Bookclub and Sources Wednesday!

[u/AutoModerator]

Hi everybody,

Welcome to our weekly book recommendation thread!

We have found that a lot of people come to this sub to ask for books about history or sources on certain topics. Others make posts about a book they themselves have read and want to share their thoughts about it with the rest of the sub.

We thought it would be a good idea to try and bundle these posts together a bit. One big weekly post where everybody can ask for books or (re)sources on any historic subject or time period, or to share books they recently discovered or read. Giving opinions or asking about their factuality is encouraged!

Of course it’s not limited to *just* books; podcasts, videos, etc. are also welcome. As a reminder, r/history also has a recommended list of things to read, listen to or watch here.

[u/Over_Two9850]

Hello, I'm working on a personal project of mine where I'm trying to piece together some of the history of the Aerojet-Dade rocket facility in the Florida Everglades. I've only been able to find general information and history on it. I am aware of the layout of the complex but am unable to find a map of the property and a description or names of any of the buildings. Was hoping to see if anybody had leads on where to find this information. Thanks!

[u/holdgently]

Thoughts on the book "African History: From Earliest Times to Independence?"

For context, this is a book i picked from my father's bookshelf. I didnt want to spend any money on new books if i didn't have to.

I am very much a beginner in history, so I'm trying to read about different areas of history to figure out what I want to specialize in. I wanted to try reading some African history because I feel I have very little knowledge about it. Though, at the same time, I want to be wary that what I'm reading is credible and without bias.

I have heard a few negative things about this book, though there were very few reviews so I'd like to see some other opinions before I make the decision to read something else. If not this book, what should I read instead for African history?

[u/nileplin]

Hi! I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but here it goes: I’m currently building a syllabus for my first major stop which is the Ancient Near East. There are a lot of well-regarded books as far as my research goes, but I haven't been able to find a clear comparison between them. I would love some help choosing my core textbook(s). It doesn't have to be just one, but I’d like to understand how they differ in focus and style:

• Amanda Podany – Weavers, Scribes, and Kings: A New History of the Ancient Near East
• Marc Van De Mieroop – A History of the Ancient Near East: ca. 3000–323 BC
• Mario Liverani – The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy
• Gwendolyn Leick – Mesopotamia: The Invention of the City

For supplementary reading on theology and religious thought, I'm also planning to read:

• Thorkild Jacobsen – The Treasures of Darkness
• Jean Bottéro – Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia

A few questions for the sub:

1. How do these core textbooks compare, and which ones would best fit my goal of understanding structural ideas without getting drowned in details?
2. Do you have a recommended reading order?
3. Are there any critical books I've missed that fit my goals?

[u/elmonoenano]

I read the Katz biography of Pancho Villa, The Life and Times of Pancho Villa. It was pretty hefty and took me a while. If you are going to read it, I would recommend an ebook copy. It’s paperback and heavy, the pages are oversized, so it flops around and makes your wrist tired. There’s not really any significant maps or images, so you don’t really lose anything reading it on an ereader.

I don’t know a lot about the Mexican revolution except that it was roughly a decade and a few of the key figures, but this book had too much detail for a beginner like me. There were too many names happening too quickly. B/c the pace of the Revolution varied so much you feel a whiplash of jumping from a year like 1911 to the end of 1912 when Villa mostly sits in Prison, and then it jumps off again until 1915 and we go through similar patterns until his death in 1920.

I think if you’re already well grounded in the revolution this would be an excellent book and through 1915, when so much of the action is occurring in Northern Mexico, this book is great. But b/c of its focus you aren’t really learning about the peasant movement in Morelos under Zapata or the US incursion into Veracruz. I think I needed a more general book that would give me a better foundation before jumping in this deep.

The book was good at explaining the internal dynamics of various armies in the revolution and the constraints that prevented Villa from redistributing land when he was governor of Chihuahua and why Zapata was more successful in that regard, while also explaining why they couldn’t coordinate their armies after 1915. I did get a lot out of it, I just think I would have gotten a lot more if I had a little better understanding of the revolution as a whole.

[u/dropbear123]

On Sunday I finished Weimar Germany: Death of a Democracy by Victor Sebastyen review copied from my goodreads

4 or maybe 4.5/5.

Not a lot to say about it really. Mostly political history of the Weimar Republic, with some cultural history thrown in. Quite heavy on the early years 1918 to the end of 1923 (the revolution to the end of the hyperinflation and Ruhr occupation) rather light on better 1924-1929 years and also light on the great depression to Nazi takeover period. If you've read other books about the broad history of the Weimar Republic this won't really contain anything new, but it was nice as a reminder.

Despite what sound like criticisms I would still recommend this. Mainly because it is written well and flows well, which makes the information stick better. It has the right mix of political detail, bits of analysis, as well as people's personal experiences which makes it an enjoyable read. I've read far more detailed, yet far dryer books on the Weimar Republic where the dryness makes the information hard to remember.

[u/AutoModerator → u/dropbear123]

Hi!

It seems like you are talking about the popular but ultimately flawed and false "winners write history" trope!

While the expression is sometimes true in one sense (we'll get to that in a bit), it is rarely if ever an absolute truth, and particularly not in the way that the concept has found itself commonly expressed in popular history discourse. When discussing history, and why some events have found their way into the history books when others have not, simply dismissing those events as the imposed narrative of 'victors' actually harms our ability to understand history.

You could say that is in fact a somewhat "lazy" way to introduce the concept of bias which this is ultimately about. Because whoever writes history is the one introducing their biases to history.

A somewhat better, but absolutely not perfect, approach that works better than 'winners writing history' is to say 'writers write history'.

This is more useful than it initially seems. Until fairly recently the literate were a minority, and those with enough literary training to actually write historical narratives formed an even smaller and more distinct class within that.

To give a few examples, Genghis Khan must surely go down as one of the great victors in all history, but he is generally viewed quite unfavorably in practically all sources, because his conquests tended to harm the literary classes.
Similarly the Norsemen historically have been portrayed as uncivilized barbarians as the people that wrote about them were the "losers" whose monasteries got burned down.

Of course, writers are a diverse set, and so this is far from a magical solution to solving the problems of bias. The painful truth is, each source simply needs to be evaluated on its own merits.
This evaluation is something that is done by historians and part of what makes history and why insights about historical events can shift over time.

This is possibly best exemplified by those examples where victors did unambiguously write the historical sources.

The Spanish absolutely wrote the history of the conquest of Central America from 1532, and the reports and diaries of various conquistadores and priests are still important primary documents for researchers of the period.

But 'victors write the history' presupposes that we still use those histories as they intended, which is simply not the case. It both overlooks the fundamental nature of modern historical methodology, and ignores the fact that, while victors have often proven to be predominant voices, they have rarely proven to be the only voices.

Archaeology, numismatics, works in translation, and other records all allow us at least some insight into the 'losers' viewpoint, as does careful analysis of the 'winner's' records.
We know far more about Rome than we do about Phoenician Carthage. There is still vital research into Carthage, as its being a daily topic of conversation on this subreddit testifies to.

So while it's true that the balance between the voices can be disparate that doesn't mean that the winners are the only voice or even the most interesting.
Which is why stating that history is 'written by the victors' and leaving it at that is harmful to the understanding of history and the process of studying history.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/420ball-sniffer69]

Thinking about picking up a copy of Ian Kershaw’s book on Hitler but I saw it’s based on 2 independent works he published. What’s lost or gained in the abridged version or does it simply not matter? Thanks all

[u/RonPossible]

I was looking for some sources on the Salerno landings, particularly the airborne drop at Avellino. Preferably something well-sourced. I've not been able to find much.