What are some history books that everyone interested in history should read?

Stfu, pseudointellectual pos.

>Historians have to attempt being unbiased
Not necessarily

If there is no attempt at being impartial when recounting history, then he or she does not deserve the label of historian. Now fuck off, insulting bastard.

Caesar is biased as fuck but he's still a historian

A historian has a responsibility to separate their feelings or biased when recounting history in an impartial manner. If he or she does not do so, then they are not historian and instead propagate lies and deceit instead. There are plenty of criticisms of Herodotus who was one of the most deceitful faggots of all time. He did more to damage historical understanding than to help it.

>or biased
or biases*

uh seems like you're the pseud demanding ACCURATE AND UNBIASED REPORTING OF HISTORICAL EVENTS and not willing to just chill and let Herodotus tell you the stories he's picked up on his travels

It's better for a historian, or any writer, to be open about the effect their own subjective experience has on their writing rather than trying to conceal their bias in an attempt to reach an unattainable "objectivity". if you read anything expecting it to approach objectivity you're fucking stupid

Many ancient historians used history to their own ends. Nearly every Roman Historian was biased (Livy about how Rome's decline in morality, Polybius wrote his for the Greeks, etc)

>kick start history keeping
>somehow hurts it
Lel, you just mad Herodotus wasn't a fag and pretended to be a citizen of the world like Socrates

The Face of Battle by John Keegan

Personally, I like to read accounts of history by those who actually lived it. Some of the best military history books were written by former soldiers/Marines, etc. E. B. Sledge's 'With the Old Breed,' Charles Yale Harrison's 'Generals Die in Bed,' Guy Sajer's 'The Forgotten Soldier,' are all great.

The Gallic Wars, Julius Caesar

I actually found the first two volumes of this at a thrift store. I'm still unsure if all the material is within these 2 volumes, because I thought I had read there were 6 in total.

Gibbon's original is six volumes. Later editions don't necessarily have to be the same

Okay, I'll have to double check.
Any idea of any books similar, but about the Roman Republic? And, maybe the Rise rather than the Decline.

In this case I would recommend checking out the primary sources. I recommend Livy and then use the others to fill in the gap. I think the annalist approach suits Roman history well.

It's not history then because you can't take anything they say seriously about others. It's not better than having an neoconservative American slave of Jews writing history while frequently mentioning Rapture. Herodotus did not give a fuck about the Truth.

It's more that you're the pseud who doesn't care about Truth and just want propagandist bullshit that most real modern historians discount.

Your real modern historians spew propaganda bullshit too

Marc Bloch, Apologie pour l'Histoire

Lucien Febvre, Civilisation. Évolution d’un mot et d’un groupe d’idées

Reinhart Koselleck, Futures Past. On the Semantics of Historical Time

Carlo Ginzburg, The Cheese and the Worms: The Cosmos of a Sixteenth Century Miller

Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

>french books
feels bad. There are some supposedly great books on Bactria in french that haven't been translated

Herodotus was very, very bad about it. It's more like he was making up history on the fly. Making up history =/= an impartial recount of what transpired.

The first one is The Historian's Craft;
Second: Lucien Febvre, ‘Civilisation: Evolution of a Word and a Group of Ideas’, A New Kind of History: From the Writings of Febvre, ed. Peter Burke, trans. K. Folca (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973), pp. 219–57.

mahabharata

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vyasa

Thanks

Of course he had biases. Everyone does. Modern historians have biases too and often other historians have difficulty advancing new discoveries if it does not meet the community's pre conceived notions

>making up history on the fly
More like he was reciting stories that various cultures had, which is what he had to go off of since there wasn't much of a written record then

Appianus is the Nolan of history

Nope, he was making things up on the fly. Modern scholarship pretty much points to this direction. Anyone who takes Herodotus seriously is a brainlet. He wasn't a historian whatsoever, more like a narcissistic propagandist.

Herodotus was completely motivated by biases and not for truth whatsoever. I mean, many modern historians agree with me. People who take Herodotus seriously are brainlets.

>History
>Just telling the facts of what happened on a certain day, in a certain place, of a certain year.

Pick one. Historians are just storytellers with a fancy diploma on them.

Attached: ambi03sm.jpg (434x576, 39K)

>making things up on the fly
>he cites some of his sources
>there's even a tablet confirming the ancient ziguret in Babylon that historians thought was fake till recently proved via the uruk tablet
user, some of his stuff is wrong, undoubtedly . But he seems to get more and more right. Even his account of ants digging gold may be a mistranslation of marmet
Some of its fake, but you're being overly harsh

The reason people back then shat on Herodotus was because they were jealous

Yes, history is supposed to be as impartial and honest as possible.
You are being too lax with Herodotus. A lot of what he has said is starting to be proven false too. He deliberately exaggerated or made up bullshit for certain ulterior purposes.

