Best historical essays according to redditors
We found 49 Reddit comments discussing the best historical essays. We ranked the 23 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
2. What If?: The World's Foremost Historians Imagine What Might Have Been (What If Essays)
4 mentions
For those who don't want to watch the video:
Big Ideas in Brief by Ian Crofton
Sapiens: a Brief History of Human Kind by Yuval Noah Harari
Phantoms in the Brain: Probing the Mysteries of the Human Mind by Sandra Blakeslee and Vilayanur S. Ramachandran
Do No Harm: Stories of Life, Death, and Brain Surgery by Henry Marsh
How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer
Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers by Robert Sapolsky
The Brain: A Beginner's Guide by Ammar Al-Chalabi, R. Shane Delamont, and Martin R. Turner
Ill go ahead and put in a plug for the book I'm reading right now: The Gene: An Intimate History by Siddhartha Mukherjee
Counterfactual questions can be useful, but I've generally had an ambivalence toward them for several reasons. There's one reason, in particular, though, that I'd like to use to open up further questions and comments.
Most who frequent this subreddit might be familiar with this book. It's a fun read, but a quick look at the table of contents reveals that the essays are overwhelmingly addressing questions about military. Now, this isn't surprising, given that the book's concept is an expansion of an earlier one focused solely on military history. Thirty-three of the forty-five essays in the book revolve around "what-if-this-person-lost-this-battle" or "what-if-a-certain-war-had-been-won-by-the-other-side."
I figured that a lot of those essays were written with a different audience in mind, and since it wasn't my cup of tea, I didn't give it much further thought. But after reading this question and looking back through the book, I think that table of contents might explain my uneasiness with counterfactual historical questions.
It wasn't the fact that those questions were overwhelmingly on a subject for which I had only a tangential interest that bothered me, but that all of them, save for a handful, were placing the power to significantly alter history into the hands of a few great men. Napoleon Bonaparte, Otto von Bismarck, Robert E. Lee, Alexander the Great, Adolf Hitler, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, V. I. Lenin, and George Washington all figure prominently in these essays; there is little about everyday people, scant minority voices, and nothing about women.
However, I wonder if this isn't just a casualty of the way these questions are posed; even the most intriguing essays that attempt to incorporate multiple voices - the one at the end asking what would happen if potatoes were never transplanted to Europe from Peru is a good example - end up ultimately placing the power of changing history into the hands of a single man. In this case, it's completely on Pizarro bringing back the potato; there's no chance that peasants in Europe would have chosen not to cultivate it, there's no room to speculate if it might have gotten there by some other means.
This raises several questions, then (and this is the TL;DR version): Are counterfactual questions only useful or interesting when they're posed about the "big players" in history? Is it possible to ask such questions about "lesser" figures? And does focusing on the counterfactual marginalize the power/agency that everyday people had to alter the course of history?
It's possible to be an anarchist and still hold some religious convictions. However, religion depends on hierarchical social relations to propagate. To have faith, you have to be told something and then treat it as fact without question. It's a form of obedience.
Please keep in mind, this is my opinion, there are a lot of anarchists who are religious, and they believe religion is compatible with anarchism.
I would recommend No Gods No Masters for a greater understanding.
If you write like that you must be self published.
are you talking about this? rofl
http://www.amazon.com/Observations-Opinions-Lucius-Pixel-Lieutenants-ebook/dp/B00QBDUCYO
This book is a great read for a look at what could have been.
These historians have an extremely in-depth take on the situation in China directly after WWII. It is obviously too long for a 5 year-old explanation, but I will sum up some of the things that happened.
Basically during the civil war in China, Chang Kai-Shek had fought back Mao Tse Tung's forces into northern China near the area of Harbin, Chang Kai-Shek had the momentum to completely destroy them but was stopped at the urging U.S. General George C. Marshall who did not understand the nature of China's politics and war, and a temporary peace was brokered.
I'm getting fuzzy here, but I think Chang Kai-Shek wanted to just have a 2 separate states with Mao controlling North China and Chang controlling everything else. Marshall was insistent that they reconcile their differences and reach a coalition government. Both parties refused and the Communist forces gained strength over the next few years and eventually drove the Nationalists out of the country to Taiwan in 1949.
