What do you think?
Rate this book
Occidente: Un racconto lungo 4000 anni
In un’opera innovativa e magistrale di immensa portata, ricca di episodi memorabili, Quinn dimostra in modo convincente che la mescolanza di culture, generata dai commerci e dalle migrazioni, è antica quanto la civiltà stessa.
L’Occidente, così racconta la vulgata, è stato costruito sulle idee e sui valori greco-romani, idee e valori assopiti in Europa durante i lunghi secoli medievali e poi riscoperti nel corso del Rinascimento. Josephine Quinn sostiene invece che la vera storia dell’Occidente sia molto più ampia e complessa di questo paradigma consolidato. Gran parte della nostra memoria comune è andata perduta, oscurata dalla teoria – sviluppata in epoca vittoriana – delle “civiltà separate”. Passando dall’Età del Bronzo all’epoca delle grandi esplorazioni, Occidente ripercorre millenni di incontri e scambi globali, rivelando come le società si siano, da sempre, confrontate e intrecciate. Dall’invenzione dell’alfabeto da parte di lavoratori levantini in Egitto all’arrivo dei numeri indiani in Europa attraverso il mondo arabo, Quinn spiega che il tentativo di studiare – e comprendere – le società antiche come entità isolate è obsoleto e sbagliato. Sono i contatti e le connessioni a guidare il cambiamento, dunque non sono i popoli a fare la storia, ma le persone.
L’Occidente, così racconta la vulgata, è stato costruito sulle idee e sui valori greco-romani, idee e valori assopiti in Europa durante i lunghi secoli medievali e poi riscoperti nel corso del Rinascimento. Josephine Quinn sostiene invece che la vera storia dell’Occidente sia molto più ampia e complessa di questo paradigma consolidato. Gran parte della nostra memoria comune è andata perduta, oscurata dalla teoria – sviluppata in epoca vittoriana – delle “civiltà separate”. Passando dall’Età del Bronzo all’epoca delle grandi esplorazioni, Occidente ripercorre millenni di incontri e scambi globali, rivelando come le società si siano, da sempre, confrontate e intrecciate. Dall’invenzione dell’alfabeto da parte di lavoratori levantini in Egitto all’arrivo dei numeri indiani in Europa attraverso il mondo arabo, Quinn spiega che il tentativo di studiare – e comprendere – le società antiche come entità isolate è obsoleto e sbagliato. Sono i contatti e le connessioni a guidare il cambiamento, dunque non sono i popoli a fare la storia, ma le persone.
565 pages, Paperback
First published February 29, 2024
849 people are currently reading
12392 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 192 reviews
March 5, 2024
I think the following quote from the book sums it up perfectly:
"Many people in ancient times spent their whole lives in small worlds revolving around farm and family, travelling no further than a local festival, shrine or market. Others, though, lived on the road - or more often on the sea learning each other's languages, settling in each other's lands and cities and adopting each other's gods. They told each other stories as well, living cultural counterparts to the glittering objects that now fill museum cabinets. Together, they created an overlapping set of legends, gods and heroes all across the Mediterranean, and then used them to tell more local stories."
The book explains how the fluidity of movement influenced the cultural development of early western societies. In many ways the influence of the east which was exemplified in Peter Frankopan's masterful book "Silk Roads" is a compliment to this book. Interestingly, the author of this book and Frankopan are colleagues at the same Oxford college.
This book shows how eastern merchants, sailors and armies gave the early Greeks religion (gods), mythologies, the template for building ships and exploring other lands. Thus the eastern influence on western culture, science,technology and in particular the use of an alphabet (writing) would create the basis of the Homeric legends that are so celebrated in the west.
This is a well written book that would appeal to anyone interested in ancient history and culture.
With thanks to Net Galley for the opportunity to read an advanced electronic copy of the book.