>certain ulterior purposes.
such as?

Much of his account of the war its self seems to be accepted (aside from army numbers) so I think he did ok. He's not a historian per say, he's a story teller who mixes legend with fact that makes for an interesting read
Folklore is going to be spotty. But, he didn't have much else to include so I don't think one can criticise so heavily. He included what he was told. He even included stories he did not think possible, but a source gave it so he included it. And there are always nuggets of truth in folklore, you just have to be sure you can discern what is and isn't true

this. If Herodotus tried being "objective" we'd lose tons of useful information

Practically everything he had to say about Achaemenids had been proven false by modern French historians. I have to find his name again, but Herodotus claims were pretty much irrevocably refuted. As a consequence, we know pretty much NOTHING about the Achaemenids unlike Sassanids.
Literally everything he said about Achaemenids were a lie and has led to continuous debate among scholars, though most agree Herodotus was a lying bastard.

Herodotus pretty much fueled long-standing misinformation.

>Barnes and Noble print
I just can’t bring myself to read one of these books. They’re just so ugly

what does that have to do with anything

Ur mom pussy

Attached: 51LVx6UrW5L._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (328x499, 32K)

Name an unbiased historian.

Mary Beard

>this fucking autist complaining about Herodotus not being objective
lmao

Attached: 0641B35C-4710-483C-8145-1374DBDD6080.jpg (743x1199, 507K)

>historians shouldn't be biased
Blow it out your ass

Attached: 9ca478330520f2acfdc64c2a8ecb0373.jpg (430x600, 41K)

Anybody got any good books on the Seljuk dynasty?

Well this isn't about the dynasty but it's related. Have you read Nizam al-Mulk's Book of Government?

>Have you read Nizam al-Mulk's Book of Government?
Heard of it from my Central Asian history book, I'll probably find a EPUB online.

>I'll probably find a EPUB online.
Good luck

>Synthians were born from some guy fucking a snakewoman
I love all these bullshit stories Herodotus wrote down

Well since I'm inclined to believe Procopius I may as well give Herodotus the benefit of the doubt

Delete this antisemitic post!

youtube.com/watch?v=qvaxPH3ftUQ

>A 3 hour video
uh no thanks

>Herodotus was the first person to record a historical narrative of the scope that he did
>Herodotus recorded stories and cultural practices that would have been lost otherwise
>Herodotus is still used as the main source of information for the period he wrote about
>B-but he wasn't OBJECTIVE ;__;

>responsibility
do not speak for God, cunt.

>A lot of what he has said is starting to be proven false too

lol

theguardian.com/science/2019/mar/17/nile-shipwreck-herodotus-archaeologists-thonis-heraclion

Conquest of New Spain by Diaz
Very engaging and fair to all factions. Captures the enormity of the achievement, the valour and fatalism of the Indians, the alien horror of their civilisation, the terror and audacious energy of marching into their jungle.

Attached: Diaz .jpg (256x400, 26K)

There are many articles that criticize Herodotus as unreliable and untrustworthy. It is not my job to seek them out for you again.
Richard Foltz, Pierre Briant, Richard Frye, etc. all consider Herodotus untrustworthy and unreliable when it came to Achaemenids.
Persians were the first ones to discover/invent god, cunt. Alexander burned all of Achaemenid tradition away.

I am being reasonable here, but the more you push me, the more I am likely to bring back scaphism for your god-forsaken ass.

>Persians were the first ones to discover/invent god
hoo boy

Well, technically speaking, it was Eastern Iranians closely related to Sogdians and Bactrians who were the first to frame the idea of a transcendent god that gives foundation to moral values.

>Richard Foltz, Pierre Briant, Richard Frye
Literal who's next to Herodotus

You don't get what I'm trying to say. I think it's fine if you appreciate the "literary value" in Herodotus. That's fine. However, treating Herodotus as an actual historian is bullshit. Many Western historians who focus on Achaemenids are pissed at how much misinformation Herodotus perpetuated. He wasn't really a good historian at all. I have spoken to some of them over email.

Sargon!

>treating Herodotus as an actual historian is bullshit.
Then why is he consistently used as a primary source for that era?
Why does he seem to be right more often than not?
Why does Thucydides back him up in things involving the Achamaenids including more minor stories like the defeat of Croeseus?
He's not perfect but you seem to be choosing to undercut him simply because the history community had decided at one point that he was not a good source.