Had they just split China it almost invariable would have ended exactly how East and West Germany ended and the way Korea is now. The part of China that Chang Kai-Shek had control over is the part that is extremely rich now and the Northern part that the communists controlled is still not an economic powerhouse. This would have had some of the farthest reaching effects. Likely no Korean War or Vietnam War. Russia wouldn't have had an ally in the area and all of the Cold War would have been extremely different. (sigh)
In my opinion, this is the biggest tragedy in history, second only to the assassinations of key political figures in the U.S. in the 1960s.
[Grounded: The Case For Abolishing The United States Air Force] (http://www.kentuckypress.com/live/title_detail.php?titleid=3719#.V9zpazKZMo8) (272 Pages)
The Battleship Book
Most importantly, he is aware of all internet traditions.
Relevant
I don’t think avoiding feudalism is misguided.
Hell, our current problem is escaping the neo-feudalism that has already taken hold .
I'm assuming by medieval/renaissance you mean the traditional European inspired fantasy. Here's a brain dump:
Feudalism:
I feel like I see a lot of fantasy where heroes turn up at some village and get asked to fight someone or other because the villagers have nowhere else to turn to. What I don't often see is the local knight living in the manor across the field whose responsibility it is to be a warrior and protect his fief and who probably doesn't appreciate strangers turning up and undermining his authority by doing his job for him.
There would probably also be a lot of small wars going on at any given time between knights and barons and earls that provide lots of work for dangerous people but have nothing to do with the greater battle battle between good and evil.
Knighthood:
Speaking of knights a knight isn't "someone who fights with plate armour and a sword," that's what they were IRL because that was the most effective way to fight and you needed a certain amount of wealth and status to afford the huge investment in training and equipment. If you have a fantasy world where with enough training and expensive equipment people can learn to shoot fire and call down lightning that will break a cavalry charge then that world's knights will almost certainly all be wizards. And very few other people will be allowed to be.
Era-appropriate firearms:
That aesthetic of people in plate armour with cannons is something you almost never see depicted.
Renaissance fashion:
Speaks for itself.
Medieval medicine and science:
A physician diagnosing you by cross referencing your symptoms with the alignment of the stars to decide how to properly balance your humors isn't something I've seen a lot of in fantasy. That element of earnestly applying the scientific method to things you don't understand based on what seem to us like completely ridiculous variables and assumptions. Also more folk medicine like plants that only had medicinal properties if you found them by accident or sympathetic magic like curing a rabid dog bite using the literal hair of the dog that bit you.
On a similar note you don't see a lot of importance put on folk superstition like hanging horseshoes above doors to keep out evil spirits/the devil/elves trying to steal your children. I feel like basing a fantasy world's idea of magic around the small everyday things might make a change from the usual Big Magic stuff.
The equator:
Not really something that will affect the day-to-day feel of a world but I read once that some people believed that the equator was hotter because it was closer to the sun and that right on the equator it would be too hot for anything to survive or cross. So they thought the entire southern hemisphere was inaccessible due to this deadly heat barrier. Not sure what you could do with it but I thought it was a neat idea. Maybe the discovery or creation of a tunnel under the equator would be an interesting way to introducing a "new world" to explore that developed totally independently.
The devil:
You know where medieval people got magic powers? By serving the devil. You know how they became werewolves? Made a deal with the devil. You know how women learned arithmetic? You better believe that's the devil. A lot of fantasy treats the monsters and magic and whatnot as just the natural flora and fauna of the world but these days I don't feel like I've seen much that filters the world through that lens of everything comes from one or two sources that have strong moral stances associated with them and, therefore, everything that comes from them does too.
Pilgrimages:
I don't know, you just never see them in fantasy but in the middle ages they were quite the thing from the noble woman who spends ten years of her life travelling constantly between holy sites to the common folk for whom the trip to visit the bones of St Whoever is basically the closest they ever have to a holiday.
