Last one hit bump limit

Read it, Chuddie.

>>17773618
It has been thoroughly deboonked

My latest stack of finished reads

I'm sure most everyone's read this at this point but it's still one of my favorite books ever. I especially like the bits like the development of the perception of time thanks to the introduction of mechanical clocks and more specific timetables.

>>17773773
liked 1491 and 1493.
interesting reads

>>17774372
Based

>>17773616 (OP)
Which one should I read?

>>17773759
I read Shorto's Revolution Song and while it was definitely libtarded, it had some interesting stories in it.

New to this board, what are the must reads in here newfrens???

>>17774826
What topic?

>>17773618
Who knew zebras were so integral in the course of history.

>>17774759
Descarte's Bones was just alright. He forced his way into making it too relevent to current affairs
His book on New Amsterdam is great though. Looking forward to getting 'Taking Manhattan' soon

>>17774894
>He forced his way into making it too relevent to current affairs
That seems to be a perpetual undercurrent in his writing.

>>17774954
I think he's a journalist by training so it's not surprising. His New Amsterdam book starts off with him detailing the story of this guy who's the only one who can read old Dutch or some shit but in like a personal narrative of him as the author stumbling upon this story. It's pretty cringey honestly

>>17774826
Depends on what you're interested in. Oxford History of the United States series is pretty good if you want to learn about US history. Just avoid The Republic For Which It Stands because it's awful unless you want to read 800 pages of whining about how evil white people and capitalists are. Unfortunately, good books that cover the Gilded Age are kind of few and far between since most of them are either "capitalism/white people BAD" or stuff about the great rich families for normalfags/women who want to read about American princesses.

>>17773618
>europeans... le bad!
>tribal monkey niggers... le good!
>tribal monkey niggers are smarter than you actually
Dropped this pile of shit book immediately.

>>17773616 (OP)
anyone know any good books on 20th century middle east? Specifically iran but the whole middle east is fine.

>>17775314
Armies of the sand

>>17775306
could you survive in a Papuan jungle?

>>17774867
Open to any topic, part of the thrill really to just be open to any topic regarding history. I only ask that it be recommended in good faith testifying for the book's quality

>>17775085
Thanks. I'll check it out.

>>17773616 (OP)
What's the best books to learn about WW1? I'd like some opinions from you anons.

>>17775460
I heard picrel was good

>>17775314
Picrel

>>17775321
>>17775512
Thanks

>>17773616 (OP)
Anyone know a good book about the life of Columbus? Preferably one not infested with modern day political tug of war bullshit?

>>17773616 (OP)
>NOOO POST ACW IS HECKIN' BORING

>>17776192
>nnnoooooooo you're the worst president EVER for not putting the heckin negro-inos first Andy!!!! Rrrrreeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
The Radicals were just the flipside of the Slave Power coin with their autistic screeching and holier-than-thou attitude toward anyone who wasn't as hardcore an abolitionist as John 'He Marches On' Brown. Convince me otherwise

>>17775855
I’m looking for this as well

>>17773616 (OP)

This was an enjoyable book that examined what a historical Helen and the world around her would have been like, while also talking about how Helen has been interested throughout the ages. I also liked this authors book on Socrates.

>>17776780
*how Helen has been interpreted throughout the ages.

>>17773618
I read it. He makes a very convincing case for why Eurasia is so far ahead of everyone else. He makes no case at all for why Europe got so far ahead of Asia. Since chuds believe in European supremacy rather than just Eurasian supremacy, there is nothing here that should deter chuds.

Three volume biography

>>17777037
Finally, a good fucking post

>>17775460
The Eastern Front and The western front are both good and focused on their specific location

>>17777105
Forgot pic but they are those by Nick Lloyd

>>17773618
jewish false academia hogslop - no thanks!!

The worst history book I have ever read.

>>17777794
>Pen and Sword cover
Their books either range from 'alright' to 'fucking terrible'. I'd stay away from their overpriced books, almost always there is another book on the topic which is cheaper and better. The best author I've found from them is Ian Hughes who writes on 5th century Rome, but he's also one of the only writers for biographies on the period as well. Usually I prefer Yale, Oxford or Routledge. I got this Late Roman army book from Pen and Sword and it's pretty bad, hardly explains anything and half of the book is just reenacter photos, then got a routledge book on it and it was far superior in explaining things.

