Recommendations on History Works

[Kentharu]

After a long while of loving history but never finding out much about it, I've decided to begin my journey. The purpose of this thread is to gather the opinions of informed individuals in this forum on books on history. There are a few books I have in mind and I hope some of you will be able to give me your opinions on said books if you have read them. In addition I welcome recommendations for books that I have not yet come across. I will list some areas of "history" where I would like specific recommendations as well as perhaps reviews. I recognize that referring to it so broadly as "history" might frustrate some so I thank you in advance for your patients, understanding, and help.

In particular there are two series' that I would like you to pay special attention to. These are:
A Study of History by Toynbee
The Story of Civilization by Durant

These are 12 and 11 volume series, both of which I am aware are extensive and large (I have a lot of time on my hands). Obviously I would not be mad enough to read both hence a choice must be made. I am currently leaning towards Durant as I have heard that it is lighter reading (I profess no great intelligence and don't wish to overwhelm myself). Just a note, no I would probably not read either series in chronological order. Instead I would pick periods that hold my fancy and then fill in the gaps.

Some specific areas of history that I would like your recommendations on are as follows(for these I am only look for 1 volume books, not series':
A comprehensive look at European history.
A comprehensive look at Indian history.
A comprehensive look at Chinese and Japanese history.
A comprehensive look at the development of technologies throughout the world.


Some of the books I have come across and may pick up, which I would like your thoughts and opinions on, are as follows:
A History of Europe by Norman Davies
A History of Civilization by King, May, Fletcher

I would like to thank everyone who posts in advance for their help.

 

[Agent327]

A classic on East Asia was East Asia: Tradition and Transformation by J.K. Fairbank, E.O. Reischauer and A.M. Craig, covering China, Vietnam, Korea and Japan. (Later separated in two parts, one on China, and one on Japan, but I have the original 969 p. edition.)

Also, I'm afraid this may be a bit of a dupe thread; as on the original I have to warn that if the OP isn't updated (with links or a complete list) crossreferencing may become quite tedious over time.

 

[North King]

I somewhat like The Story of Civilization (only gotten through The Age of Faith at the moment, though). A bit ponderous at times, and outdated at others, but it's held up remarkably well for its age and gives a good, broad perspective.

For India I'd recommend India: A History by John Keay.

 

[Plotinus]

Ancient history by J.M. Roberts is very good and easy to get through. Despite the title it goes up to the Renaissance.

 

[Agent327]

Not mentioned in the OP, but R. Oliver's Out of Africa covers Africa from prehistory til the 1990s.

 

[Kentharu]

Thank You.

 

[Masada]

I can help with Southeast Asia if your interested at all in it.

For India I'd recommend India: A History by John Keay.

Ditto even if I found his writing style somewhat stilted. He also wrote China: A History which I also own but haven't gotten around to reading yet but which garnered fairly solid reviews.

 

[Agent327]

Don't know him, I'm afraid, but there's a nice 2 vols A History of India, 1 (covering prehistory-1526) by Romila Thapar and 2 (Mughal to Indira Gandhi - could have been updated since I bought it) by Percival Spear.

Thank You.

You're welcome.

 

[Kentharu]

I just hope I can find the majority of these books in the library.

 

[North King]

Don't know him, I'm afraid, but there's a nice 2 vols A History of India, 1 (covering prehistory-1526) by Romila Thapar

Got the first half of this. The prose is very dense, but it's been worth it thus far.

 

[frekk]

A Study of History by Toynbee

Although Toynbee is an important figure in the history of historical studies ... ... he is held in wide disrepute by most modern historians. The rejection of comparative history as a whole is due, in large part, to Toynbee; most historians see his work as an exercise in anachronism.

Generally speaking, you will get a better knowledge of history, and learn good habits, if you avoid works that are too broad and sweeping. Stick to focussed specifics.

 

[Agent327]

That may hold true for most writing historians, but history without acknowledging comparative history may have just as anachronistic consequences. At any rate, history being a 'discussion without end', most historical works will become anachronistic at some point; so we won't be seeing 'the end of history' any time soon.

Got the first half of this. The prose is very dense, but it's been worth it thus far.

Good to hear; both volume authors are specialized on Indian history. (What do you mean by 'dense prose'?)

 

[frekk]

That may hold true for most writing historians, but history without acknowledging comparative history may have just as anachronistic consequences.