Ships:
Don't have your medieval knights cross the sea on what amounts to a 17th century galleon like I feel like I keep seeing. Not when there are cool medieval and renaissance ships you could use:
Level of material wealth/standard of living:
When you turn up in a sleepy little farming village there probably won't be a big inn with a roaring fire, a dinner menu and a dozen rentable rooms. There will be a family that'll let you sleep on the floor of their one-room cottage for a few coins and might even share some of their latest batch of beer with you. Even the lord of the castle may very well sleep in the same room as their whole family and several servants. When you try to sell your stack of looted swords to the local blacksmith they aren't going to have cash sitting around to pay you. But they could offer you a box of nails and some of the loaves of bread the baker owes them.
Little things:
I feel like a lot of the reason "medieval" fantasy tends to feel stale is that it's mostly made up of just all the bits and pieces of history that people are familiar with smooshed together. Good for acccessibility, bad for originality. Often just adding little details or taking away familiar things can make a difference. Look up the things they had in place of anything resembling modern law enforcement like Tithings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithing) and the Hue and Cry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hue_and_cry) or people bringing their own mugs to taverns because the taverns couldn't just buy bulk mugs off the shelf or the fact that it could take members of ten different guilds to make a suit of armour and anyone trying to do the bits that are covered by another guild will find themselves out of work pretty quick. Maybe read something like https://www.amazon.com/Distant-Mirror-Calamitous-14th-Century/dp/0345349571. Look up medieval bestiaries to learn how lions are born dead and brought to life by their mothers or how vultures can see the future.
Here's [Keegan's map] (http://imgur.com/p93bJoh) from ['What if?'] (http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Foremost-Military-Historians/dp/0425176428).
I've skimmed the relevant pages, and his argument is that there was very little standing between the Wehrmacht and the oil, especially if they took the southern route. Also, I imagine the Soviet Union would have been happy to stage a repeat the carve up of Poland and the Baltic states, given half a chance.
I'm more inclined to trust wikipedia than what a poster on reddit says he learned about this from an alternate history "what if" book.
Especially since I can't find anything else, anywhere on the net that says the same story, but I can find claims of a similar, but different story, that "Slav" stems from the Latin word for slave.
So no. I don't think it is very likely that Brodie is correct.
I have a feeling this is the book in question:
>http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Foremost-Military-Historians/dp/0425176428
The lead author has also apparently plagiarized much work.
Oh, and the author of the section on the mongol empire, is a historical novelist, not a historian, with a B.A. Not exactly a great source.
To quote Christopher Hitchens (when asked if he was a neo-conservative) "I am no kind of conservative."
I am no kind of capitalist.
BTW, I'd highly recommend this anthology for anyone learning about or interested in Anarchism.
Age of Exploration?
1492: Discovery, Invasion, Encounter
Native Voices
Economics of 1492 a good understanding of what it took to finance an expedition.
Voyage of the Beagle by Darwin
Expanding Empires
I'm assuming you've never read any anarchist literature because you don't appear to understand what anarchism is. It's not about a "disagreement."
I've read the parable. If you seriously believe that ancaps wouldn't invade after a simple bit of forecasting then you're just proving what I've already said.
You. Need. To. Actually. Read. Books. Plural. Or listen to them on tape. Or have them summarized for you. Your belief that ancap is "anti-authoritarian" or in any way anarchistic illustrates that your understanding of anarchism is nil. This isn't just a disagreement over political minutiae, this is you not actually understanding what you're claiming to be.
You do not understand what capitalism or anarchism are, full stop.
You have no idea how infuriating it is to sit here, after years of activism and study, to see liberals claiming they're anarchists and outright refusing to learn even the very basics.
go to r/anarchy101. Ask questions. this is the perfect primer. It is the only book you will need for a basic understanding. I suggest a lifetime of reading, but if you only read one book, this is it. For more information on capitalism from a modern perspective, I recommend anything by Graeber. Youtube is not a substitute and ancap ideas are not anarchist.
if you want to call yourself an anarchist and not annoy every anarchist around you then you will actually need to educate yourself on the subject.
