Recent comments in /f/history

RandomChungus69420 t1_j65b0j6 wrote

Guy Sajer’s “Forgotten Soldier” - Truth, Fiction, or a mix of both?

After reading this one for the first time, it left a deep effect on me. It became one of my top 5 war memoirs. I was surprised to learn, after the fact, that the book is surrounded by a lot of controversy about minor details in his recollection or in the presentation of Sajer’s comrade’s names.

It is never fully stated to what degree certain recollections are fact or fiction (e.g., changing of names to protect identities).

It seems as though there are vocal swaths of people who claim it is totally fabricated, while others say it is intentionally a blend of fact and fiction, and still others say it’s simply a result of failed memory recall on the part of the author in some instances mixed with deliberate alteration of names/identities.

I haven’t located much in the way of the author addressing these allegations. Thoughts?

4

Remote_Doughnut_5261 t1_j65791j wrote

Hi I am looking for books or pieces about or pertaining to the history of academia and maybe also of the students’ movement.

I read Kant’s “Conflict between the Philosophy and the Theology Faculty,” as well as Blanqui’s “Declaration of the Provisional Committee for Schools.” I found both pieces supremely interesting and I want more.

3

Laowaii87 t1_j656yl3 wrote

I have to prove you wrong? No bud, that’s not how it works. You claim one thing, and refer to a baseless claim from a video for a source, and then i have to back up not believing you?

2

Irichcrusader t1_j655slh wrote

Sounds really interesting. I haven't touched Napoleonic history in a long time but that's definitely something that would add a lot of detail that isn't normally covered. If you're interested in the Egyptian campaign then I would highly recommend Napoleon in Egypt by Paul Strathem.

3

Irichcrusader t1_j6554tr wrote

There's a lot of great history YouTube channels out there but, in my experience, the best ones are those who niche down and can really get into the meat of a topic or era. What historical periods are you interested in?

For instance, I really like early modern Europe history (16th to 17th century) and SandRhoman History is really great for that. The Historian's Craft is also great if you love classical (Greek & Roman history).

2

plantanus69 t1_j64rjxk wrote

I should clarify my use of the word “orthodox”. Im not referring to a single set of beliefs that are “Marxist orthodoxy”, that doesn’t really exist; there are several different orthodoxies within Marxism (consider for example that there were both orthodox Stalinists and orthodox Maoists, despite those having very different ideals).

What I mean is that the Bolshevik/Menshevik split was about Lenin’s assertion that every member of their then-unified party must be fully committed the party platform in its entirety, while the Mensheviks wanted a more inclusive membership that allowed people who more generally believed in some Marxist principles and weren’t die hard career revolutionaries fully committed to every ideal of Lenin’s. “Orthodox” here just means absolute adherence to a set of ideals.

2

Bentresh t1_j64bile wrote

I second this. The Met publications are almost uniformly excellent, and their volume on the MK is an up-to-date and beautifully illustrated overview.

The Middle Kingdom of Ancient Egypt: History, Archaeology and Society by Wolfram Grajetzki and Daily Life in Ancient Egypt by Kasia Szpakowska are also well worth a read. The latter focuses on the well-documented Middle Kingdom pyramid town of Lahun.

4

War_Hymn t1_j646hrz wrote

I don't see how having bronze tools or weapons would had protect them from germs that they had little immunity to. Before the Spanish even stepped foot in the Incan Empire, smallpox and other Old World diseases had already spread via regional trade network and killed millions of their subjects (including the Incan emperor himself). The reduction in population and the political turmoil it caused was enough to weaken this powerful state to a point where a couple hundred Spanish conquistadors was able to conquer it.

Even if they managed to kill every European they laid eyes on, these diseases would had eventually depleted their population and weaken their political/economic systems enough that the next wave of Europeans would eventually succeed in taking over.

>Presumably because their fires weren't hot enough to reliably cast high quality bronze.

Except they were casting copper or arsenic bronze (they never figured out tin-bronze) before the Europeans arrived. They just didn't have a lot of copper deposits, so stone tools were more economical and widespread.

2