5 reasons to read more history books

[@Books_With_Brian]

I was just about to mention George RR Martin and then you beat me to it! Part of why I think his fiction is so successful is that so much of it is rooted in history. And the irony in that is there are people like my wife who aren’t interested in reading history but love his stories. I could never get her to read a book about The Anarchy. But that’s exactly what House of the Dragon is based on 😆 shhh, I won’t tell

[@theburningarchive]

Excellent! I will keep recommending some history books written by good storytellers.... You may even manage to persuade your wife to give one a try. Thanks for this comment

[@Mortum_Rex]

I recommend a book called 'BEWARE The British East India Company!', by William Wertz

[@willemgrooters4958]

- There is a saying that history is written by those won.

[@maximiliang2847]

I kind of dislike this saying, that is very often brought up. Modern historiography is written by historians, no matter who won. And what do we even mean by winning? Winning what exactly? The latest war? If I think of Europe for example there are only few historians still alive that actually "won" the last war. So, are all following generations bound by some strange victory effect from the latest war? And what history does this include? Did France losing the Napoleonic Wars in the end tie them to an english winner perspective for eternity? Do french historians now write history about the gallic war from the english perspective of winning the Napoleonic Wars? Or does their victory in WWII supercede their previous defeat and now they determine what is history again. It all seems pretty confusing if one really thinks about it. But I don't want be facetious, as most people might not refer to history only as historiography. Schools, Public monuments, memory, mass media etc. all take part in creating some image of pasts/histories. But even with that interpretation it is highly unlikely that some vague victory effect is controlling our thought about 'history' in this singular sense. History is not this singular object, it makes more sense to speak of histories. Reinhart Koselleck for example states the exact opposite; history in the long term is written and formed by those who lost, as they have actually had to adapt their narratives and actions to deal with the fact that their expectations of victory did not materialise. The victors on the other hand have to change very little in their historical narrative of how they ended up in the present, as their victory does not challenge their previous narratives. Whatever one might think about this hypothesis, I can only encourage people who think that history is written by the victors to really think about what we mean by history and victory. It is a fascinating topic to think about and a great way to discover philosophies of history.

[@julio1116]

@@willemgrooters4958 not true at all The Wehrmacht General's determined a great deal of western historiography of the eastern front until the soviets opened their archives.

[@theburningarchive]

Yes, although especially these days I think it is written from many perspectives and for many motives. Sadly history written by 'losers', that nurses grievances and fuels resentment, is terribly common and destructive too. Ukrainian nationalism?

[@jaroslavzalesak1447]

​@@theburningarchiveThe russian nationalism? (I mean Putin's nostalgia for Russia's imperial past and crying about Nato's enlargement)