>Then why is he consistently used as a primary source for that era?
I think it was Pierre Briant or perhaps another one of those scholars who argued that was a bad thing because Herodotus spread a lot of misconceptions.
>Why does he seem to be right more often than not?
He was wrong about pretty much everything except where battles occurred and their outcomes.

Tacitus's Annals and Histories.

Alexiad by Anna Comnena

Cool fighting scenes from listing to daddy and hubby's campfire stories, perfect systhesis of Homeric, Medieval Chivaric, and Christian heroism thanks to Byzantine education. Female sensitivity, takes a women to observe that every man of historical importance circling her is a Chad, especially Norman bad boys.

Attached: I love my daddy.jpg (407x630, 61K)

He was the first person to ever write history, I think he can be forgiven his faults

Herodotus is based. I can understand his critics but even they can't deny his greatness

>have to attempt being unbiased
okay buddy!

What do you all think of this?

Attached: The_Great_War_for_Civilisation_-_Dust_Jacket_-_Robert_Fisk.jpg (259x384, 20K)

>Female sensitivity,

No thanks.

>>Bohemond’s appearance was, to put it briefly, unlike that of any other man seen in those days in the Roman world, whether Greek or barbarian. The sight of him inspired admiration, the mention of his name terror. I will describe in detail the barbarian’s characteristics. His stature was such that he towered almost a full cubit over the tallest men. He was slender of waist and flanks, with broad shoulders and chest, strong in the arms; in general he was neither taper of form, nor heavily built and fleshy, but perfectly proportioned – one might say that he conformed to the Polyclitean ideal. His hands were large, he had a good firm stance, and his neck and back were compact. If to the accurate and meticulous observer he appeared to stoop slightly, that was not caused by any weakness of the vertebrae of the lower spine, but presumably there was some malformation there from birth. The skin all over his body was very white, except for his face which was both white and red. His hair was lightish-brown and not as long as that of other barbarians (that is, it did not hang on his shoulders); in fact, the man had no great predilection for long hair, but cut his short, to the ears. Whether his beard was red or of any other colour I cannot say, for the razor had attacked it, leaving his chin smoother than any marble. However, it appeared to be red. His eyes were light-blue and gave some hint of the man’s spirit and dignity. He breathed freely through nostrils that were broad, worthy of his chest and a fine outlet for the breath that came in gusts from his lungs. There was a certain charm about him, but it was somewhat dimmed by the alarm his person as a whole inspired; there was a hard, savage quality in his whole aspect, due, I suppose, to his great stature and his eyes; even his laugh sounded like a threat to others. Such was his constitution, mental and physical, that in him both courage and love were armed, both ready for combat.
It's kind of amusing

Based female historians. What man could ever write how the great men of history are irresistible bad boys? Who else but woman could make pages drip with their animal magnetism?

Oh God, I love how even this highborn bitch can't help but masturbate on paper at the sight of a Chad.

She was also daddy's girl. It just goes to show how little things have truly changed

Should read her describe Sichelgaita, the Norman queen. Anna's husband the Kaiser gets the treatment too. Her entire work is overflowing with female erotic sensitivity interspersed with boys own adventure war stories, all framed in Homeric allegory. One of history's great achievements.

Fingerprints of the Gods

Have anyone read these before?? are they worth it? I'm thinking about ordering them.

Sasanian Persia : Between Rome and the Steppes of Eurasia (Edinburgh Studies in Ancient Persia) by Sauer, Eberhard W.

The Greek Experience of India : From Alexander to the Indo-Greeks by Stoneman, Richard

ReOrienting the Sasanians : East Iran in Late Antiquity (Edinburgh Studies in Ancient Persia) by Rezakhani, Khodadad

Also looking for good books on Tocharians, Khotanese, Scythian and Kushan Empire. Thank you in advance.

Attached: 1546709371536.jpg (620x451, 124K)

Geek Experience of India is good

Thanks

Of those 4 that's the only one I read so I have no idea how the others are

No worry, I appreciated yours replied, it's currently out of the stock in my favourite bookstore so my last resorts is to ordering it.

>but Herodotus claims were pretty much irrevocably refuted. As a consequence, we know pretty much NOTHING about the Achaemenids
If we know nothing about them, how could he be refuted so heavily? What exactly does he have wrong about them and what are some other primary sources that prove he is wrong about the Achamaenids

>Scythian
Herodotus has a book devoted to them in the histories. Can't attest to it's complete accuracy but he describes their culture, habits, etc including a paiotie sauna
As far as other books that are entirely devoted to them, I don't know

Thanks, I also saw one book about them but I'm hesitated to buy it, it name was " Scythians : Warriors of Ancient Siberia: the BP Exhibition "

'Biased' histories are valuable insofar as they preserve what people thought about the past, which is arguably more valuable than having sterile chronology, a subject for which few audiences care and even fewer care about for the sake of truth. Wanting that sterile chronology is more often than not meant to serve the needs of someone's own biases, so that they may then weaponize that furnished narrative in the service of their ideas.

