/lit/ - Literature

Sup /hum/anities
I have to decide what I'm writing my undergrad history dissertation on but I'm pretty stuck for ideas. Any suggestions or places to look for inspiration? It has to be based mainly on primary sources.

What are some areas of history that you wish were more studied? Either because they are overlooked or because current studies on the time period/even/tperson/etc are poor or insufficient at best?

Hi /lit/

I'd like to read some historical non-fiction, but I have no idea where to start. Some suggestions of good books to start would be nice. Not looking for primary texts.

Some of my interests:

Ancient Greek and Roman periods
Medieval Europe
Vikings
18th and 19th cen. Europe
Possibly East Asian History

Thanks.
Pic kindof related.

inb4peoplebitchingaboutwhetherornotthisthreadbelongsinthisboard

Let's have a history general.

I'll start: What's the best work to start with regarding the history of England? Macaulay's, Hume's or Churchill's?

Also, can anyone recommend any good works about the Revolutionary War? I know next to nothing about it.

What is the way of approaching history from the "how things happened" rather than "why things happened" angle called?

Who are the best history/biographical authors?

/lit/, can you recommend some history books?

Preferably books on specific events, not so much general history.

Ancient to modern, I don't care. I have an urge to learn some history.

>>592179
Greetings /co/mrade. /lit/erary here.

If you don't mind some old stuff, here goes:
Greek history: the best is of course Thucydides. Next is Herodotus; the third best is Xenophon's Anabasis for a good story, and his Hellenica in terms of actual importance. Demosthenes' speeches also shed light, albeit biased, on the period just before Alexander.
Arrian gives us an account of Alexander the Great; Plutarch gives us a more famous account, along with numerous other Vitae of important people.
For the rise of the Roman Republic, look no further than Polybius, one of the preeminent Greek historians after Xenophon. We also have Livy as a source; he is pretty good, once you get beyond the fanciful stories at the beginning and the long speeches.
Sallust gives us Cataline and Jugurtha, both about the years after the end of the Punic Wars and before Pompey and Caesar. Cicero's speeches are also useful for the late republic. Caesar's Civil War, though obviously biased, will reward careful reading, as will his account of the conquest of Gaul.
Now we have the greatest of Roman historians, Tacitus with his bleak appraisal of the early empire. We also see the more gossipy side of the imperial court in Suetonius' Twelve Caesars.
The last Roman historian of any note that I can remember off the top of my head is Ammianus Marcellinus; he covers the late empire. Then everything becomes a bit sketchy.
The medieval period is full of chroniclers; I am not sure what is current these days in reading from this period, and I sadly have no recommendations.
[continued]