Is this book historically accurate?
It is a popular and simplified summary of lots of more rigorous work.
It has some merits and is very readable but it should not be taken too seriously.
>>1371179
It isn't even written by a historian, so no. It is some guy throwing theories around, it isn't meant to be historically accurate.
>>1371179
>broad, sweeping conclusions based on halfbaked "facts"
>written by someone without any expertise in history
>mostly consists of assumptions
It's basically /his/ in print form.
can anyone recommend me good book on summerians
>>1371221
I thought the history was accurate (meaning facts like 'x happened in x year'), but his theories were pretty sketchy or inconsistent?
Things like ignoring agency of the civilisations or cultural effects like different religions and the like are ignored. (early on something that bothered me was his insistence that all people are equal in intelligence, then immediately goes on to argue that Papua new guiniean people are smarter because they don't watch tv)
I personally enjoyed reading it, especially learning about the spread of languages and the like. As said he, I didn't take it as gospel.
I think that's where frustration comes from with this book, so many people have only read this book and take it as fact. Even a friend of mine was arguing determinedly that western civilzation was shit and China dominated history. When I argued about Western influence in law, society, arts and science being more widespread he dismissed it and said "bro, read guns, germs and steel..." (I'd already read it)
I personally really enjoyed "Civilization: The west and the rest" by Niall Ferguson for his theory on why the west became dominant (and is currently in downfall).
Anyone else read this one? I've read a lot of his stuff and really enjoyed all of it. I found it interesting to read both and compare.
No, Jared Diamond is not a historian and repeatedly misunderstands historiography.
The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy by Kenneth Pomeranz is better on why China didn't have an industrial revolution
>>1371425
Honestly, not an expert on Jared Diamond, but there are plenty of posts criticizing his work all over the place, all you need to do is just google "criticisms of guns, germs, and steel" and you would find better arguements of why /his/ feels the way it does than I, or anyone else here, could give you.
>>1371449
Oh no I've read them, and mostly agree.
Just thought that most of the time people acknowledged the history was interesting but the theory had holes.
Also just sharing my personal thoughts on the book.
