I like Carl Becker and Roy Porter (Enlightenment), Linda Colley and Niall Ferguson (imperialism), and Marc Raeff and Franco Venturi (nineteenth-century Russia). The latter's work on Populism has never been surpassed.
(Original post by blueconstellation)
No, but it looks good. I might have a look after I've done my reading for my personal statement at the moment (for economic history )
Nice. Is it specifically for an economic history course, then? That'd be pretty cool, though I'm surprised universities would specialise in terms of the kinds of histories they make available in undergraduate degrees so early. Still, I guess plenty of places offer Economic & Social History degrees alongside straight History degrees; indeed, my own institution (the University of Oxford) offers an Ancient & Modern History course as well as 'History' and the various Joint Honour degrees. So I suppose greater specialisation is kind of inevitable as universities seek to offer more distinctive courses to attract better quality applicants.
(Original post by calum66222)
I quite like reading the boobs of both Max Hastings and Dee Brown. Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee is essential reading for everyone!
As a Classical Scholar and Ancient Historian I very much can say that "reading" boobs is indeed essential.
I'd like to add Moses Finley to the list since judging by previous entries (Sarkey, Gibbon, Holland etc) we're going for readably rather than actual academic weight, which is fair enough. Otherwise...probably Bosworth or Latacz tbh.
(Original post by Hewitt)
Neil Ferguson - He talk's a lot of sense.
While Ferguson is easy to read and packs a lot of information into his books, I find them to lack the depth that makes me feel like I've been greatly informed on various topics. In Empire for example, he manages to go through the entire history of the British Empire in little under 400 pages in a medium sized font on small pages. Some of his arguments are also very weak and give me the impression that he's doing nothing more than trying to provoke a debate. For instance, in War of the World, he argues that the fact that the stock markets were booming right up until the July crisis in 1914 shows that there was literally no political tensions leading up the war.
Also, one gets the impression that when Ferguson is writing about Empire and western civilisation, he is writing not to explain to the reader what happened in the past, but to further his own political cause in the present, i.e. to encourage the USA to take a more proactive role in building its own empire. He is often one sided - opening Empire by explaining very simplistic and obviously moronic arguments against the view that the British Empire was good in order to imply that anyone who holds such a view is an idiot, ignoring all of the more sophisticated arguments against his own view.
In spite of his obvious intelligence, he also strikes me as very ignorant. He said in an interview with regards to the history of native American tribes that all we know is that 'they killed a hell of a lot of bison', and not a lot more, the implication being that their society is not worth studying and is certainly something that is inferior to the European culture that replaced it.