|
nothing to seehere posted:There's got to be something happening in places which arn't western europe right? Or are they too sensible to keep banging their heads on a brick wall like the British I can't really speak to the academic credentials of the book, but as an amateur, Lawrence In Arabia seemed to present a pretty solid accord of both the factual events of the middle east theater and the various national priorities at play during the course of the war.
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:The real tragedy of the Russian Revolutions is that they stopped us from ever knowing how close General Yudenich and his merry men could have got to Constantinople Constantinople could have fallen in 1878, but NOOOO, Britain had to be a wet blanket. Worst country ever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I really wish there was something equivalent for French colonies though, which I think are criminally undercovered. Anyone seen any documentaries on French colonialism in subsaharan Africa? How did France even come to occupy places like Chad in the first place? Well, in the case of Chad, it was less that they actively wanted it as they wanted the area stable to prevent problems in their more valuable colonies. It's the usual imperial story - the French shattered most of the local kingdoms in their expansion, leading to a power vacuum and a rise in banditry, slave raids and the like. This threatened the prosperity of the areas they wanted, so they had to push into the frontier to maintain order. This, of course, meant they now had more territory to protect, so they had to deal with any rivals in the area, creating more power vacuums and more instability, and so the cycle repeated itself until they were running huge swaths of territory that weren't of any real value to the home country. Chad in particular was probably one of the least important possessions in the French empire. Administration was based in Brazzaville, under the aegis of French Equatorial Africa - the equivalent of trying to govern Minsk from Paris. The north of the country, in particular, was really only under French rule on paper - as long as nobody caused trouble, it was left to its own devices for most of the colonial period.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
Are straight or curved swords better? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Yes, having a curved or straight sword is better than not having a sword.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Are straight or curved swords better? What if...a sword could be both? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:Are straight or curved swords better? Is pizza or ice cream better?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Is pizza or ice cream better? Ice cream.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Is pizza or ice cream better? What kind of pizza and what kind of ice cream, we need details
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:What kind of pizza and what kind of ice cream, we need details 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Constantinople could have fallen in 1878, but NOOOO, Britain had to be a wet blanket. Worst country ever. It's the Russians own fault for taking several months to take Plevna and therefore not even making it to Sofia until winter, allowing the other powers to step in
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:The real tragedy of the Russian Revolutions is that they stopped us from ever knowing how close General Yudenich and his merry men could have got to Constantinople There's this episode from the late 1700s that I've never managed to find again after I read it. The russians managed to equip a phantastically large army to march on the european part of the ottoman empire, with the ultimate goal being Constantinople. This coincided with some pretty intense turmoil that the turks faced, which basically left their empire unable to respond in any meaningful way. Not that they would have been able to put much of a fight in the antiquated state that their army was. Luckily the russian army proved to be so intensely overdimensioned for the task that a good part of it starved before they even left their borders. The whole thing was canned and everybody went back home. I'm wondering if this really happened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
would anyone be able to point me in the direction of some good books/documentaries for someone who wants an introduction into learning about the russian civil and spanish civil war?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
T-60 production at factory #264 Queue: big guns for the KV-1, 122 mm howitzer for the T-34 and KV, A1E1 Independent, PzI Ausf. B, PzI Ausf. C, PzI Ausf. F, Renault FT, Maus in the USSR, 76 mm gun mod of the Matilda, M4A2(76)W, PzII Ausf. a though b, PzII Ausf. c through C, PzII Ausf. D through E, PzII Ausf. F, PzII trials in the USSR, Marder II, Field modifications to American tanks, Israeli improvised armoured cars, Trials of the TKS and C2P in the USSR, Polish 37 mm anti-tank gun, T-37 with ShKAS, Wartime modifications of the T-37 and T-38, SG-122, Tank destroyers on the T-30 and T-40 chassis, 45 mm M-42 gun, SU-76 prototype, ZIK-7 and other light SPG designs, SU-26/T-26-6, SU-122 precursors, SU-122 competitors, Light Tank M5, Tankbuchse 41, PzVII Lowe, Tiger #114, Chrysler K, Swedish tanks 1928–1934, Pak 97/38, 7.5 cm Pak 41, Czechoslovakian post-war prototypes, Praga AH-IV, Chaffee trials in the USSR, KV-1S, KV-13, s.FH. 18, Strv 81 and Strv 101 Available for request:  Matilda  L-10 and L-30 Strv m/40 Strv m/42 Landsverk prototypes 1943-1951 Strv m/21 Strv m/41  SOMUA S 35 NEW  D.W. and VK 30.01(H) NEW
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:What kind of pizza and what kind of ice cream, we need details  blackmongoose posted:It's the Russians own fault for taking several months to take Plevna and therefore not even making it to Sofia until winter, allowing the other powers to step in There is no question of "allowing" the other powers to do anything. They were always going to intervene as soon as it was apparent Russia was going for the sea of Marmara Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Jun 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