>>17777807
Fortunately I bought that book at a used bookstore for $10 so I didn’t pay full price. The problems with the book I read from them was there were multiple spelling and grammatical errors that made it to publication. And the author got basic things wrong when she was writing about Savonarola’s impact and legacy at the end of the book. An example is trying to describe what Protestants believe or making basic factual errors like Martin Luther being a Dominican Monk.

>>17777850

>>17777025
I plan to read this

whats a good cultural history of the late cold war in the 80s that covers both sides of the conflict?

>>17775817
no problem

>>17774372
This board doesn't read

>>17776248
>uhhh actually 620,000 people dying because le heckin' cleetusrinos are lazy is fine because i hate darkies or however the cotton is picked so don't punish anybody involved
radical republicans were qualitatively nothing like the slavocracy in their means or ends which made them quite literally holier than thou, former confederate states shouldn't exist today as legal entities
>bu-
let's make another thread instead of spamming the fuck out of this one if you'd like to respond

>>17778093
Need an answer to this

>>17774372
>I'm sure most everyone's read this at this point
I doubt that. I mean I have read it as well, twice actually, but I'd be surprised if more than a single digit percentage of this board has even heard of it.

>>17773618
>>17773727
>>17774869
>>17775306
>>17777035
>>17777271
Keep in mind academic historians also hate GG&S, it's just a shit book in general with tons of cherrypicking, errors, and bad methodology, it's not just /pol/ being mad it's not racist

>He makes a very convincing case for why Eurasia is so far ahead of everyone else
No, he doesn't. His point about east-west vs north-south crops doesn't hold up; animal to human disease transmission is MORE common with wild rather then domesticated animals, and a ton of the shit he says about the precolumbian americas and spanish colonization is just factually wrong

It's >plebbit but see https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2bv2yf/guns_germs_and_steel_chapter_3_collision_at/ ; this isn't even everything with the Americas since this is just about the Andes/Inca, not how it fucks up with Mesoamerica etc

>>17773773
>>17774386
read 7 myths of the spanish conquest, and when montezuma met cortes next

>>17777025
>Thing happened
>Let me shoehorn climate change into it as a probable cause
It is objectively bad, it's one of those books where someone drew a conclusion beforehand and then set out to come up with the reasoning

>>17781006
>things happened
I haven't even read it and I know that's the most retarded "counter-argument" you could possibly present.

I made a Chinese history book thread over if anyone wants to contribute

>>17780423

>>17780722
The best rebuttal of that book I've read comes from pic related. European dominance came about from the continent's rigid social hierarchies, conceptions of property, and a willingness to use violence to enforce both. "Civilization" was a post-hoc justification for the expansion and maintenance of this system across the globe.

In turn, it is no coincidence that Enlightenment ideas arose in Europe after prolonged dialogue with Native Americans. Their personal liberties and freedom showed Europeans radically different ways of organizing a society.

>>17779637
Probably nothing, it seems nobody really wants to write a general history of the 1980s or 90s right now.

>>17773759
Excellent stack my friend

>>17782183
Thanks. Here's another one

>>17774372
I haven’t because I hate modern history and think it’s boring and gay

>>17782483
Most gayest stack ever, congratulation

>>17781560
Well written book. I hated it. Read it two times so far.

>>17781560
>>17782619
I've read the Mesoamerican portions. They're mostly on point, a few things here and there aside, but ironically I have seen Michael E Smith, one of the more notable Mesoamericanists, criticize the book heavily, not really in that it gets the Mesoamerican bits wrong, but for not properly citing things and for not really having a quantifiable methodology so it can evaluate it's own theory/hypothesis.

>>17773770
Just finished this one myself.
Super good, and a lot of the work in there serves as a foundation for one of my favorite books, David Graeber and David Wengrow's The Dawn of Everything.

>>17782873
Didn't read the whole thread before posting. My mistake.

