Why does he gets such a bad rep?
I don‘t know
>>25204405I think its because he tries to make history normative rather than empirical like someone such as Ranke so he's viewed with suspicion by the "academic consensus" the powers that be. I sketched my own theory of normative history in writing but I'm probably going to be looked at funny for doing so.
Idk but that probably means he's doing something right. Who do you trust more: Will Durant or Vile Shlomo?Also history has so many "lessons" to extract from any narrative that it doesn't matter if something is a bit inaccurate.
>>25204448>create theory of what's normal by picking and choosing>worried others theories of what's normal by picking and choosing will laugh at your theory
>>25204405Because he wrote a narrative history with a clear sense of causality, a dash of great man theory and shockingly he was not up to date with duh soience of 50-90 years after he wrote it. So it’s WRONG and BAD! If you read the entire mammoth work you’re better informed than people with a BA in history so stop caring what people say.
I don't remember the name but there's a presumptuous critique of Toynbee and others like him, such as Spengler, where they have a prescriptive view——as if it was possible to not have a bias——contemporary historians are marked by the thickest clouds of hubris. "We're definitely not biased." Such enlightened objective men of our age.
>Portuguese
>>25204536Huh?
>>25204663What are you, a xenophobe or algo?The cover art is beautiful though
>>25204405Only from pseuds.
the audiobooks comfy than a mf idc what pseuds say
>>25204405redditoids think history can be empirically proven. History is closer to fiction than science
>>25204405I find the people critiquing it aren't generally reading intensely technical academic histories anyways. I finished the second volume a while ago and while it obviously isn't the most in depth resource you could get on any given time period, it's very enjoyable and feels like talking with an erudite and pleasant friend.
The criticism I've seen is very nit picky but they're correct to point out the errors. If you're reading it as an authoritative, up-to-date source on history then you will need something more modern. I consider myself above average when it comes to knowledge of Ancient Rome and Durant accurately hits every major event. He might misattritbute a quote or something but, as a reader, you're going to come out more knowledgeable than misinformed by reading Civilization.