"Many people in ancient times spent their whole lives in small worlds revolving around farm and family, travelling no further than a local festival, shrine or market. Others, though, lived on the road - or more often on the sea learning each other's languages, settling in each other's lands and cities and adopting each other's gods. They told each other stories as well, living cultural counterparts to the glittering objects that now fill museum cabinets. Together, they created an overlapping set of legends, gods and heroes all across the Mediterranean, and then used them to tell more local stories."
The book explains how the fluidity of movement influenced the cultural development of early western societies. In many ways the influence of the east which was exemplified in Peter Frankopan's masterful book "Silk Roads" is a compliment to this book. Interestingly, the author of this book and Frankopan are colleagues at the same Oxford college.
This book shows how eastern merchants, sailors and armies gave the early Greeks religion (gods), mythologies, the template for building ships and exploring other lands. Thus the eastern influence on western culture, science,technology and in particular the use of an alphabet (writing) would create the basis of the Homeric legends that are so celebrated in the west.
This is a well written book that would appeal to anyone interested in ancient history and culture.
With thanks to Net Galley for the opportunity to read an advanced electronic copy of the book.
September 25, 2024
I don’t understand referring to israel with the implication that it always existed, and mentioning gaza as an afterthought only for its port and trade further down
April 26, 2024
A great `first Chapter..for me it was downhill from there
I only managed the first 13 chapters. There was no point in continuing as I was only being bombarded with seemingly disaporganised facts I would forget, with no signposting, no reference back to the bigger themes. After such a fantastic first chapter, I had great expectations, but then was plunged into a mire of what seemed like a stream of historical consciousness. Perhaps the author just knows too much and didn’t have a good editor? or didn’t take their advice? Anyway..I see other 5 star reviews so I recognise there must be something there of value, just not for me.
I only managed the first 13 chapters. There was no point in continuing as I was only being bombarded with seemingly disaporganised facts I would forget, with no signposting, no reference back to the bigger themes. After such a fantastic first chapter, I had great expectations, but then was plunged into a mire of what seemed like a stream of historical consciousness. Perhaps the author just knows too much and didn’t have a good editor? or didn’t take their advice? Anyway..I see other 5 star reviews so I recognise there must be something there of value, just not for me.
August 22, 2024
This is a sweeping celebration of ‘glocalisation’: ‘the way that as more places become involved in broader economic and cultural networks, they tend to emphasise, rediscover, or even invent their own local customs and identities’ (p.86). The term ‘the West’ is a nineteenth-century invention, a civilisational myth-making based on geographical curiosities misused as an ideological weapon. It should be obvious that ‘the continents were from the beginning products of human imagination, not of the natural world’ (p.211). The etymology of the word ‘Europe’ betrays its contrived origins.
History is continuous, and ‘the study of antiquity disproves the idea that everyone is born with a fixed ethnic identity tied to specific people by ancestry or ancestral territory’ (p.110). Roman identity, for example, ‘was never an ethnic concept but one based on citizenship, which could be earned through service to the state—or, for the enslaved, to its citizens’ (p.267).
The ever-interconnectedness of our world means we choose who we want to be, rather than merely succumbing to so-called ‘influences’. As the subtitle of the book implies, Ancient and Antiquity Histories are explored extensively to show their significance in understanding ‘the West’. It demonstrates repeatedly that cultural differences are based more on contact with other people and places than on local factors. The modern concept of nationalism is fantastical because ‘societies have always been entangled with the worlds around them in both space and time’ (p.332). Using archaeological finds, ancient DNA analyses, and radioisotope studies, the book provides evidence to support this view. Naturally, modern despots of the nationalist kind will not like to see these.
External threats often cause inward, in-group delusional sentiments. As it happened, ‘an ever more homogeneous Latin Christian way of life developed across much of Europe’ around the time of the Third Crusade (p.373). Despite this, ‘stories that people were really reading in medieval Europe were mobile, multicultural tales told across creeds and cultures through serial translations’ (p.391).