If that's the case, you should really try What If?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B002I1XRYU/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1
There is counterfactual history. It has a very long tradition; Livy in the first century BCE was already asking what would happen if Alexander had marched west instead of east (Livy concludes Rome would have kicked his ass). This isn't quite what you describe in the sense that it doesn't have to make claims about necessary conditions for alternate outcomes (seems to me you get a get a laundry list. If one were to ask what would be necessary for Hannibal to win, you get answers like "it was necessary for Hannibal to have command of an army; it was necessary for Hannibal to gain access to Italy, it was necessary to mint coins, it was necessary to disrupt Rome's alliance system" all of which happened.)
I don't know how respected this approach is. In one sense counterfactuals are implied in any question that asks why something happened the way it did, and there are books like What If that have some very heavy hitters writing them. On the other hand, there are articles like this.
>But it's time to be sceptical about this trend. We need, in this year especially, to start to try to understand why the first world war happened, not to wish that it hadn't, or argue about whether it was "right" or "wrong". In the effort to understand, counterfactuals aren't any real use at all.
YMMV I guess.
check this out: HERE and dont forget this one
also available in book form if you don't want to sit at a computer to read it.
EDIT: not that i'm suggesting you should buy it from amazon if you have the option of supporting a local bookstore or finding it at the library :)
Hermetic Brotherhood of Luxor
Stairway to Heaven
History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil
The Invention of Satanism
The Devil's Party
Paradise Reconsidered and Seth: God of Confusion (PM me)
That exact scenario is explored by historians in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Foremost-Military-Historians/dp/0425176428
I have a handful that are part of a setting for some stories I'm not yet working on (busy with the far-future stories right now).
Before I give examples, let me plug these great books, very handy for this kind of worldbuilding:
http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Foremost-Military-Historians/dp/0425176428
He came close. It means no William the Conqueror, no Norman England, and England remains part of the Scandinavian/Germanic economic world instead of becoming part of the Romance/Mediterranean economic world. One plausible outcome, since England shifting its engagements southward had a chilling effect on Nordic economies, is that in the alternate timeline Nordic westward expansionism continued and expanded, resulting in much earlier European expansion into North America, which in turn results in a very different dynamic. The Europeans brought horses and diseases, but not guns or industrialization, which means the dynamic of their interaction with the natives was on quite different terms.
It was close enough that if not for the three-fifths clause of the US Constitution, Adams would have won. It was close enough that the electors had to vote several times in order to obtain a valid result. With Adams winning, Jefferson is not in a position to reverse course on US engagement with Toussaint Louverture's government in St. Domingue. The US continues in its course toward recognition of a Caribbean state founded by a slave revolt. The divide in the US over slavery came to a head earlier. There was no Louisiana Purchase, both because Jefferson's administration wasn't there to test the constitutional powers of the presidency by attempting it, and because Napoleon, deprived of Haiti by the US support of its rebellion, elects to fortify New Orleans, turning the US and Napoleonic France into rivals. That common rivalry drives the US and England into compromise that results in a smaller US and a stronger British America. By the late 1800s, North America is a collection of loosely-allied republics, city-states, and members of the British and French commonwealths.
In the real world as the end of the Revolutionary War approached, officers of the Continental Army grew increasingly concerned that they would not be paid, and the compensations promised them for their service would not be forthcoming. A rebellion in the ranks formed, with officers writing to Washington demanding that the promises of Congress be honored. Washington was shocked and infuriated, but agreed to meet with the officers and, meanwhile, urgently pressed Congress to come up with some sort of relief to forestall an open revolt. He then met with the army and, solely by force of charisma and persuasion, convinced them to lay down their arms and back off. What if he hadn't? His health was not at its best, and he was profoundly upset at the incipient rebellion. Suppose he suffered a bout of ill health and couldn't make the meeting? Or suppose he just decided he was too outraged by the officers' conduct to treat with them? In this alt history the army marches on Philadelphia where it is met by Adams and Jefferson serving as spokesmen for Congress. They negotiate a set of promises to fulfill Congress' obligations, making good with land grants in the event that enough hard currency isn't available. This agreement establishes a precedent that military service has to be paid for and must be based on a valid contract, which completely changes the basis of power in the future United States.
