How do I know if I'm reading a good/up to date history book?

[Blue Orange]

Or heard of Mozart.

Were Mozart's wigs and frilly clothing and such seen as feminine in that era, though?

He also engaged in a lot of potty humor (Leck mich im Arsch is an actual Mozart piece).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Were Mozart's wigs and frilly clothing and such seen as feminine in that era, though?

That wasn't what I was referring to.

He was a slight little dude who spent all of his time playing music where manly men were in fashion. But he was a rock star, centuries early.

 

[Blue Orange]

That wasn't what I was referring to.

He was a slight little dude who spent all of his time playing music where manly men were in fashion. But he was a rock star, centuries early.

Interesting point. I wonder how much of that is the bias of historians and how many troubadours charmed their way into the knight's lady's embrace when he was away warring. We'll probably never know.

But we all know nerds weren't cool anywhere west of the Himalayas and the Gobi...

 

[jasonhudson]

So, I’m going to offer a different take. Doesn’t matter. You liked the book, it was a great book, was it what historians generally regard as correct now? doesn’t matter.

history is contested, there is no official or truely correct version of past events. Look at the news today, there is so much misinformation and wrong stuff being spouted that a good chunk of the population believes to be true. Fast forward 50 years and people sorting through contemporaneous reports will have a devil of a time sorting out what’s bs And what is not.

you liked a book and ran into someone perhaps as knowledgeable as the author but who trusts different contemporaneous reports and artifacts more than those the author does. Who’s really right? What matters, the suffering of the conquered, or the galloping of the conquerors? And sometimes, did the battle even happen?

unless you are a historian actively engaged in studying a thing, perfectly fine to like any take on the subject matter. even if it’s old. The currently accepted take on past history likely isn’t what it was 20 years ago, but it also probably will be different in another 20 years.

that said, history is not meaningless and impossible to understand, but the current priorities and values of historians will always color their understanding of the past. What “really happened” no longer matters, but what it means to us today absolutely does. And that is not a fixed thing. Pay attention to the author. Historians working in academia or recognized as experts usually publish quality research. It will still be difficult. I tried a lot to understand this topic, even asked write my assignment, found https://ca.edubirdie.com/write-my-assignment for this. The best advice is not to look back. Do something now.

You are saying everything correctly. No one can say it better than you.

 

[Dioltach]

A while ago I had a discussion with a trained historian, when I mentioned something I'd learned from a history audiobook and which she disputed. "I've never heard of that before," she said.

I replied that the book's author was a fairly successful writer in the "history for the masses" category. And that I doubted he'd just make up half a chapter, or even base it on weak evidence. Because in my experience historians, and academics in general, are a resentful lot who'll sneer at anyone who becomes rich or popular from their work. If there were any glaring errors in the book, it would have been ripped apart by "serious" historians.

So as long as you're aware that whatever you're reading will gloss over plenty of the gritty details, you can probably trust a lot of popular works.

 

[Zardnaar]

A while ago I had a discussion with a trained historian, when I mentioned something I'd learned from a history audiobook and which she disputed. "I've never heard of that before," she said.

I replied that the book's author was a fairly successful writer in the "history for the masses" category. And that I doubted he'd just make up half a chapter, or even base it on weak evidence. Because in my experience historians, and academics in general, are a resentful lot who'll sneer at anyone who becomes rich or popular from their work. If there were any glaring errors in the book, it would have been ripped apart by "serious" historians.

So as long as you're aware that whatever you're reading will gloss over plenty of the gritty details, you can probably trust a lot of popular works.

Popular histories are often WW2, Rone or Egypt.

In academic circles they often like social histories (read boring).

I remember classics didn't gave an issue with bums on seats but the history department was struggling (bums on seats=funding).

They had a meeting and we point blank said the papers they were offering were boring and horrible.

One lecturer wasn't the most exciting but he was offering medieval stuff vs social progress in 19th century location who cares and he was one of the more popular courses.

 

[Dioltach]

Popular histories are often WW2, Rone or Egypt.

In academic circles they often like social histories (read boring).

I remember classics didn't gave an issue with bums on seats but the history department was struggling (bums on seats=funding).

They had a meeting and we point blank said the papers they were offering were boring and horrible.

One lecturer wasn't the most exciting but he was offering medieval stuff vs social progress in 19th century location who cares and he was one of the more popular courses.

The past few years I've been listening to audiobooks about all those areas of history that were ignored at school. The Persian Empire, the Vikings, power dynamics in the Middle Ages, Eastern Europe, the Ottoman Empire, Ancient Egypt, the turn of the first millennium. Fascinating stuff.

And at school we had the Industrial Revolution and Marx. Four years in a row. You'd think even the teachers would get fed up.

 

[Zardnaar]

The past few years I've been listening to audiobooks about all those areas of history that were ignored at school. The Persian Empire, the Vikings, power dynamics in the Middle Ages, Eastern Europe, the Ottoman Empire, Ancient Egypt, the turn of the first millennium. Fascinating stuff.

And at school we had the Industrial Revolution and Marx. Four years in a row. You'd think even the teachers would get fed up.

I raise you 19th century colonial social policy. Or in 1881 the export of frozen meat....

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I am reminded of the joke/apocryphal story about a library weeding their science books in the 1980s and removing the book that says "man will likely land on the moon one day."

Late to the discussion, but…

As an army brat in the 1970s, I actually had a history class in a base school that used an outdated book published in the late 1950s. It closed with speculation about landing on the moon.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I once came across a historian in the early 20th century who argued it was unlikely Thomas Jefferson had an affair with Sally Hemmings becuase he was too "effeminate." Given that Jefferson was macking on his neighbor's wife when he was a younger man, I found the idea that he was too effeminate to chase women to be a bit incredulous.

Sounds like a guy who's never seen Purple Rain.

Or heard of Mozart.

One of the more interesting things I read about post my academic years was The Great Male Renunciation. Synopsis: in the mid/late 1800s, men’s fashion went from bright colors and ornate, flashy attire to simplified styles and a palette of white paired with reserved darker colors- black, grays, greens, browns and blues. Beau Brummell was one of the major “influencers” in this movement.

This remained true until The Peacock Revolution of the late 1950s-1960s, when colorful, flashy clothes became more acceptable for men. But even that was mostly a countercultural change. Unless you’re a celebrity of some kind, the rules of dressy/formal menswear haven’t changed appreciably in over a century and a half.