The book concludes with the so-called ‘Age of Exploration’, which was also an age of ‘ethnic cleansing and imperial conquest’ (p.404). It serves as a warning: the triumph of cosmopolitanism can be interrupted by ignorance and barbarism. How well we shape our world depends on how wisely we conceptualise it.
It’s indeed an amazing work. Five stars.
History is continuous, and ‘the study of antiquity disproves the idea that everyone is born with a fixed ethnic identity tied to specific people by ancestry or ancestral territory’ (p.110). Roman identity, for example, ‘was never an ethnic concept but one based on citizenship, which could be earned through service to the state—or, for the enslaved, to its citizens’ (p.267).
The ever-interconnectedness of our world means we choose who we want to be, rather than merely succumbing to so-called ‘influences’. As the subtitle of the book implies, Ancient and Antiquity Histories are explored extensively to show their significance in understanding ‘the West’. It demonstrates repeatedly that cultural differences are based more on contact with other people and places than on local factors. The modern concept of nationalism is fantastical because ‘societies have always been entangled with the worlds around them in both space and time’ (p.332). Using archaeological finds, ancient DNA analyses, and radioisotope studies, the book provides evidence to support this view. Naturally, modern despots of the nationalist kind will not like to see these.
External threats often cause inward, in-group delusional sentiments. As it happened, ‘an ever more homogeneous Latin Christian way of life developed across much of Europe’ around the time of the Third Crusade (p.373). Despite this, ‘stories that people were really reading in medieval Europe were mobile, multicultural tales told across creeds and cultures through serial translations’ (p.391).
The book concludes with the so-called ‘Age of Exploration’, which was also an age of ‘ethnic cleansing and imperial conquest’ (p.404). It serves as a warning: the triumph of cosmopolitanism can be interrupted by ignorance and barbarism. How well we shape our world depends on how wisely we conceptualise it.
It’s indeed an amazing work. Five stars.
April 14, 2024
Good history lesson. Learnt a lot.
October 3, 2024
This is a thoroughly comprehensive book that describes the interactions between what we think of as “Western Civilization” and the rest of the world, going back thousands of years. The author decries 'civilizational thinking' which presumes that civilizations are more or less self-contained and homogenous. She shows how much trade there was in the world even thousands of years ago, using artifacts, written records and DNA evidence.
The book is remarkably well sourced, as might be expected by the person who in January 2025 will become the Chair of Ancient History at Oxford University. What really impressed me was how readable it was, despite the fact that almost every sentence has a source footnoted in the back section of references. In histories like this I look for weasel words like “it could be” or “perhaps”, and there are preciously few of those. Where we don't know something, she admits it. She doesn't speculate much, and when she does, there's usually a reference to back it up.
Rather than civilizations, the book shows that a series of kingdoms and empires rose and fell over time, and even then the borders were blurry.
What I also noticed was how populations and settlements changed based on the changing climate. The 4,000 year stretch is long enough that the world experienced some major warming and cooling trends over centuries, with startlingly strong effects on humans. In a world largely dependent on small scale agriculture and subsistence hunting, this is understandable. It does not bode well, however, for the impact of today's changing climate.
The book is remarkably well sourced, as might be expected by the person who in January 2025 will become the Chair of Ancient History at Oxford University. What really impressed me was how readable it was, despite the fact that almost every sentence has a source footnoted in the back section of references. In histories like this I look for weasel words like “it could be” or “perhaps”, and there are preciously few of those. Where we don't know something, she admits it. She doesn't speculate much, and when she does, there's usually a reference to back it up.
Rather than civilizations, the book shows that a series of kingdoms and empires rose and fell over time, and even then the borders were blurry.
What I also noticed was how populations and settlements changed based on the changing climate. The 4,000 year stretch is long enough that the world experienced some major warming and cooling trends over centuries, with startlingly strong effects on humans. In a world largely dependent on small scale agriculture and subsistence hunting, this is understandable. It does not bode well, however, for the impact of today's changing climate.