There are more, of course, but that's enough off the top of my head. Read the What If? books. They're golden.
Just recently bought three alternate history books that have some what if's
Election of Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, how Germany might have won the war in 1915, etc.
Some of the stories do overlap if you take a look at the books but I will come back with my impressions of the WW1 chapters (Would take a very long time for me to read all three books)
The books are
http://www.amazon.com/What-If-Foremost-Military-Historians/dp/0425176428
http://www.amazon.com/What-If-II-Robert-Cowley/dp/042518613X
http://www.amazon.com/Collected-Eminent-Historians-Imagine-Might/dp/0399152385
Apparently an insider account, who personally dealt with Hitler, of how Western companies and entities funded Hitler and the Nazi party on their rise to power.
Although dismissed when it was published and heavily censored, it had some interesting points and was later verified from documents that came out after WWII.
https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Secret-Backers-Sidney-Warburg/dp/B072ZHBVLP/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500422329&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=sidney+warbug
Settle down. This TIL is more speculative than objective but that doesn't mean it's worthless. Not to mention respected historians have tackled counter-factual (i.e., What Ifs) scenarios in a similar manner; indeed, there is a two-book series of books called "What If" that tries to tackle how things would have turned out during pivotal moments in history.
Moreover, one doesn't have to be an Anti-Persian xenophobe to contemplate how history would have differed with Athens as a satrapy of Persia. True, it's possible that Greek thought on philosophy, society and politics may have still happened, but it's likely their dissemination would have been impacted without Alexander the Great to spread Hellenism, which itself had an impact on the development of Christianity.
It's a fascinating question and it opens up an "Butterfly Effect" can of worms if you allow yourself to consider it.
I've found this series of books on the subject to be really interesting. They do tend to look at things from a rather America-centric viewpoint, mind you.
I'm not a historian, but I think that since most historical events happen for many different reasons, history is not likely to be radically different is a single one of those changes. Nevertheless, there's a lot of room for today's world to be quite different if certain very small details turned out differently - mostly involving the outcomes of particular battles due to random factors such as the weather.
I second that thought. What if...? has a chapter with a scenario in which Alexander dies earlier and the conclusion is that Hellenistic culture and egalitarian values wouldn't have spread so much in Europe and parts of Asia were it not for Alexander.
A lot of books, lot of websites, etc.
https://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Revolution-Writings-Everymans-Library/dp/0375712534/ref=sr_1_1
https://www.amazon.com/Lord-Acton-Historical-Moral-Essays/dp/1942503520/ref=sr_1_1
https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-2/inventing-black-and-white
to name but a few
Ah, da insane leftist reaction. Here it comes.
"Racist conspiracy theory?" Huh? The only racist was Kalergi and his followers.
Maybe you should think for yourself instead of parroting whatever your Marxist doctrine instructs you to.
https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Idealism-Kalergi-destroy-European/dp/1913057097
http://demokracija.eu/focus/kalergi-plan-and-the-hidden-interests-behind-mass-immigration.html
Read a [book] (https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Idealism-Kalergi-destroy-European/dp/1913057097) then.
Do some research beyond globalist controlled Wikipedia, Google, Snopes, etc.
What If? is a lot of fun to read and sounds right up your alley.
If you prefer a more "non-fiction" approach, the "What If?" books are quite interesting.
I originally read about this from this book: What if, but believe it or not, wikipedia have a pretty comprehensive list of all the military formations slated for operation Downfall.
More Readings From One Man's Wilderness: The Journals of Richard L. Proenneke, 1974-1980 https://www.amazon.com/dp/149606870X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_Sh2-ybA7YZQ31
>and your citation for this most extraordinary assertion is?
http://www.esquire.com/features/worst-generation-0400
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/09/open-letter-from-baby-boomer-to-millennials-apology-and-some-advice/
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/29/how-the-baby-boomers-destroyed-americas-future/
That was just the top 3 searches if you search "baby boomers the worst generation" you can have your way with all the articles and dispute them as you will.
