The famous ones would be Montesquieu and Hume. But he and a lot more historians, esp Bernard Bailyn have pointed to a wide range of republican thinkers, especially radical Whig pamphleteers of the early 18th century (people like Trenchard and Gordon), as dominating the thinking of the revolutionary generation, instead of Locke, Locke, Locke, as had been previously presumed. To quickly gloss the argument. These pamphleteers plus people like Pope and Swift expressed a great fear toward the commercial revolution going on in England during the 18th century as endangering virtue, which was the central ideal of the day. Virtue meant the ability to set oneself apart from one's own personal interests (interest was the 18th century antonym of virtue) and look out for the common good. This had been accomplished, for these pamphleteers, in ancient Roman and Greek societies (thus all the people calling themselves Cato, Publius, etc.) and was sorely lacking in England as the commercial revolution brought the corruption of stock markets, newly moneyed men, increasing public debt, etc. All around them, they saw corruption. The only thing that could stop corruption was the action of disinterested men (those without obligations to a master, really, for many republican theorists, only those living on land rents) who could look out for the public good and protection of virtue free of interest. These arguments were most embraced in America (the most republican place in the world according to Wood) because of the truncated nature of its society, without true aristocracy or the massive grinding poverty of England. As the commercial revolution and a wider social revolution against patriarchy weakened monarchy from the inside, republicanism stepped into the void, providing a vision of rule by disinterested individuals gathered together to seek the common good. The most vituous are those who would shun power and commercial opportunity, thus the actions of George Washington who returns to his farm after the Revolution (as Cincinnatus) and refuses an offer of shares in a Virginia canal company when offered by the state legislature (that he financially needed) because they would create the impression that he was not virtuous. All to live up to the classical ideal of a republican leader. Even as they did this, of course, the commercial revolution continued, eventually leading to the erasure of disinterestedness as the key component for political participation and leading to the participation of all free white men. But this is a product of the revolution and not a precursor. There is little talk of Lockian individualism prior to the 1790s. Part of the brilliance of Wood's book is how he charts the changing nature of social bonds, from the vertical bonds of monarchy to the communitarian bonds of republicanism to the individualism of democracy.
In my view, James McPherson's The Battle Cry of Freedom, a one volume history of the the Civil War, should be required reading of every college student in the nation.
Look Away!: A History of the Confederate States of America and An Honorable Defeat: The Last Days of the Confederate Government both by William C. Davis.
John Keegan kicks ass. Im halfway through 'The First World WAr' His 'Price of Admiralty' is superb. My favorite history book, the one I read at ten years of age, which made me a history geek, is 'Nicholas and Alexandra' by Robert Massie. He has an impressive library including the daunting 'Dreadnaught' which is worth the slog. Ed Lincolns 'Romanovs' stands out. My alo anti-mater < Northern Illinois U. advertised Lincoln as a faculty member. the entire time I was there he was on sabatical. I think they paid him to use his name. Bastards. Of course, William Shirers 'Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' is a standard. For sheer voyeurism 'the Arms of Krupp' by William Manchaster is hard to beat. It chronicals the generationaly increasing eccentricities of the German armaments dynasty.
Get Face of Battle as soon as you're done with First World War (which is pretty good but not his best). And did you also read Peter the Great by Massie? I don't know if I'll ever read another of his books because they're indeed such a slog, but it was a superb portrait of a man and his times.
There are some, including at least one poster here on BS, that kind of view Beevor as somewhat of a "pop-star" historian, long on style but short on substance. I've not read the book about the fall of Berlin, but IMHO the Stalingrad book was excellent.
Illustrated edition of McPherson's classic recently released: Mix of old standby CW battleground imagery (drawings/primative photography) and some new Brady images, and a few unreleased daguerotypes from Carlisle Army Barracks and elsewhere. Worth acquiring.
Reaqd them both. I think it took as long to read about Perter Is war with Sweden as it took to fight it. Do try 'Arms of Krupp' Its full of jaw dropping incidents. I recommend 'Shrub' by Molly Ivans as well.
Read Krupp years and years ago..still on my shelf though. And Shrub..well, that's pretty close to politics and maybe not so much history (as much as I love Molly I.)
The only controversial thing I can think about either book is his, correct, opinions on Eisenhower's decision to allow the Russians to capture Berlin.
Why don't we break up this thread by topic? In all honesty, posting ancient history books next to books on the capture of Stalingrad completely eliminates any flow to the thread.
I'd like to add to the praise of Keegan. I read Six Armies in Normandy for my college World War II history class and still have it to this day. I should probably get the revised copy, too. From that same class, I actually wore out John L. Stokesbury's A Short History of World War II and bought a replacement copy.
Military history is by far the most widespread "popular history" that men read. So that's only natural to be the first thread. This isn't an attempt to belittle military history, by the way; the school from which I got my BS had one of the better military history departments in the country. Supposedly Geoffrey Parker even taught in our history department. Not that any of us ever actually saw him.
Misha Glenny's The Fall Of Yugoslavia is a good primer on the recent history of the region. His follow-up, The Balkans, is also quite good, although after a point I have a hard time keeping the names of the important people straight. Probably a good thing I didn't major in history. Brian Hall's memoir is a good companion book: And no discussion of history books is complete without . . .