Attached: 1562791323272.jpg (549x1024, 74K)

bump

Going in the opposite direction, you could check out The House of Seleucus by Edwyn Bevan

>The House of Seleucus by Edwyn Bevan
Thank you, I'll give it a try.

The bias of historical writings is itself important historical information you complete and utter moron.

I already mentioned scholars who dispute Herodotus' account of Achaemenid cultures. It's more like the claims he made have been shown to be unlikely based on archeological and contradicting accounts from others. Do you realize that Xenophon and Herodotus contradict each other a lot, right?
Xenophon was better and more honest when talking about Achaemenids.

But people who believe in what the biased man have to say are ingrates, themselves. Herodotus was used to try to understand Achaemenids for a long time, even moreso than Xenophon who had more accurate things to say.

But you're trying to downplay an enormous literary and historical achievement by complaining that he didn't adhere to contemporary standards of historiography. It's like complaining that Plato was retarded because he didn't know what gravity was. Also Herodotus repeatedly does go out of his way to say what things he has only heard and can't confirm. I do think that there are stronger Greek historians of course, but I think you're overreacting.

And I think you're sucking his dick a little too much. How would you feel if some non-Greek philosopher was outright lying about Greek customs in order to falsely portray them as savage the way Herodotus did for Achaemenids? Again, Xenophon was better when it came to accounts of Achaemenids.
I don't care if you like Herodotus. I think he was a stupid piece of shit, and I do not respect him in the least. I do not consider him important to the Western literary canon either. Now please, let's stop talking.

The Achaemenids were assholes to the Ionian Greeks.

It's incredibly outdated but it's a very interesting piece of historiography and it's also very comprehensive for the time it was written

seething

Anyone know that history book that doesn't treat history as events? Vague description but I can't remember exactly what it was.

Can you try giving some better hints?

Attached: worldhistory.jpg (363x499, 33K)

I wish. I'm trying to remember since I wanted to read it but I don't seem to have saved it anywhere.

All I really remember is that it was looking at history ina different way that wasn't event based.

Sorry I can't think of anything like that

>The Achaemenids were assholes to the Ionian Greeks.
That's not what Xenophon has to say. From what I've read of Xenophon and many others, Achaemenids were generally chill and lived up to Zarathustra's message of tolerance. However, Sassanids were a bit more brutal and not true to Zarathustra's message for lack of a better word.

If you have read a little about history you would know that unbiased history started to emerge only in the victorian age

The Achaemenids deported Greeks to Bactria which is why the eastern most satrapy somehow had more Greeks compared to lands closer to Greece itself. Both the people there and the growing Greek population didn't like the Achaemenids or it's successor the Seleucids so the moment they got a chance when the Seleucids were busy they revolted. There were also a few failed revolts before their successful one

Why would you deport a troublesome population to your richest satrapy?

Found it, A History of Civilizations by Fernand Braudel

seems kind of meh desu

Maybe, I just wanted to read something that wasn't event based to see what it's like.

The Mediterranean is his magnum opus, read that instead

Also the Annales school calls it histoire evenementielle, disparagingly. Most of Braudel's students tried to do similar structural or cultural anthropology style history. Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre also do some

Dumb baby got mad waaaaaaah

anabasis by xenophon

Ok, I downloaded it. There wasn't an "A History of Civilizations" on there anyway.

I'll check them out, thanks.

Everyone on this board can at least be glad that they weren't born this stupid

Yes, you are very stupid. I am glad I wasn't born as stupid as you. Thank you for telling me. I highly recommend suicide for you. Have fun burning in hell.
I agree, you are a dumb baby. Keep crying. If I could, I would drown you. Then I would be holding a dead baby, which is you. You'd probably still keep crying like a bastard baby ghost.

