Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
This sort of approach I find is particularly common in the popular-oriented military history space and I find it very frustrating. Especially because there is also great scholarly work that often comes out of the same presses - but how is the lay reader to know which is which?https://twitter.com/pptsapper/status/1357439613560909830 …
You see a *lot* of this in the reviews in the Journal of Military History, for instance - lots of reviewers looking at books on good topics, but which just don't have the research or expertise to bring it home, written typically by non-academics in popular presses.
Alas, I suspect the $70-a-year membership fee for the Society of Military History (@SMH_Historians ) is going to be much too pricey to be worth it for the lay reader merely to find out which books are serious.
But if you are *really* into Milhist, you should check it out!
I've found skim-reading the bibliography to be a useful heuristic for gauging how serious a book is, regardless of subject. I'm just a biologist, but I can see whether you're quoting Tacitus and archaeological journals, or the National Geographic. (Same for other pop-sci topics.)
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