Thought I'd share my favourites
>The End of Roman Britain
The narratives and history of 5-6th century Britain and why Romanisation failed
>Henry of Lancaster's Expedition to Aquitaine
Military logistics and makeup of an army in the 14th century
>Brotherhood of Kings
Ancient Bronze Age diplomacy. It's quite fun knowing we have diplomatic letters from the most powerful men in the world from 3000-4000 years ago, and they were often petty and bitchy.
>Henry III by David Carpenter
Massive and well written biography on the king
>Blood Royal
Dynastic politics in Western Europe
>Frederick Barbarossa by Freed
Just a straight up biography on the man. But I liked it
>Escape from Rome
Answers, why did Rome rise? Why was it special? Why could nobody emulate them and why is that good?
>War and Society in Early Rome
The entire period is an unknowable maze so this book tries to piece it together the best it can be done, really kicks a lot of the projections of Greek history onto the region into the bucket
>The Age of Agade
It's about Akkad. Just interesting.
>Sowing the Dragons Teeth
Byzantine military manuals and how did their military work in the 10th century
>Early Carolingian Warfare
Best survey of how a society went to war I've ever found. Lots of notes, one of the best reads I've ever had
>Failure of Empire
Biography on Valens and the Roman state
>Ruling the Roman Later Empire
How the hell do you actually rule a super-empire?

More on the humanities than the history side, Lewis Hyde's Trickster Makes This World is quite excellent. An analysis of various trickster characters.
There's some neat historical stuff in there as well, like the notion that Hermes joining the Olympian Pantheon was paralleling the incorporation of the merchant class into Greek society, something which conceivably happened around the time the Homeric Hymn to Hermes was composed.
Lots more in there too, figures like the Native American Coyote get plenty of coverage too.

>>17781560
>le englightenment came from native americans
The enlightenment arose from english whig and proto whig ideals combined with huguenot republicanism
The native americans contributed nothing to the englightenment

>>17782613
Most gayest reply ever. How's this one?

>>17781560
>ideas arose in Europe after prolonged dialogue with Native Americans
Peter Gay's The Enlightenment documents how it was actually from Greek and Roman literature that the Enlightenment arose.

>>17781560
>after prolonged dialogue with Native Americans.
And just when the fuck did that take place, exactly?

>>17782983
Same goes for Ritchie Robertson

>>17782936
>>17782983
>>17783013
I never read the portion of "History of Everything" that makes this claim, but it's clearly not the only source that says it, Restall points out in 7 Myths of the Spanish Conquest that some of the philosophical debates in Spain that came about as a result of encountering advanced civilizations in the Americas and how to legally handle that and what rights they should have fed into the Enlightenment.

It's also pretty widely documented that parts of the American Constitution were inspired by the political systems of Northeast Woodlands native americans

>>17783018
There's no evidence for the native americans influencing anything about the british or american political systems
The political systems of america come almost entirely from british whiggism with some influence from classical greece and rome. See Bailyns ideological origins of the american revolution

>>17782974
how's that Levy book? can I find it online?

also what's a book that goes into the deep thoughts and culture behind the Khmer Rouge? something that gets into their ideology a bit and their end goals and as objective as possible?

>>17782176
That's too bad. I was born in the 80s and lived some of it. I remember nuclear drills we had in elementary school for a time.

>>17783018
>It's also pretty widely documented that parts of the American Constitution were
Provide a source then

>>17783029
It's great. He doesn't outright shit on Jefferson or try and "explode the myth about" him like a hack. He's a true scholar. No idea about getting it online, I tried internet archive just now but didn't see anything. Just get a copy off of thriftbooks, it's probably like $10
>Khmer Rouge
No idea.

>>17783013
The example the book mentions is between a Wendat chief Kondiaronk, and the French Baron de Lahontan. Their dialogues were published in a book by Lahontan, published in 1703. Kondiaronk had actually visited Paris, and wasn't impressed.
>If you abandoned conceptions of mine and thine, yes, such distinctions between men would dissolve; a levelling equality would then take its place among you as it now does among the Wendat. And yes, for the first thirty years after the banishing of self-interest, no doubt you would indeed see a certain desolation as those who are only qualified to eat, drink, sleep and take pleasure would languish and die. But their progeny would be fit for our way of living. Over and over I have set forth the qualities that we Wendat believe ought to define humanity – wisdom, reason, equity, etc. – and demonstrated that the existence of separate material interests knocks all these on the head. A man motivated by interest cannot be a man of reason. - Pages 67-68, Wengrow & Graeber

Bear in mind that this is being said in 1703. Nearly a century before any kind of wholesale restructuring of society was even entertained by French society at large. The difference between all those European philosophical/political traditions (which were still influences on the Enlightenment) is that this was a reaction to contemporary European society by someone wholly foreign to it. These reactions are in-line with what European missionaries heard from American natives as well. Do you think Enlightenment philosophers with an interest in Natural Law would just ignore this opinion, even if they hadn't heard it directly from a native?