The Third Reich Trilogy by Richard Evans

Attached: 71B9+J8QKaL.jpg (1461x2244, 229K)

You're just an Iranian buttmad about the fact no one cares about ancient Persia aren't you

Persia is a made up word. During Sassanian empire it was called "Iran-shahr" and during Achaemenid it was something else. Also, plenty of people do care, idiot. Moreover, all Abrahamic faiths are a distortion of Zoroastrian beliefs. Sage

>During Sassanian empire it was called "Iran-shahr" and during Achaemenid it was something els
wow that's so interes- zzzzzzzzzzzz.... im sleep

global.oup.com/academic/content/series/n/new-oxford-world-history-nowh/?cc=us&lang=en&

can you recommend any specific one?
i assume they vary in quality by author

Xenophon is better than Herodotus. Xenophon was correct to see how great and magnificent we were. As Nietzsche said, it would have been better if Achaemenids won the war.

>we
oh noooooooo

Attached: 1477937229916.png (604x717, 814K)

The entire series (22 books) most of which (17 iirc) can be found free on libgen.io each is concise and extremely informative hf

Attached: 102205294_136496196296.jpg (718x768, 102K)

Attached: Persian_v_04.jpg (8199x6167, 3.34M)

Did too much sand get into your ears Ahmed?
I'm not implying modern desert dwellers are any different than how ever long ago your we wuz kangs era has passed, but imagine actually being one of these people hahahahahahahahaha

Go to opensyllabus.org and select the "history" field and it will give you a list of books they use to teach history in college starting w/ the top rated

Go back to /pol/, you pseudointellectual ingrate. Iran isn't even mostly desert.

Attached: kermanshah.jpg (1080x1080, 414K)

Go suck some more Jewish and Saudi dick, ingrate. Your brain has rotted from memes.

Attached: politics.png (1420x1023, 204K)

I sure am interested to learn more about what brushes grow in Ira- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You on the left hahahahahahahaha

Read Jonathan Clements biography of Wu Zetain, it's fucking insane.

look at those little cube huts lol

Go back to /pol/ before I bring back scaphism for you.

Attached: shapuri.jpg (1248x958, 399K)

Look at the insects festering and gnawing at your bones. We are the last people you want to fuck with. Go ahead and start a war. Iran recently caught and interrogated 3-4 CIA agents. Do you think Iran will be as easy as Iraq. Get ready to eat shit and die. We'll show you why the Romans feared us. We will bring back worlds of pain you cannot imagine. We will go beyond anything Lovecraft ever imagined. We will make every nerve in your body scream to the point where you cannot even tell whether you exist or do not. Do not fuck with me, friendo. I will use corpse for beautiful art if you fuck with me.

Attached: Cyrus.jpg (724x1292, 384K)

please stop i can't breathe

Attached: 1482087477692.png (340x314, 249K)

>i can't breathe
Good.

Battle cry of freedom
Napoleon the great

>annal school
Into the trash it goes. Might as well go full retard and recommend braudel.

Why the hate?

How did no one not mention thucydides yet?

fuck off retard
literally the first post

Livy

The anales school and Braudel are based

anyone got book recs on
>kievan rus/federation of rus
>polish-lithuanian commonwealth
>guild system

Attached: 51I75J5KdML._SX335_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (337x499, 45K)

Anglo cuck spotted

What’s the best book for ancient Mesopotamian history? I’d love to learn about the Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians, etc...

Attached: 51MNBtzwz0L._SX346_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (348x499, 37K)

These

Attached: 15214138357660.jpg (1600x1205, 316K)

first emperor of rome is such a weak limp wristed subtitle compared to LIFE OF A COLOSSUS
what was he THINKING

shut up you pseud

You are the pseud, faggot. I respect honesty and integrity. I do not respect people who propagate lies and misinformation the way Herodotus did. Now KYS.

Anabasis by Xenophon
Cyropaedia by Xenophon
Plutarch's Parallel Lives
Ab Urbe Condita Livy
Germania Tacitus
Procopius Wars of Justinian
Julius Pokorny for Indo-Europeans
Georges Dumezil for IE
other authors for proto indo europeans that i cant recall
Res Gestae Augusti
Arrian
Ordericus Vitalis
al-Tabari
Pliny
De Bello Gallico
Shahnameh by Ferdowsi is semi-historical

any secondary sources you can read are often excellent too because they will reveal insight not necessarily available to primary sources

i am trying to read more about Sassanids but rather than buying books I am just accessing ppaers from my university's online library, since most local libraries dont have books on some period specific like Sassanid Iran. if you go to a big institutional university i would recommend this

Tried and unfortunately for some time managed to convince many that people and events don't matter.
I don't get how grand narrative fags that were at least vaguely interesting like spengler or toynbee got trashed but hacks like braudel were left alone. At least it's in the past now, people have gone back from muh temps long delusions.

Polybius was pretty good as well when I last read him.

The two volume version is an abridgement.
The original "last edition" is at least 6 volumes.