How so? Comparative history contrasts societies existing at very different times in very different contexts; the anachronism of this activity is an obvious pitfall. I'm not sure how avoiding such a practice can be construed as anachronistic.

At any rate, history being a 'discussion without end', most historical works will become anachronistic at some point

It's not because Toynbee was writing some time ago that he's seen as anachronistic. He was received this way by his contemporaries, when the ink was still wet. He was seen as indulging in anachronism because he liked to compare 1st century Romans with 19th century Inuit, and so on.

 

[Agent327]

Fair enough. Although I do not agree with this definition of Comparative history contrasts societies existing at very different times in very different contexts; that sounds more like anthropology. I was thinking more in terms of comparing contemporary societies and/or circumstances. In the first case I should think it doubtful if that qualifies as history at all.

 

[frekk]

In the first case I should think it doubtful if that qualifies as history at all.

... and thus Toynbee's disrepute.

Not all comparative history is held in such low esteem (Jared Diamond hasn't been lambasted too hard - actually academic historians mostly just ignore him on the pretext that he's a geographer), but because of Toynbee, it's regarded skeptically, even when it's not so anachronistic or lacking in context.

 

[Masada]

Does Jared Diamond do comparative history like Toynbee did? Diamond seems to take universal constants - deforestation, etc - which are directly applicable across history and tends to only draw narrow well defined parallels. He doesn't try to chart the rise and fall of civilizations per say, he only draws the common non-historical elements in their declines together. I guess one could say he deals in biological processes which intuitively hold across the history rather than drawing parallels based on the interactions between and inside cultures.

 

[frekk]

Does Jared Diamond do comparative history like Toynbee did?

No, Toynbee was doing history, Diamond just appears to be doing history. It's actually geography. Note his main arguments; the distribution of species, the shape of the landmasses, ecological conditions like the presence of diseases and vectors and so on. Studies of how these factors impact human populations have always been associated with geography. He almost never ventures into belief systems, institutions, cultural artifacts and material culture, or the effect of wars, which are the traditional province of history. Diamond has taught or studied in geography, physiology, biophysics, ecology, and even ornithology - but not history (afaik).

 

[North King]

Good to hear; both volume authors are specialized on Indian history. (What do you mean by 'dense prose'?)

Each paragraph carries a lot of weight. Which is as it should be, but it means I've been taking a ridiculous amount of time trying to plow through it.

 

[Kentharu]

He almost never ventures into belief systems, institutions, cultural artifacts and material culture, or the effect of wars, which are the traditional province of history.

It seems that Diamond went more into what caused these things than these things in specific detail as it corresponds to each society/nation/culture. He does however refer to specific examples to illustrate his points and picks from a wide variation in both time and location, there by strengthening his arguments.

I think the conjecture that Diamond deals mostly with geography is incorrect though. Much of his theories draw on multiple disciplines for support, in particular biology.

However in respect to Toynbee after beginning his book (currently on Rome which is mostly revision) you are correct and the broad nature of his writing is a little bit frustrating. It almost feels like reading a wikipedia article and I keep wanting to click on Octavian's name to find out more about him! Never the less I think an approach to history would best be served witha broad look at it. There are many time periods which I know little to nothing about, like the aftermath of the Roman Empire, particulars of the Hasburgs. My logic behind first approaching this is to get a general overview and then I can more specific books on what ever time period catches my fancy. In this way I would avoid the unfortunate circumstance of being uninterested in some time period that I decided to focus on without knowing anything about it. That time period may turn out to be completely uninteresting to me (although I will probably end up reading everything in detail).

 

[Kentharu]

I was hoping some of you could give me your thoughts on the book The Muqaddimah by Ibn Khaldun.

From what I've read so far about Khaldun it seems he was a very influential thinker on the philosophy of history. Toynbee apparently was very influenced by him.

A little update, I've borrowed Vol. 6 of Durant's The Story of Civilization (The Reformation). I thought it would be more appropriate than borrowing The 5th one which covers virtually the same time period called The Renaissance. I hope I was not mistaken. The impression I got by comparing the two is that The Renaissance is more about the cultural change in Europe that came about during the Renaissance since most of the chapters were about the Arts, Music and such in specific countries (France, England Germany and such). Could someone who has read both tell me which would be better for getting some basic historical facts rather than cultural analysis.