>>17783578
As said already, there is NOTHING about the enlightenment that came from native americans
It originated in english whig ideals and spread from there to france with voltaire and montisque, who were anglophiles

>>17783018
>It's also pretty widely documented that parts of the American Constitution were inspired by the political systems of Northeast Woodlands native americans
Absolutely wrong. Any study of the origins of American constitutionalism goes back to England. Almost all of America’s early laws and political philosophy goes back to England, the founders borrowing most of it from men like Locke.

>>17783028
>See Bailyns ideological origins of the american revolution
Very good book, Gordon Wood also wrote about how influential British traditions and enlightenment thinkers were on the founding.

>>17774643
The Hundred Years War

Just a few reads of California history

>>17780722
>animal to human disease transmission is MORE common with wild rather then domesticated animals
Congrats, you refuted one point. Now what’s your argument about Eurasia having superior animals for domesticating? That’s right. Nothing.

>>17783612
>it's just a coincidence that the enlightenment arose in the very countries that were building overseas empires and encountering all these different ways of life
doubt
wasn't just Native Americans either, Chinese ideas of meritocracy influenced the movement too

>>17784942
>doubt
The origins of the enlightenment arose in england in the early 1600s when britain had practically no colonial empire to speak of
stop wewuzzing and stealing anglo history you pathetic LARPer

>>17784942
There is no actual evidence that actually supports the idea that Native Americans or any Native American thought actually influenced the enlightenment.
https://www.persuasion.community/p/a-flawed-history-of-humanity

>>17781560
I'm not taking books written by fucking anarchists seriously.

>>17785103
fuck me for saying "actual" 3 fucking times. holy shit

>>17785103
From the very rebuttal you linked:
"The authors start out with a point that is correct, but also uncontroversial and unoriginal, namely that “European intellectuals had come to fix on the idea of primordial freedom” in large part because of travel literature that made them aware of non-European societies, including especially ones lacking large, organized states."

>>17785115
Fair enough, but that is no where near the claim that the enlightenment came from "prolonged dialogue" with the Native Americans. Posts arguing against you could have been worded better, but seriously you are being a little disingenuous here.

>>17785115
>le enlightenment came from le native americans
>despite the fact that it came from british readings of tacitus's germania and the idea of free saxon parliaments prior to the norman yoke
americans are so retarded they think british people in the 1610s cared about what a bunch of feather niggers over the ocean thought lmao
stop stealing english ideas and pretending they came somewhere else

>>17785130
>americans
These lies come from coping brown people. No American school curriculum says that enlightenment or American political theory came from the natives. They always talk about the early settlers being English and transplanting radical English ideas. Stop making up reasons to hate Americans.

Are these any good?

>>17785593
Or this one? Not too sure about the whole "semi-fictional" thing they have going on

>>17785103
>Still, their voices were not by any means entirely erased or obscured. Missionary reports—especially the ones known as Jesuit Relations—were written in part to instruct future missionaries on what they could expect in their missions.
>And while they are correct to say that this literature played a role in the genesis of Enlightenment thought, so did many other things
Ignoring this, Graeber & Wengrow anticipated this argument. Which is why they go out of their way to show Lahontan's relationship with the Wendat at large and distinguish his accounts from the wholly hypothetical European literature that he influenced. The notion that Lahontan, the Jesuits, or anyone else who recorded the thoughts of Natives were trying to sneak radical ideas through the backdoor is an implicit refusal of a very simple fact: Natives were just as capable of forming political opinions as Europeans were.

>>17785124
I was the anon who made that initial post. There's a reason I didn't say "the enlightenment came from the natives." Saying X or Y was the only cause of a movement as broad as the Enlightenment to the exclusion of every other idea is willful ignorance.

Instead, I suggested there's a reason that it arose after prolonged interaction between Europeans and Native Americans. A European could have independently came up with a critique of absolute monarchy, money, and every other fixture of their reality. But they wouldn't be able to prove such a radically society could ever exist. After learning how Native Americans lived, that idea went from fantasy to empirical fact.