Tacitus.
Dio.
Polybius.
There's also political speeches from the times.
That Jew historian.

what do you guys think about Eric Hobsbawm?

Landmark Series is unbeatable.
Worth every penny.

Worth a read if you give him his obviously biased Marxist views (he's like a good movie with an awful ending, "all" his conclusions and deductions are wrong—because Marxism isn't a science).

Their translations are usually revised public domain translations, so in that regard, there are better versions out there. Their notes, maps, and whatnot are absolutely matchless, though, I'll give you that.

Fuck off, Median.

>we
t. Ahmed 'Cyrus' Mohammed

Get of lit Plutarch

t. Persian

Herodotus will dance on the grave of these nobodies just like he has literally thousands of historians going back to Plutarch and Greek historians who thought he was overtly pro Persian. By traveling and striving to write an analysis of many different societies whose language he didn't speak and lacked anything comparable to a modern historical tradition he is worthy to be called the father of anthropology as well as history. As to history he himself tells us that he analysed many conflicting oral accounts out of which he forged a brilliant narrative of the Persian wars, just think of the shear effort such a task entailes, not to mention the imagination to undertake it in the first place. After he overcame all this you don't think he could overcome muh bias? Save it for your high school essay kiddo.

Persians should worship Herodotus as a god he did more to preserve Achaemenid history than anyone else.

And some french fucks who sit slowly decaying in 3rd rate universities writing papers on other papers that no will ever read dare to criticise him, disgusting.

Story of Civilization by Will and Ariel Durant. Most importantly the first volume.

I think you can give Herodotus a break, seeing as he is, at least to us, the father of history. Not much you can base your work on when you are writing the first massive piece of historical prose there is.

I’m reading it now. I know this thread is all about bias in historian, but this guy really takes it to the next level. Sadat is torturing political opponents: America’s fault. The Shah is torturing political opponents: America’s fault. Russia invaded Afghanistan: America’s fault. But if you can get passed the boogeyman stuff, it really is a good book for his experiences alone.

one of the most insane things ive read about

>if you go to a big institutional university i would recommend this
I'll give it a try if I got a chance to go to UK or US, but I'm originally from Thailand ( pardon my Angrish ) so I doubts big institutional universities in my country would have something related to Sassanid Iran or older eras with decent translations ( either English or Thai ). But thanks for the advice anyways, cheers.

Attached: 1546778212423.jpg (773x659, 47K)

Procopius Secret History

Listen, I respect a lot from Greek literary and philosophical tradition. I do not respect Herodotus whatsoever though. It's fine if we disagree though. Herodotus spread so many misconceptions about the Achaemenids that it is simply not fair.
t. Nordicist nigger scum
>Persians should worship Herodotus as a god he did more to preserve Achaemenid history than anyone else.
Xenophone did more with the Cyropaedia, you dumb piece of shit.

Attached: 1508634052949.jpg (1456x566, 166K)

>this dude is still posting

Attached: 1560139552047.png (650x650, 10K)

I don't like Herodotus, and I think people who insult me due to my grievances are retarded blind worshipers of his fanciful lies.

As a Classicist, I utterly fell in love with this book. He was right about so many things, and his writing is impeccable.

Is he still worth reading today? It's pretty old by now... I imagine a lot has happened in the field of archaeology since its publication.

I think so. Obviously some of his methodology is outdated (lack of archaeology and papyrii evidence), and he is a clear product of the Enlightenment, but I don't think any author, besides maybe Momsen, was able to marshal a huge amount of minutae whilst providing a compelling grand narrative.

People's history of the United States

>Herodotus spread so many misconceptions about the Achaemenids that it is simply not fair.
What misconceptions? You keep saying this but don't describe anything.
>Xenophone did more with the Cyropaedia, you dumb piece of shit.
The Cyropaedia is partly fictional. You're such a hypocrite praising one only because it shills for Cyrus and Persians.

Herodotus was the Father of Lies.
He gets many facts of Cyrus, Darius, etc. wrong. IranicaEnyclopedia details them. He just seemed to believe whatever rumor spread without investigating into them further. He also drew nebulous connections. I mean, he wasn't really a historian. More like a storyteller
>The Cyropaedia is partly fictional.
Xenophon actually lived in Persia for some time. Herodotus never set foot there. He only worked based off word of mouth. Ask a neocon to describe any country it's on bad terms with, and you can draw a decent parallel with Herodotus.