If you would prefer a few books
The worst Generation
The Worst Generation 2nd book different author
>and again, your factual source for this assertion is...?
Factual source when someone says it is an opinion they do not need to cite sources since an opinion is source less. In the future when someone openly admits to something being an observation do not ask for a source in some vein attempt to discredit when they said it was opinion/personal observation in the 1st place.
Something that doesn't dive in too deep but is about military history and a fascinating Tour De Force are counterfactual essays. An historian ponders what a different outcome in some important event (like a battle) could have changed. I read a book called "What If?" and was pleasantly surprised and entertained.
Read one of these long ones linked here by all means, but these essays take you to a lot of places and are a good read for in between.
thanks.
Another idea I had, was to adopt the mythos, and the hellenization. But scrap the cities, and people. Make new people. Then of course... I guess I'd just have some sort of stock fantasy setting.
Or better yet. Adopt specific cities and places... but flesh out the rest. Maybe I could have Athens, Carthage, and Rome. Maybe I can scramble the cities around. What would happen historically if Rome were 600 miles closer to Athens... what if Troy never fell; and now it's modern day Greece?
I'm probably just over-thinking it. I do like the... oh crap; you changed history, bravo, your names will be remembered forever. You win!
What if looks like a good book
Paul Gottfried's book: https://www.amazon.com/Revisions-Dissents-Paul-E-Gottfried/dp/0875807623/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&qid=1492026952&sr=8-1&keywords=revisions+and+dissents&linkCode=ll1&tag=thomacom-20&linkId=a12fdddc5663c923acf3b4d102bd37db
>This sounds bad but I don't see how it's much worse than our current system. Right now taxes are mandatory
So you are comparing having to pay taxes (or not, depending on your age and income level) to watching you house burn down, or watching someone get stabbed (or blown up with an RPG because there would be no regulation over who could or couldn't own one) while private security guards stand-by watching because you weren't one of their clients? Your priorities are so far away from mine that I don't really know what to say.
>What if all the police officers in your town quit or something?
The difference is that 60% of businesses go out of business within their first 5 years, and your example happens... never.
>they can set up welfare systems to take care of them, much like current society has, except the welfare system would be voluntary instead of mandated by a government
Look to the Ozarks prior to the New Deal and you will see that is never going to happen. The standards of living were what we would consider third world today; extremely high rates of malnutrition and infant mortality for example. It is only after the government came in with the Tennessee Valley Authority that roads and electricity were pushed through to many rural southern towns. Why? Because it wasn't cost effective for a private entity to do it. The same theory applies today. How do UPS and other private couriers get their goods to where I live? On USPS (government) planes and trucks, because it isn't cost effective for them to do it themselves, and wherever USPS pulls out of, stops getting service. Post Offices are a life line to small towns.
>A court will only be in business so long as it has clients, and a court that does something like accept bribes from people it's judging won't like have clients.
Really? Thats the exact type of court I'd be looking for if I was in trouble, and had the money
Basically your philosophy affects me thusly; pay more for a lower quality product so don't have to pay a pittance in taxes. No thank you.
I am in no way trying to discourage you from exploring different ideologies. Read this book for a bunch of different anarcho ideas).
I actually just finished reading a book called What If? about how the world would be different if small changes had been made. It's a little fantastical, but it's dangerously addicting.
If I had to choose one historical event to change, though, I'd make there be a nice breeze from the east in Tampa on January 27, 1991.
That's an awful long post just to say the US is to blame for all that's wrong with the world, and deserve whatever misfortune falls them. Problem is, as Obama was willing to point out recently, that as many mistakes have been made, there has been a tremendous amount of good that the US has also been involved in and the cause of. Except it's become the fallback and standard answer, regardless if it's currently a part of the article. That you and other have chosen to use the US as a point of reference, coming back frequently and often to pointing out this and that, as if that will solve the current issue, whatever it might be. It also gives you the convenient position of supporting the opposition of the US, be it either economic or military, as morally superior to the US simply because of the US crimes, real and imagined. This may help you.