The subtitle is very self explanatory it also talks about the barbary pirates and it has a strong focus on historical characters like Turgut and La Valette

>>17786006
>A European could have independently came up with a critique of absolute monarchy, money, and every other fixture of their reality. But they wouldn't be able to prove such a radically society could ever exist. After learning how Native Americans lived, that idea went from fantasy to empirical fact.
Yes they did you lying rat
The anglos, who invented the liberal enlightenment, literally had the magna carta and anglo saxon england as proof of democracy, along with the rediscovery of germania by tacitus
They had these ideas long before any contact with the native americans
Notice how you ignore my posts and don't respond to them because your idea that le natives influenced liberals was completely blown the fuck out by the reality that democracy and critiques of modernity existed in england long before any contact with native americans
why do you keep trying to claim anglo ideas as your own?

>>17786035
When did the Magna Carta explicitly repudiate land ownership and the concept of money? Was Cromwell against monarchy as a form of government, or was popery of Charles I his principal concern? The "democracy" and "critiques of modernity" you're describing are nowhere near as radical as the ideas that flourished by the time conversations with Native Americans, both real and imagined, were being published in the 1700s.

>>17786074
They literally existed in the 16th and 17th century
Please tell me how algernon sidney had contact with native americans. Please tell me how george buchanan was in contact with feather indians.
you lying culturally appropriating rat

>>17786006
>Saying X or Y was the only cause of a movement as broad as the Enlightenment to the exclusion of every other idea is willful ignorance.
Willful ignorance of what exactly? Nobody is saying that it's impossible for anything else to help cause the Enlightenment. There is just a denial of the idea that simply because Z could have been a helping factor therefore Z is. Your claim is quite literally just that because Native Americans had a more egalitarian system when meeting the Europeans, then the Enlightenment came as a result partly due to that. There's no substance here, no evidence, nothing but a coincidence of events. It also ignores other groups that were MUCH closer to the Europeans and could serve the same role, of which there are numerous examples. Even if were to take this claim of Native American contribution to be true it would only make history more confusing. Why didn't other groups of similar governance make the same influence? What exact ideas came from European interaction with Native Americans? At least with X and Y we know for a fact they contributed because authors responsible for the Enlightenment quite literally work within and quote preexisting frameworks of philosophy and law rather than some vague "some people with egalitarian system interacted with Europeans causing Enlightenment." Acting like you're learning something new by saying Native Americans could have helped ultimately does nothing to change anything about how we understand the Enlightenment.

>But they wouldn't be able to prove such a radically society could ever exist
This is your prime error. They already knew such societies existed. For a long time.

This was an interesting read. The author goes through the history of sea states like the Phoenician city states, the Greek city states, Carthage, Rhodes, Venice, the Netherlands, and England. He wanted to focus on powers who could live or die based on a naval battle. He covers the Portuguese and the Spanish but he considers both of them to be insufficiently mercantile in Lisbon and Madrid to be true seapower states. He puts great powers like Persia, America, and France into that category of nations which possess a great navy but which do not live or die on the basis of maritime commerce alone. All in all it was a thought provoking read.

>>17786025
Interesting subject matter

>>17786117
Again, their critiques weren't fundamentally attacking the foundations of European society (let alone repudiating Christianity) in the way those Native critiques were. You're welcome to keep believing there's a single line from the Glorious Revolution to the Enlightenment if the alternative upsets you that much.

>>17786129
>Willful ignorance of what exactly? Nobody is saying that it's impossible for anything else to help cause the Enlightenment. There is just a denial of the idea that simply because Z could have been a helping factor therefore Z is.
Even that refutation that was previously linked concedes that Jesuit dialogues with Native Americans influenced Enlightenment thought. There's more evidence for "is" rather than "could have."

>It also ignores other groups that were MUCH closer to the Europeans and could serve the same role
The entire point was that they were politically as far from Europeans as you could get. But the book mentions that other thinkers did what you're suggesting:
>Even more strikingly, just about every major French Enlightenment figure tried their hand at a Lahontan-style critique of their own society, from the perspective of some imagined outsider. Montesquieu chose a Persian; the Marquis d’Argens a Chinese; Diderot a Tahitian; Chateaubriand a Natchez; Voltaire’s L’Ingénu was half Wendat and half French.
But the following is key:
>All took up and developed themes and arguments borrowed directly from Kandiaronk, supplemented by lines from other ‘savage critics’ in travellers’ accounts. - Page 70
It's more specious to suggest that Native influence on the Enlightenment is pure speculation when you have Enlightenment thinkers borrowing arguments from actual Native Americans. Once again, they were still incorporating these into a western philosophical framework that had existed for centuries. But these radical ideas were Native nonetheless.