"Yet there are occasions when it can be confirmed from Oriental evidence that Xenophon is correct where Herodotus is wrong or lacks information. A case in point involves the ancestry of Cyrus."
-- Steven Hirsch

Did I ever say Xenophon was purely factual? Like Herodotus, he relies on a lot of fiction but less so overall. However, I am compelled to trust Xenophon more considering he actually visited the region.
>What misconceptions?
Herodotus also frequently gets older Mithraism confused with Zoroastrianism, and he was too dumb to realize there was probably a literary tradition, which Alexander burned in Persepolis. I agree with some scholars there was most likely a library there. Well, at least the Gathas survived.
>it shills for Cyrus and Persians
We actually don't know much about Achaemenid customs/traditions. Too many contradictions that make it difficult to reconstruct. Sassanids probably didn't know much about the Achaemenids either.
Well, you're a shill for Herodotus. What's the big deal with not liking Herodotus? The Histories is not *that* important to the Western literary canon.

Absolute braindead retard. It's even funnier that you outed yourself as a sandnigger. Stay assblasted, Ahmed.

Go die for Israel already, cunt. Also, Iran recently caught 3-4 CIA agents, and they're not a pushover the way Iraq was. They'll bring back scaphism for Jew slaves like you.
Two of those weren't me. Slit your throat.

Attached: 1566426473535.jpg (625x415, 54K)

Get ready to have your skull crushed, Amerigoy.

Attached: politics.png (1420x1023, 204K)

>guy whining about how historians need to be objective and unbiased turns out to be a bleeding heart nationalist LARPer
Every single time, like clockwork.

Attached: 1564790300424.gif (400x299, 1.35M)

>bleeding heart nationalist LARPer
But I am not. I'm just making the point you can't rely on Herodotus for information on the Achaemenids, and it is difficult to study Achaemenid history.

Antony Beevor's pop-history is a joy to read

>A guy who wrote down history 2500 something years ago didn't even do it like it's supposed to be done in the 21st century!!!

You must be too retarded to comprehend that scientific method didn't exist in ancient times and neither was there any reference point to how history should be written. He traveled around and gathered accounts of the events. Your words lost all credibility once you outed yourself as a filthy Tusken.

Everything I say is common among criticisms of Herodotus, you dumb piece of shit. All I was saying is you can't accept his accounts as reliable. Also, I don't see why it's hard to be impartial.
>Your words lost all credibility
Again, nothing I am saying is original, at least here. Now slit your throat.
It shouldn't even be called history given how many flaws there are in it. Again, as I've said, even Xenophon is better. It's kind of like how you faggots think memes can change reality and replace Truth.

>However, I am compelled to trust Xenophon more considering he actually visited the region.
Herodotus lived under Achaemenid rule

You are biased and you got too emotional. Dump your nationalistic bullshit first.
>Now slit your throat.
And people wonder why stereotype of sandmen being nothing but violent murderers exists.

He didn't get enmeshed into the culture the way Xenophon did.
Plenty of people criticize Herodotus as being unreliable. Why don't you dump your worship for him too?
>sandmen
>violent
Was I the one to start flinging insults? No. Also, Iran isn't even mostly sand. Anyways, yes, I sincerely recommend you commit suicide. I do not like Herodotus. BIG. FUCKING. DEAL.

Attached: mazandaran.jpg (792x575, 261K)

>Achaemenid rule
Not the same as directly encountering the culture in the center of Pars, etc.

What worship? Only thing I said about him is that he went around writting down accounts.
Not liking Herodotous is big fucking deal when you get triggered over him.
>inb4 "N-no, I didn't get triggered
What kind of $oi sand asks people to kill themselves instead of doing it himself?

Okay, let’s move passed Herodotus and talk about how you think the Romans were scared of a people that didn’t matter at all anymore.

Maybe if you read some real history about Persia/Iran instead of propagandists like Herodotus, then you would understand it is not mostly sand and, historically speaking, Persians were quite tolerant, especially compared to Mesopotamian.
>
Maybe if you read some real history about Persia/Iran instead of propagandists like Herodotus, then you would understand it is not mostly sand and, historically speaking, Persians were quite tolerant, especially compared to Mesopotamian.
>writting down accounts
And I explained how those accounts were mostly false and based on rumors.

Attached: Sassanian_seal.jpg (583x902, 407K)

Maybe if you read some real history about Persia/Iran instead of propagandists like Herodotus, then you would understand it is not mostly sand and, historically speaking, Persians were quite tolerant, especially compared to Mesopotamians.
>writting down accounts
And I explained how those accounts were mostly false and based on rumors.

Attached: Sassanian_seal.jpg (583x902, 407K)

>Muh based Persia

We will never get on good terms with the West because of arrogant, insulting pricks like you.