Kanine posted:would anyone be able to point me in the direction of some good books/documentaries for someone who wants an introduction into learning about the russian civil and spanish civil war? I don't know how you feel about Beevor, but his SCW is pretty amazing as far as learning facts and getting a picture of the time goes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Tias posted:I don't know how you feel about Beevor, but his SCW is pretty amazing as far as learning facts and getting a picture of the time goes. There were so drat many different organizations that I had to keep a cheat sheet on hand when I was reading it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
Tias posted:I don't know how you feel about Beevor, but his SCW is pretty amazing as far as learning facts and getting a picture of the time goes. I have read a number of his books and really enjoyed them. He is a real historian right? Right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
Kinda.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
BattleMoose posted:I have read a number of his books and really enjoyed them. He is a real historian right? Right? Beevor's pretty much the gold standard for popular history for non-academic audiences. He tells a really engrossing story without doing anything that gives academics migraines. Don't get me wrong, you can find academic historians who will quibble with this or that thing that he does, but that's just historians being historians - the whole field is hundreds of years of people arguing with each other. IIRC he studied under Keegan, so he's got a good rooting in what good academic history is. That's the thing - even if someone doesn't go all the way and get a PhD (which I don't think Beevor did, I might be wrong) where they got the MA and who they studied under matters a lot. Not all MA programs are created equal. It's very possible to get the degree without really internalizing what makes good academic history, but it's equally possible to do a few years under someone who teaches it right and come out the other side with an appreciation of how it works. Remember when I pointed out how that Napoleonic historian wasn't getting ANY traction with the academics, even as far as reviews go? Well, Beevor's a good counter example of this. You can find all sorts of academic reviews of his work, and most of them are pretty positive. Here's an example. The reviewer points out a few things that poke at his academic sensibilities but the conclusion is really positive: edit: gently caress it, quoting at length to show some criticisms as well, important part bolded. quote:In his desire to enliven the book's narrative with tales of human suffering, ambition, and failings, however, Beevor occasionally crosses the line between scholarly historical narrative and historical novel. The author's tendency to speculate is the book's greatest weakness. When describing the establishment of the Wehrmachthelferinnenkorps (female military auxiliary corps) he explains the words "be true and obedient" in the oath of allegiance these young women had to swear with Hitler's possible craving for an Ersatz fantasy (p. 181). This attempt at a psychological analysis of the wording of Nazi oaths is dilettantish at best because any Wehrmacht soldier had to swear "unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler."[2] In another place Beevor's considerable literary talent moved him to describe the Fuehrerbunker rather melodramatically as a "concrete submarine of the Reich Chancellery underworld providing an Existentialist theatre set for hell" (p. 344). Yet another example is the way he describes one woman doctor's cunning use of a sign with the word "Typhoid" in Cyrillic letters on it to keep Russian soldiers away from a venereal disease clinic she had set up in an air raid shelter (p. 412). There are two problems with this story. Firstly, Beevor neglected to reference this story to an anonymous diarist, and secondly, the doctor pretended to run a clinic for typhoid patients but really provided a safe hiding place for the young girls of the neighborhood in order to protect them from Red Army soldiers turned rapists.[3] These kinds of inconsistencies led me to wonder about the veracity of other stories lacking substantive reference. That link also brings up something else: You should be aware that H-Net exists. It's basically a message board / listserv for academic historians, and one of the many great thing it has is a deep repository of book reviews. Some are written by big shot historians, many are written by grad students (all this poo poo is vetted before it gets hosted, so don't be afraid of that) and more than a few were the first academic forays of then-grad students who are now big shot academics. If you're ever wondering about an author googling "[name] H-Net review" will as often as not turn up SOMETHING. At the very least it's a good starting point. H-Net is also split into a ton of sub groups by discipline, e.g. H-German, H-France, etc. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Jun 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Really, this is the thing that drives a lot of academic historians nuts. No one but the biggest assholes will lay claim to the academy as some kind of bastion of knowledge that shouldn't be sullied by the efforts of amateurs, and no one at all tries to argue that your average normal person interested in a subject shouldn't read about it. The problem is that your average person browsing the shelves at Borders isn't equipped to tell the Beevors of the world apart from the people making crazy claims or the far more common writers who are just plain mediocre. In a perfect world you would have intelligent curation of the material by the people selling them, but that's not really realistic. Bookstores want to stock what sells, and some people will buy just about anything written on a handful of subjects (ACW, WW2, Napoleon are the big 3), and doubly so if it conforms to their pre-existing beliefs. The worst of the bullshit ACW books that gloss over the politics in a big way are a good example of this, but you also see it in other areas as well. I guess all I'm trying to say is that if you want to take your own consumption of history up a notch, do a little research on the authors. It doesn't have to be a lot, just ten minutes of googling to see how well received they are and what other people are saying about their works, and keep a critical eye on who is saying those things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Angry Salami posted:Well, in the case of Chad, it was less that they actively wanted it as they wanted the area stable to prevent problems in their more valuable colonies. It's the usual imperial story - the French shattered most of the local kingdoms in their expansion, leading to a power vacuum and a rise in banditry, slave raids and the like. This threatened the prosperity of the areas they wanted, so they had to push into the frontier to maintain order. This, of course, meant they now had more territory to protect, so they had to deal with any rivals in the area, creating more power vacuums and more instability, and so the cycle repeated itself until they were running huge swaths of territory that weren't of any real value to the home country. I remember reading at one point that every time the French expanded their empire it brought down the French government. Or at least that's how it went in Algeria, Indochina, and West Africa.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Good popular historians will also engage with prior scholarship and at least do some basic historiography. One of the things I really liked about, say, 1491 by Charles Mann is that he does his best to cover the controversies and the broad academic debates surrounding and is usually pretty fair to all sides. That being said I don't think it's necessary, but it certainly is reassuring.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Good popular historians will also engage with prior scholarship and at least do some basic historiography. One of the things I really liked about, say, 1491 by Charles Mann is that he does his best to cover the controversies and the broad academic debates surrounding and is usually pretty fair to all sides. That being said I don't think it's necessary, but it certainly is reassuring. Yeah, at the upper end of the spectrum it really becomes indistinguishable, and you have plenty of academic historians who write accessible works that are either intended for the broader public or that just click with it because of accessible writing but also make important contributions to the literature. Probably the best example of that is Browning's Ordinary Men. Its short, well written, and organized in a way that makes it very accessible to the lay reader, yet at the same time it's directly engaging with the controversies of the field and making strong arguments that continue to resonate. Keegan is another good example of that - Face of Battle was a really influential work when it came out* and continues to be broadly consumed because of how accessible it is to people without an academic background. That said, at this point I would argue I'm just describing "good history" in general. I'm a strong advocate of writing academic monographs in a way that they are accessible to someone without a specialist's background in the subject, and I think that's very possible without abandoning academic rigor, historiographical engagement, etc. *it was most important methodologically, showing that military history could use all of the social history stuff that other disciplines were latching onto. Arguably it was more influential among non-miitary historians who, especially in 1976, dismissed military history as being methodologically unsophisticated and concerned only with the minutiae of uniforms and maneuvers, along with a healthy post-Vietnam skepticism that it existed purely to glorify military accomplishments. A grunt's eye view of the [i[experience[/i] of battle was somewhat of a revelation for a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:That link also brings up something else: You should be aware that H-Net exists. This is probably a long shot, but there aren't any other... academic secrets that'd make studying this stuff vastly easier for laymen, are there? It's all so confusing and expensive. I just found a journal that looked really interesting on H-net, which linked to their website to download it, which linked to project MUSE as the place to download it, which said I can only buy it through deepdyve.com. And then all these sites are like $40 a month for a subscription. I was so excited that JSTOR is more accessible for the public now, until I realized that all the academic journals are actually split between like 10 different sites so I still can't read most of what I'd want to read anyway. Maybe I can stretch my budget and subscribe to one of these sites, but that seems like it would barely make a dent in what's out there. And then I think this is just for the journals in English? Sorry for going on a small rant but it feels disheartening, I really wish there were an easier way to learn this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Koramei posted:This is probably a long shot, but there aren't any other... academic secrets that'd make studying this stuff vastly easier for laymen, are there?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
Koramei posted:This is probably a long shot, but there aren't any other... academic secrets that'd make studying this stuff vastly easier for laymen, are there? Unfortunately that poo poo gets expensive and difficult without an institutional affiliation. Universities just subscribe to all that poo poo because they can afford the cost for all their faculty, students, etc. As an individual you can be really SOL. There's a pushback against this, incidentally. A big pirate website that was basically  for science journals just got a big lawsuit. Far more common is to know someone who still has access and just have them download a ton of poo poo for you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 22:35