>>17786074
Ever heard od the Levellers or the Diggers? And the Enlightenment and American Constitutionalism wasn’t about rejecting property or money. Wtf are you on about?

>>17775855
bumping for this. Can you niggas PLEASE help me

>>17775855

>>17782974
>Most gayest reply ever.
Till you posted yours to still the title.
>How is this one?
Looks boring.

>>17783028
>native americans influencing anything about the british or american political systems
It was British and Americans that did influencing when they were awed by natives

>>17783062
Thanks. Well hopefully someone can find something on the Khmer Rouge thing.

>>17786035
Why you so rude you judaized faggot?
Anon my be right or wrong but you argue like a jew.

>>17786468
>Wtf are you on about?
Nta but about the book and things that was written there. You didn't read it as anyone who read it can see and argue from your entrenched political position.

>>17786528
How is being pro-European civilization being Jewish?

>>17786495
This is more of an overview which might mention this aspect.

>>17786495
Also
>King Zog
Wtf

>>17786589
Playing dumb again?
That is what I am speaking of. You argue like a jew.

>>17780722

>>17786604
Not the same anon buddy

>>17780722
How is picrel?

>>17773618
4U anon. Pic related
>>17775085
>Unfortunately, good books that cover the Gilded Age are kind of few and far
I've run into this problem and it's a real shame. You can pick up really fascinating tidbits about the American Gilded Age through other sources. For instance, "The Victorian Internet", provides really interesting insights into American Telegraph operator culture, which would much later form the underlying primordial bedrock to early and modern internet culture.
Another was tidbit I came across was a podcast that went into detail on the advent of the Sears Catalogue and how it killed the General Store, making a parallel with how Amazon is killing the Big Box Stores.
I would love to read more because I feel we're currently entering into or in America's second Gilded Age.
I have managed to find a book called "Decadent Culture in the United States: Art and Literature against the American Grain, 1890-1926" That I just started yesterday. I've only just made it through the preamble but I think this is going to be a good ride.

>>17776192
This is on my reading list.
>>17776248
>The Radicals were just the flipside of the Slave Power coin with their autistic screeching and holier-than-thou attitude toward anyone who wasn't as hardcore an abolitionist as John 'He Marches On' Brown.
I can't because you're right.
Honestly if John Brown never led his revolt I feel like a negotiated settlement could've been reached between the two sides with the help of the Mid-westerners.

>>17773618
>ornithologist opines about history.
being a mathematician I am exactly as qualified to explain history as he is.

>>17775345
could you survive permanently underwater? goldfish can.

>>17775345
Yes.

>>17783018
>It's also pretty widely documented that parts of the American Constitution were inspired by the political systems of Northeast Woodlands native americans
This isn’t true.

>>17786025
You can't really go wrong with Crowley at least in terms of telling a good story. I have no idea how he's viewed as an actual historian since IIRC he's more a just a guy who likes ships and that led him to doing a lot of maritime history.

>>17785594
Currently reading this. Its pretty good but it can get pretty slow in parts. Still a good read though and I'm looking forward to the rest of the series if its as long and detailed as the first book.

Bump

Has /his/ taken the Anglopill?

Peasants vs. capitalistic farmers:
- The peasant "owner" cannot legally sell family land without permission of children
- A peasant must divide land equally between children; there is no real last will and testament
- Peasants marry young, have children young, and use the children for farm work
- Multiple generations live in the same household
- Poor subsistence farmers

Capitalistic farmers:
- A living man has no heirs and can buy and sell land freely
- An Englishman was free to give his children as much or as little as he wanted, meaning they were at risk of being disinherited if they disappointed him, but land must never be divided; it has to go to only one heir
- Englishmen married late and hired labor instead of using their own children for work; this led to a cash economy
- The nuclear family was the norm as far back as records go
- Rich market traders

tl;dr:
> The English have never been peasants as far as records can reliably show, going back as far as ~1250, according to "The Origins of English Individualism"

>>17788815
>we escaped uniform feudalism with a uniform solution as opposed to that not existing anywhere else
give me a break