By "history's London" do you mean the history of London? If so, the correct expression is "The history of London" or "London's history".
Correct forms would be:
London's history is closely bound up with England's history.
London's history is closely bound up with that of England.
London's history is closely bound up with the history of England.
"Of" makes it possessive, so you don't also add "'s" to "England".
Our findings are different from the findings of John et al (2014).
or
Our findings are different from the findings of John et al. (2014).
"et al" is short for the Latin "et alii". So "et" of itself is not an abbreviation and does not call for a period. thefreedictionary.com says to put a period after "al". I think I usually see it with no periods at all.
Our findings are different from John et al.'s (2014) findings.
Typically we put the publication date immediately after the title or author, not at the end of the sentence. I suppose this could depend on the style guide that you are using.
Our findings are different from those of John et al. (2014).
Like an earlier one, the "of" indicates possession, so you do not also use an "'s". Or if you were thinking you need an "s" to make it plural, "et al" means "and others" and so is already plural. While most English plurals end with an "s", you shouldn't add one when they don't.
Our findings are different from those of John et al. (2014).
Ends up the same as the previous.
So let's see, what general rules came out of that?
The history of London is "London's history", not "history's London".
To make a possessive, you can use "of" or you can use "'s". Don't use both. "England's history" or "history of England", not "history of England's". To be technical, perhaps I should add that that last could be correct if you were using "history of England" as the "owner" of something. Like, "The history of England's importance can be seen by ..." Here "England" modifies "history", but then "history of England" as a unit modifies "importance". We could also write that, "The importance of the history of England can be seen by ..."
Technicality: It's "et al.", not "et.al". "Al" is the abbreviation; "et" is a complete word.
1John et al. means John and others so it is already plural - there is no need to add any further pluralising characters. Notice the punctuation of et al. the period is after al not between at and al. – Frank – 2014-09-25T06:00:02.497
It is also common to have a space between et and al. – painfulenglish – 2014-09-25T07:27:09.600
so, merely is the last one incorrect? and what about my original question? – nima – 2014-09-25T08:22:30.847
I think you mean London's history, not history's London. – snailplane – 2014-09-25T12:31:14.743
There is no dot between "et" and "al". There is a dot following "al" because it is an abbreviation. (Of "alias" in its declined form "alii".) Also, parentheses snug up against their contents and always have a leading and trailing spaces between them and the rest of their containing sentences. – Codeswitcher – 2015-02-27T05:05:31.510