah Robinson
Well i said that it could be whatever you think interesting because maybe you could point towards something that i'd end up finding interesting as well. I have vague interests because i'm not well read in history, but i like Ancient warfare and i'd like to know how could they change formation in the midst of complete chaos, how did they train and things like that. But beyond that i think my interests are more in the cultural aspects of things, like, i'm curious to know how would a medieval peasant think about his place in the cosmos (beyond basic christianity, did they just accept that and never think or question it?), how was his social life, what did they do to have fun etc I've read textbooks on these matters and honestly, i barely remember anything about them. I feel like a total brainlet when reading history.
Josiah Bell
I'd add Thucydides to the list, given how he at least attempts to be impartial. And the conflict between the Athenians and the Spartans is easy enough to grasp.
Elijah Brown
almost all ancient history is the history of ancient warfare, so it's hard to go wrong. Most of the Greek classics would interest you (other anons in this thread have recommended Herodotus and Thucydides, start with those).
If you like Roman warfare (which involved a great deal of formation movement during battle), then you might enjoy Caesar's commentaries on the Gallic Wars. He recounts his ten year conquest of Gaul and describes many battles moment for moment. It isn't objective history by an measure, but it's rare to see battle described up close, and especially from the perspective of such an eminent military mind.
I don't know enough about medieval history to recommend anything for you. At least you have interesting things you want to learn. Some people never even stop to think about what it would be like to be an average joe in the ancient world, or to think about how the ancients contextualized their grand conflicts.
Landon Jenkins
it's like history is too wide and deep to be understood simply. understanding the french revolution requires understanding french society before the revolution, which requires understanding feudalism, which requires understanding monarchy, which requires understanding political philosophy, which requires understanding classical greece, etc. this type of thing can go on infinitely so that it feels impossible to understand a historical event in its entirety without understanding the whole of human history and thought
learning topology and number theory was easier and less intimidating than trying to understand any single event in human history
Luke Cruz
>a comprehensive understanding of history
The problem isn't which books to read to reach that understanding, but to question your supposition and the metaphysics behind your notion of history.
Brayden Johnson
who does one do this?
Jayden Campbell
The most interesting stuff is the most foreign, mysterious and strange. Things like Mayans, super ancient near east, pre-historic peoples or gobekli tepe stuff.
There's almost no primary scources on those things.
Dylan Martinez
>I read this entire thing, and I still don't feel like I have a comprehensive understanding of history, who where when, doing, thinking and feeling what, at all the interesting points.
>Should I just kms at this point?
I've never read that book in particular, so I can't speak to its faults, but it may have been a problem with the scope of the book and your lack of experience with history. I think the best kind of history is a combination of the "macro" level and the "micro" level, but most general history books tend to go somewhere in-between, which may be interesting to know, but it doesn't directly increase your understanding of humanity beyond stamp-collecting. Don't get me wrong, you need to know dates, places, and a general sequence of events to even get a sense of history, but it's not what will "blow your mind" if that's what you're looking for.
The "macro" level is where you get a sense for how societies change from an eye-in-the-sky level, i.e., how quickly Europe adopted the printing press, what kinds of economic activities were going on, how was the military organized, what trends in government were there, what was the religious/ideological situation, etc. This is where things can get either very quantitative or very philosophical, helping you to "put the pieces together" as you will. But too much of this perspective will make you believe too much in determinism, since you will be focusing on the circumstances but not the actual sequences of action and reaction that decide the fate of nations.
The "micro" level is where you get a sense for how great events happen or how things were actually run at the finest resolution you can use, such as how the legal system of the Ancien Regime worked depending on your social rank, what factions were involved and what motivated them, or how the Paris insurrection of 1830 which ousted the Bourbons was organized and how it played out on an hour-to-hour basis. This is where you'll learn how tiny details, such as leaving a door unlocked, could lead to the collapse of a counter-revolutionary operation. When it comes to life lessons, such as learning leadership and organizational skills, you can learn a lot just from learning from the successes and failures of the past. But too much of this perspective will make you lose sight of the circumstances that enable the possibilities to drive history forward.
If you want to get a sense of both the macro and the micro scale, then I recommend "Atlas of World History" by Patrick O'Brien for the former, and listening to Revolutions by Mike Duncan for the latter. Remember, there you can almost always increase or decrease the level of resolution that you use to examine world events to your heart's desire. If you're having a hard time getting from point A to point B, then that's what you should do to see what you're missing.
Nathaniel Anderson
Solved it for ya
Brandon Reed
lmao what's your deal? History is about we wuz epic kangz/warriorz? Winning contemporary political debates?
Blake Hughes
No, I just identified the thing in your image.
Jeremiah Gray
START WITH THE G R E E K S
David Phillips
I've read every single major Greek writer: Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, Polybius, Plutarch, Euclid, Epictetus, Plotinus.
I've also read most of the Romans: Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius, Cicero, Seneca, Virgil, Ovid, Horace, Juvenal, St. Augustine.
What should I aim for next?
Easton Barnes
john green or david wallace