|
|
Koramei posted:This is probably a long shot, but there aren't any other... academic secrets that'd make studying this stuff vastly easier for laymen, are there? The only real secret to that stuff is that your university might have an online portal you log in to that auto credentials you in to most of the access you need for this stuff + a big university probably has libraries getting some of the major journals in hard copy plus maybe a reference library catching every book in print. Then you have various ways of getting credentialed to get in to other people's libraries and to look at manuscript etc. Methodologically it's what Hey Gal said. In the field I studied in, the history of ideas, there's a pretty established theoretical framework for how to do it (Skinner) and pretty established objections to that method as well. The problem there wouldn't be not doing history that way so much as seeming not to be familiar with the various issues and pitfalls that methodology raises so that your work constantly ran in to commonplace methodological problems by ignorance (e.g. treating a philosopher's ideas as some kind of universal concept rather than as existing within a rooted time and place). If I were not in the academy and writing a very resource intensive type of history I'd probably try to find a way to get access to a university's academic resources to circumvent access issues, since all I have as a layperson still is jstor.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Methodologically it's what Hey Gal said. In the field I studied in, the history of ideas, there's a pretty established theoretical framework for how to do it (Skinner) and pretty established objections to that method as well. The problem there wouldn't be not doing history that way so much as seeming not to be familiar with the various issues and pitfalls that methodology raises so that your work constantly ran in to commonplace methodological problems by ignorance (e.g. treating a philosopher's ideas as some kind of universal concept rather than as existing within a rooted time and place).
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Koramei posted:This is probably a long shot, but there aren't any other... academic secrets that'd make studying this stuff vastly easier for laymen, are there? (if you ever want anything specific this thread can probably deliver) ...i'll see myself out
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 22:47
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:skinner and pocock were fully ill, a propos of nothing If it tickles your fancy there's a good video of him discussing method on YouTube called something like Skinner: meaning, belief and interpretation. Can't get because phone posting. He recommended a course of phd study to me which I've often played around with to do with Marx and the classics.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Unfortunately that poo poo gets expensive and difficult without an institutional affiliation. Universities just subscribe to all that poo poo because they can afford the cost for all their faculty, students, etc. As an individual you can be really SOL. There's a pushback against this, incidentally. A big pirate website that was basically as one of said science people by trade, yeah, it's deeply, deeply bullshit. I dunno how it is in the histories but in science you have to pay the journal to get reviewed and published. Which then becomes material they own and sell to other people with ludicrous subscription costs. Academic publishing is loving ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
And as a result, most of humanity's knowledge is inaccessible to the general public (and then people poo poo on Wikipedia, which at least cites journal articles). I'm hope academic piracy takes off and the business model for those journals changes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
bewbies posted:(if you ever want anything specific this thread can probably deliver) "psst: hey: wanna buy a social science?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
The pay to print model won't change as long as American academia is obsessed with raw volume of publications.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
As a non-academic, I access JSTOR through my local public library's website.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The pay to print model won't change as long as American academia is obsessed with raw volume of publications. Listen I don't understand things, but that number is bigger than that number, so X is better than Y Like a lot of things in the modern world, the system is built for rear end-covering
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Unfortunately that poo poo gets expensive and difficult without an institutional affiliation. Universities just subscribe to all that poo poo because they can afford the cost for all their faculty, students, etc. As an individual you can be really SOL. There's a pushback against this, incidentally. A big pirate website that was basically Library genesis is the premier academic file-sharing service and is still running. When you're based in Kazakhistan it's hard to enforce copyright law. Back when I was out of school I would just search for things on google scholar or Google books, and look for something interesting. If I found something good I could usually find it immediately on libgen. Of course that got me in the habit of never finishing anything I started reading and now I jump from book to book reading just two or three chapters that suit my fancy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJYsTJt8vxg Video I mentioned before.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
 haha i was browsing artstation and saw this https://www.artstation.com/artwork/RVznr
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 16:48
|
|