>>18389353
rewatch, replay, loop it

>>18389353
As someone with a post doctorate in history I can tell you that there is no such thing as the perfect book, but there are also differences in quality among certain works depending on period. As your interests are general you will have an easier time to look for subjects, but keep in mind that narratives may differ.
Reading hundreds of academic books is not necessary for your case either, but absolutely do not choose grand narrative history books to shape your general understanding of the topic. Some might serve as decent primers, but overall they are meant for easy consumption, and moreoften than not do not contain footnotes. Some exceptions to these such as Jack Tannous' book "The Making of the Medieval Middle East".
Gibbon, while good for his time, has some largely outdated narratives, enjoyable read, but history is a continuously moving subject despite revolving around an unmoving time. Primary source material is always decent to read, but given your general interests and, as you say, averageness, you should supplement it with secondary source material, preferably by a decent historian. For anything ancient do not pick up Catherine Nyxie, she is not a historian. Pick up Robert Lane Fox instead, he is respectable, knows his sources, and is likewise easily accessible. Good undergraduate material, while remaining approachable to newcomers. The Landmark Edition of Herodotus is very enjoyable for newcomers.

>>18389394
Thanks for taking the time for this.
>Catherine Nyxie, she is not a historian
Actually, I'd love to hear your thoughts on journalists writing history-presenting books. My immediate instinct tells me to discard it immediately, is that a good hardline stance to have? I guess since I don't have the prerequisites to cut through the bullshit it's better to stay clear? Like "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by Shirer, which I've read, and now I might have some very wrong ideas about it.
>Pick up Robert Lane Fox instead
Appreciate it. Though I assume you mean Robin Lane Fox? That's the name that pops up on Google.

>>18389408
No problem.
I meant Robin Lane Fox yea, apologies.
And as for your instinct regarding journalists writing history, it is spot on. Much better to stay clear of them than pick them up, yeah. Journalists and such that write history books, or try to, often have a tendency to put dramatic titles or sensationalist sayings, and this is to intentionally draw in potential readers. What they have to say is often wrong, misinterpreted, or they try to push a certain narrative that gains them wider readership.
Shirer is a bit different, but what makes Shirer more "valuable" than someone like Catherine Nyxie is that Shirer at least saw the war with his own eyes. Of course this forms certain biases, and what not, but it offers a glimpse of one individual's reporting and view of WW2. Much like Jünger's Storm of Steel for WW1, and such. But Catherine Nyxie, writing on the ancients and religion, didn't live through the period she wrote on obviously. She has an axe to grind, and misinterprets sources all the time. This is how it usually goes with those not professionally trained in the field. So just be aware.

File: Bronze Age v2.jpg (1.78 MB, 3000x3868)

1.78 MB JPG

https://mega.nz/folder/kj5hWI6J#0cyw0-ZdvZKOJW3fPI6RfQ/folder/FnYknJ5R

I assume you know to use Anna's Archive.