Attached: valerian_bowing_to_Shapur.jpg (500x330, 49K)

Too late, you fucked up your post.
Anyway, you keep posting your "culture" and sucking your nations dick.

You're literally doing the same shit you accuse Herodotus of doing

I actually criticized Sassanids a bit, so I am not sucking any dick. I actually think Mani and Mazdak were unjustly killed, though Mazdak should have been put under house arrest or something. Mani was overall very good and didn't deserve to suffer.
No, I just said we can't know much about Achaemenids. It requires too much reconstruction. I also criticized Sassanids a bit.

Attached: Shapur-Cave-Kazeroon-7.jpg (632x466, 271K)

ساده استی. ایران معاصر گه است، و نمی تونی آن رو با ايران باستانی مقايسه کنی. ۲.۵ هزار سال طول کشيده و تو هنوز اسبانی می شوی که هرادتاس نظرات منفی رو داشت بر عليه يه کشواری که وجود نداره ديگه.

Plenty of aspects of the Pre-Islamic culture still persist, you Google translating using faggot. Stuff like festivals (Nowruz, Yalda, Mehregan, Charshanbe Soori), literature (Shahnameh, which details Sassanian kingly lineage well in third portion), and more. Even Before Revolution, less than 10% of Arabic loanwords were used. It is as simple as saying "darood" instead of "salam".

You are an insulting and narcissistic faggot, butthurt that I pointed out the flaws in your beloved Herodotus. You don't give a shit about real history.

You can’t get that good through google translate bud, especially with all those colloquial misspellings. We still use the justice system derived from Babylon’s Code of Hammurabi, doesn’t mean we’re fucking Babylonian. I get that Iranian like to think they’re Achaemenid, because that was the last time anything that said “Persia” was at all great, but it doesn’t change facts. My job is literally a Dari translator, and I gotta be honest, Afghans use a hell of a lot less Arabic loanwords than Iranians, and it’s still around 40% of the language. That’s why learning it is so easy when you know the roots of an Arabic loan word you can guess the rest. Also, my Persian teachers cried about Arabs and Alexander the Great every single fucking day, you’re just a faggot like they were. I give a shit about history and also unbiased facts. For example, third word countries like Iran love to say they “captured CIA spies” just because they don’t want both their own people and other states to know that they have domestic anti-state actors in their own country. CIA agent is the easiest thing to say. Just like when Khomeini killed thousands of people from the moderate political rival factions, he said they were CIA spies to justify their executions. Get your head out of your koon, kooni. Bedrood

>I get that Iranian like to think they’re Achaemenid
If you had any reading comprehension, then you would have seen I said most of Achaemenid culture was lost. Not even Sassanids probably knew Achaemenid culture well. In fact, I made it clear I think a lot of Sassanid culture was preserved. Most of Achaemenid culture was lost though and even the Shahnameh barely mentioned them.

I am just saying Herodotus isn't reliable when it comes to knowledge of Achaemenids. Also...

> third word countries like Iran
Then why don't you guys have the war and get it over with? Iran has constantly been threatened over nothing, yet when push comes to shove, USA + Israel do nothing. It is getting tiresome.
>Khomeini
I don't agree with what he stood up for. I would prefer Iran to become Zoroastrian and close itself off to the West even more. You people are extremely arrogant and confrontational for no reason.

Alright, big guy. You spent 24 hours arguing your case, and you just won.

Nobody gives a fuck what you think. You have given nothing to support your statements other than muh feels.

Just because I voiced some criticism of Herodotus doesn't mean I think Greeks were savages or anything like that. I like much of the literature, philosophy, and much more. How did people respond to my meager criticism? By yelling sand nigger and acting like narcissistic faggots.

I argued here:
He gets copious facts wrong, such as Cyrus' ancestry, and I don't think he even described the religious climate well. There's nothing "muh feels" here, faggot.

This
I'm starting the 5th volume about the renaissance soon. Durant's writing is so good, would highly recommend.

1177 BC: The year civilization collapsed and The collapse of complex societies

>I don't agree with what he stood up for. I would prefer Iran to become Zoroastrian and close itself off to the West even more. You people are extremely arrogant and confrontational for no reason.
very, very based

vocaroo.com/i/s1NTImLZUxpw

:3

>we live in a society
wow Elliot Rodger this is some profound shit

Great prose but its extremely biased at points. He is definitely a product of the enlightenment but that should by no means discourage someone from reading it.

bump

I think people should also read Mommsen's history of rome

History is so altered. Good luck finding much truth in anything epic.

Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time: Carroll Quigley

Attached: 71FuOr89sHL.jpg (946x1360, 141K)