― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 31 March 2005 04:55 (twenty-one years ago)
Also great are the Penguin Atlases of History. I think there are three (we have three) and they show you Great Historical Events laid out on maps, which makes a good reference point for any book you might be reading.
Also, even though it's fiction, I would highly recommend Mary Renault's Alexander trilogy. It's excellent and (apparently) very accurate.
― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Thursday, 31 March 2005 05:22 (twenty-one years ago)
― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 31 March 2005 11:59 (twenty-one years ago)
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 31 March 2005 13:38 (twenty-one years ago)
― sterlings lover, Thursday, 31 March 2005 14:11 (twenty-one years ago)
― Hurting (Hurting), Thursday, 31 March 2005 14:24 (twenty-one years ago)
I disagree. She pushes the mirror analogy to our own times too far. It is a fun read though and you've got to love a guy named Enguerrand.
Hurting, if you can elaborate on why you don't like history and what you do like to read, perhaps we could recommend something tailored to your predilictions.
― M. White (Miguelito), Thursday, 31 March 2005 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)
― M. White (Miguelito), Thursday, 31 March 2005 17:27 (twenty-one years ago)
― hahahaahaha, Thursday, 31 March 2005 18:50 (twenty-one years ago)
― snotty moore, Thursday, 31 March 2005 20:25 (twenty-one years ago)
― VegemiteGrrl (VegemiteGrrl), Friday, 1 April 2005 06:11 (twenty-one years ago)
― Curious George Finds the Ether Bottle (Rock Hardy), Friday, 1 April 2005 20:14 (twenty-one years ago)
Plus, here's the thing: It's not that small events don't make sense without an understanding of the big pictures, it's that the big picture feels arbitrary and doesn't make sense (or at least isn't meaningful/memorable) without the small details. That is to say, if you read a gripping bio of Henry VIII (or whoever) then later on when you're reading a "broad sweep of history" book that mentions Henry VIII, you will be able to see much more clearly how that segment of history fits in.
That said, "A People's History of the United States" is a nice start, perhaps.
― Casuistry (Chris P), Saturday, 2 April 2005 05:47 (twenty-one years ago)
― m coleman (lovebug starski), Saturday, 2 April 2005 11:06 (twenty-one years ago)
― Ray (Ray), Saturday, 2 April 2005 11:36 (twenty-one years ago)
― DV (dirtyvicar), Sunday, 3 April 2005 16:38 (twenty-one years ago)
― DV (dirtyvicar), Sunday, 3 April 2005 16:39 (twenty-one years ago)
― DV (dirtyvicar), Sunday, 3 April 2005 16:40 (twenty-one years ago)
As for some "well-written chunks" of American history, I would recommend the Oxford History of the United States. Four volumes have been published so far: "A Glorious Cause" on the American Revolution, "Battle Cry of Freedom" on the Civil War era, "Freedom From Fear" on the Great Depression and World War II, and "Grand Expectations" on America in the 1950s and 1960s. Though they vary somewhat in terms of readability, they are all excellent in giving a commanding overview of their times.
― Mark Klobas, Sunday, 3 April 2005 16:51 (twenty-one years ago)
Will the PLO figure prominently therein?
― the finefox, Sunday, 3 April 2005 16:54 (twenty-one years ago)
― DV (dirtyvicar), Sunday, 3 April 2005 21:49 (twenty-one years ago)
― Ann Sterzinger (Ann Sterzinger), Monday, 4 April 2005 01:52 (twenty-one years ago)