>history book gets to the "Between 1873 and 1911 the number of millers' sons increased from 218,000 to 3.1 million in Baden, with over 21,000 of these choosing to pursue Oberrealschule education, a significant ratio compared to neighboring Wittemburg's 17,000 of just 2.1 million, up from 310,500 according to the Poopoo Census between 1903 and 1921, a 2% increase over the rate of increase in toolmakers' sons between the 1813 Diarrhea Census and the 1851 Sneed Laws" partAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SHUT UP SHUT THE FUCK UP I DON'T FUCKING CARE!!!!!!!!!!!
>>23554124I don't know why modern history writers struggle so much to compact all this down. Ancient history writers only have tidbits so their social history is actually interesting, at the very least concise, and often fun to read since it's based off literary anecdotes. You can absolutely write social history in a good style, you just have to know what to include and what to exclude. Wedgewood's Thirty Years War and English Civil War books do this well.
most historians write for other historians
>>23554147My god you are stupid. You literally answered yourself in the first sentence.
I remember reading this duo of books on ww1 and 2, written by the same guy. The whole book is just a chronological sequence of events. On july 23rd, the germans were attacked by guerilla's outside minks. There was an air battle over north africa where x planes were shot down.It just goes on like this for the whole book, with a little more flair in the prose. I made it 3 chapters before I dropped it.
>>23554124I don't have an issue with that as long as it's relevant. But most average history books never have anything relevant to say because they're not talking about anything that could be relevant to anything else. If you're writing a history book it needs to be about something more than just a location. Many authors understand this but they're far between compared to the hordes of retards who just write shit like "the history of Australia". you gotta read good history books about stuff like pic related.
>>23554124The point of writing history is to provide evidence for your claims. Unless you're reading a survery or a monograph you shouldn't really be getting things like that though.
>>23554124This is pertinent information. This growing population of German millers' sons led to the Holocaust, because Hitler didn't think native Germans were getting enough good jobs. And Lebensraum as well.
>>23554124>>23555194>>23556293>these are the people posting on a history boardholy filtered
>>23554147>I don't know why modern history writers struggle so much to compact all this down.Because we're not eisegetic mythographers and we take Ranke seriously.
>>23554124That's a crazy increase in miller's sons for a relatively short period of time. Like three successive generations number an average of four sons each. Assuming normal gender distribution, then the families in that time period were AVERAGING eight kids per. Wild to think that people can't even afford a single kid now.
>>23554124I take it you’re not an Annales School fan huh?
