I've been reading up on history for a while now. I have a prerty good foundation in the whole world for all of their historic periods. Should I specialise in one place now? Like Rome, or even just a small period like the roman republic, or late empire? I feel like a perpetual midwit since I just have a fairly surface level knowledge of everything, and anyone who has actually specialised in any particular event or period or whatever will mog me.I'm talking like reading all the primary sources on the matter and getting really to grips with every single person and detail of events. However the problem with this is it will take a really long time that I could spend growing my knowledge a little bit on everything.What I'm basically asking is: should I just keep reading fairly broadly and slowly accrete knowledge on everything, or should I specialise on one subject for maybe a couple years, and then specialise in another subject for a couple years, and so on.Does anyone have personal experience with any of this? Does 'specialising' more intensely actually bring much more benefit instead of perpetually sampling? How broad a period/thing can you realistically 'specialise' in at once? How long does it take to feel like you're an actual 'expert'? Would it take literal years and isn't really worth it, is it one of those things you could do indefinetely without feeling you've made it yet, or could you quite easily reach an exhaustive knowledge on a period within a couple years as a side hobby?I'm not in academia for history or anything, its just a hobby of sorts.Last time the thread got completely derailed becuase I used a picture from google images that was a redditors bookshelf, so everyone critisised 'my' book collection. So here we are again.
>>16539511Dude does not know how to take a selfie, dude is also twink maxxing as a tall person for some odd reason. He has wide shoulders and would like twice as good atleast if he just started lifting but he's a beta zoomer
>>16540673Hypothetically, let's say I didn't know how to take a selfie. How would one learn?
>>16540721You never use a closeup unless you're obese. Always try to distance it so most of your shoulders are in view, mind your lighting and strive for a natural lighting that doesnt make your skin look oily and your eyes like dark pools. Don't smile unless you have a good smile, try a light smirk so you dont look aggressive and uninviting. Try practicing different angles in the mirror after a early shower so that you have plenty of lighting to work with too.
first let me say lolsecond, sorry I derailed your last threadif there was some subject that really captivated you and you were compelled to learn everything you possibly could about it, then you wouldn't have this question and you wouldn't be wondering what "benefit" it would bring you. Learning isn't a competition. Being an "expert" is meaningless except for whatever joy and interest you derive from it, unless you actively doing research that grows the field and working with other academics, and some amateurs indeed do. But they don't get into because they felt bad about being stupid, they did it because there was a subject that grabbed them.If you have no idea what that subject might be for, keep on doing what you're doing and stop worrying whether it's a waste of time. It definitionally is. Someone will always know more than you. Until perhaps one day you are a fat elderly man in suspenders and a stained t-shirt living alone in a weird house at the end of a dirt road, and a grad student drives out to come visit your house and inspect some rare dusty tomes on pre-Victorian ornithology in Central Europe that you purchased with your settlement money from a stent manufacturer. You will sit at a breakfast nook with a bottle of rye and he will ask you about whether a 16th Century climatic blip settling over the Danube basin resulted in any recorded migratory shifts in Bardwick's sootwing butterfly that at one time comprised a significant dietary fixture of the Bohemian garden wren, a popular subject of certain book illuminators and unpublished poets. The academic later bids you farewell, promising a followup. And as his headlights swing out of view in the wooded dusk, you clutched your chest and you died.
>>16540732>you're repulsive>don't take any photosKeep doing what I'm currently doing? Can do!Who'd want to see me anyway lmao
>>16539511Do you not have some burning passion for any particular topic? As of now, I'm just a amateur but have a burning passion for the Middle Ages, in particular Medieval France, and there's always something I'm researching, listening or looking at from the period; online archives that have pages from Illuminated manuscripts, buying or listening to albums of period "accurate" music, reading and building up a library of various chronicles from the time period but also text books, as well as "reader friendly" histories, even though I personally find the text books more riveting to read and enlightening. I plan to visit some important historical sites this summer. What's important to you or intrigues you the most? I personally can't stand "general" histories and books of that sort, they'll "give" you an overview, but lets say there's an argument going on, or someone ask you a specific question on the topic, it just leaves you impossible to correctly frame the time period and really contribute anything to the topic and answer the specific question in detail.
>>16540673Is this a famous person? How do you know he's tall with wide shoulders?
>>16539511>I've been reading up on history for a while now. I have a prerty good foundation in the whole world for all of their historic periods.Nah you don't. You don't know shit.
>>16541908The person in OP's image is a well known history channel, Rudyard from whatifalthis, he says in every video that is a 6'5 tall chad with a high IQ
>>16541922Oh. He really does look like a huge history nerd.
>>16543306Yeah he's a total incel type, but you can see he has alot to work with but he's very much a right wing version of the old internet atheist types and is beyond full of himself
>>16541922Calling it a history channel is a little generous.
>>16543306>>16543312>>16543340He went fully crazy months ago, since I've gotten a better understanding of history I've realized he's a moron and always has been, but I think he's a good guy at the end of the day.
>>16543509Eh he’s dumb but that’s par the xourse for pop history channel. I can’t think of a single good one, emperor tiger star is a wikipedia moron, Historia Civilis is also a wiki reader and adds a shit ton of bias into his vids, monsir Z is just retarded, althistory hub is just a wiki reader too and has the most milque toast predictions possible. Honestly just tasting History is reliable good and maybe the guys who do the flash point history knock offs and ofcourse flash point history. An honorable mention is TIK, but he isn’t very entertaining Whatanautist does stand out among everyone else by actually reasing the source material and trying to do research beyond reading a wiki article, him and TIK are the only people who actually try to research a topic and give a fresh take on it instead of reading wikipedia
>>16545576Alot of spelling errors but fuck it, i just barely woke up for work lmao
Start with the Persians
>>16545576If you want some quality: Apostolic Majesty for historical deep dives, discussions and analysis. Schwerpunkt for Medieval History, though he might be inaccessible to you due to way he goes about making his videos.
>>16545716Already subbed to both of em, Apostolic Majesty is a reactionary who thinks monarchism = whatever I like and not what was currently popular atm. Schwerpunkt is just a less developed whatifalthis who uses zero production value while still vomiting his reading list to you.
>>16539511You look like a sodomite. You are a blibical modern plague.
>>16545596Persia sucks.
