History Wolf

Few people are interested in foreign history such as ancient times (ancient Egypt), or even foreign history in ancient times. I don't want to express anything. I just want to write less about foreign history and modern content in the future. I'm not interested. If I want to read modern content, I might as well read urban articles. Come on. Update to at least 81W,

The author's score should be improved quickly. I want to see your opponent update a hundred chapters. It's true that his update is too slow. And I want to see you two fighting each other. I'm sure of this.

I'm waiting for you to reach 801,000 words and let Lao Hei add 100 chapters.

Since the author is a history major, he should be able to find it, right? Source of the paper - China National Knowledge Infrastructure.

I was just wondering who would survive to the end of the book written by an author who studied economics or an author who studied history?

The author was shivering with cold on the cold street, looking at the few poor recommendation votes in his hand, and muttering that with just one more vote, he could surpass the previous one. At this time, I was passing by holding 4 recommendation tickets in my hand. The author's eyes burst out with longing. I squatted down, raised my hand, shook it and said: Do you want these recommendation tickets? Author: Nod like crazy. I hey hey. Tear~ (the sound of recommendation tickets being torn apart), if you still want tickets at your update speed, just dream. Then I turned away. Only the author's lonely figure is left. The author looked at the two halves of recommendation votes on the ground with a distressed face and murmured Why is this happening, eh eh eh

Well, I am a PhD candidate in history. Previously, my research on history had hit a bottleneck. To be precise, it is stuck in a theoretical bottleneck. Because I got confused when sorting out other people's academic history. On the one hand, I feel like everyone else has already done it, and it's hard for me to start. On the other hand, the lack of theoretical support made me at a loss when facing the data, and I didn't know how to analyze it. It can be said that Chen Ai's experience awakened me, and I even read the books cited by the author, which gave me the power of theoretical analysis again. Therefore, I would like to thank the author here and hope that the author can read through the difficulties.

So pretty, so pretty, so pretty Fairy grass, fairy grass, fairy grass,

This guy has a saying that is really good. If you want to read it into the paper, you don't need historical science popularization...

If you write a few hundred words and the content doesn't match, I'll cut it off, so I'll keep it short and say as little as possible. The general meaning is that it is difficult to combine urban literature with historical literature, and the relationship between the two must be balanced. The author's writing style in this book is indeed a bit poor. I read urban literature a few years ago and all had this kind of plot. The difference is that the protagonist is not pretending to be historical (in other words, this book is good) Like the reborn scholar Ba Wen a long time ago?), Of course, there are many differences, but when you write an urban novel, you have to have a plot, and then add miscellaneous quotations from scriptures... I think the archaeological documents are more useful, so it is better to let the protagonist also Go to live broadcast (like the book I mentioned above), so that you can use live broadcast to introduce historical knowledge. Archeology is of course essential (of course there is a big difference between historical texts and archaeological texts. After all, many scripture references have been proven wrong by archeology), and the live broadcast introduction does not require so much writing, which will naturally make it easier to read (in fact, most urban texts seem to be either very good or very poor), and the author does not need to care about so many schools and urban plots (pretending to slap the face, etc.). Of course, the author is trying to promote correct history and the history academy, but... I feel that the portrayal is too ordinary.