Want to read
February 12, 2024Nonfiction Books to Look Out for in Early 2024, recommended by Sophie Roell / Five Books https://bit.ly/42zOhNw
January 1, 2025
Ships back in 2,000 BCE travelled 100-150 kilometers per day, which was 2 to 3 times faster than the fastest canoe or rowboat. The Hittites were the kings of smelting iron oxide – probably by adding carbon to reduce the smelting boiling point. I know we were taught, “he who smelt it, dealt it” but smelters rarely sold their product directly to the consumer. The Hittite’s job was to free iron oxide from its slag; without Hittites, it took me a divorce lawyer to free myself from my slag. By 11th century BCE, Cypriot artisans knew the secret of making iron which then made it the choice for knives, swords, daggers, axes and agricultural tools. “The arrival of iron as a cheaper alternative to bronze had wiped out mass demand for copper and tin (used for bronze)”.
Mediterranean: The Mediterranean had pirate choke points in the first millennium BC at the Strait of Gibraltar, the Sicilian Strait, between the boot of Italy and Greece, and two more at both ends of the Sea of Marmara (Istanbul). Phoenicians were basically people from the Levant, and unlike Trump supporters, they didn’t see themselves as a group. Not one ever called themselves a Phoenician, or wrote a song about “Walk like a Phoenician”. Silver was used as cash back then in the Levant – sealed bags of a certain weight were used before the first stamped coins appeared. Camels were used to transport stuff across the North African desert – they could go 40 to 50 kilometers per day (2x human distance) and could carry a load of up to 250 kilos, and even survive on water once a week.
Chickens were rare back then. They came from “red jungle fowl that lived in the trees in Southeast Asia” and started coming down from the trees when local rice and millet farming offered them a tasty treat down below. Back then race and ethnic purity was “rarely” a thing. Modern Italian comes from medieval Tuscan. The Phoenician language was that of ninth century Tyre. The Greeks used the Tyrian alphabet. By 700 BCE, Athens only had around 5,000 people (a small US town size today), while at this time Tyre had 30,000, and Assyrian Nineveh had more than 100,000. Babylon was the largest city back then with a population of more than 150,000.
It is considered normal to see Western Civ begin in the Greek Aegean and then moving on to Roman Italy. This book briefly goes into stories of the contributions of the other power centers at the time, but this book did not stimulate any rethink of the time period – of course there were contributions to Western Civ from people of that time who were NEITHER Greek nor Roman. Of course, Greeks and Romans didn’t live in a closet. Fun Fact: The Persian Empire at its biggest, was larger than the Roman Empire at its biggest. Any American can tell you about Persian cats, but almost none can tell you where Persia would be on a map, or that Persia changed its name to Iran in 1935. Comically, few Americans could find Iran on a map of the world either. Scythians were merely semi-nomadic shepherds, riders and warriors who rode the Steppe (those who didn’t ride & drink ran a 12 Steppe Program) and produced metal weapons.
Assorted Fun Facts: Hitler had a fantasy that Aryans were white, but they came from central Asia and were also found in ancient Indian and Iranian texts. Persepolis was the ceremonial center of King Darius. Bactria back then, is now known as Afghanistan. Herodotus said Persians learned to have sex with boys from the Greeks. Did Michael Jackson learn from the Greeks or the Persians? Americans are taught about Muslim women having to cover their faces and bodies, but not that Athenian women in Greece also had to cover their heads and sometime wear veils. When Alexander the Great was 20 years old, he had been a general for two years. Diogenes the Cynics (c. 390-323), lived in a jar (you read that right) in Athens and spent his time masturbating. I wonder if he died of a stroke.
Cleopatra married not one but two of her brothers when they were about ten (p.245). I’m surprised the movie Cleopatra didn’t include scenes of her riding both ten-year-old brothers during their nap time – such family entertainment. Parthian riders could shoot arrows backward while on horses in flight. Power in Rome was restricted to a much smaller class than in Ancient Greece. The largest the Roman Empire ever got was under Trajan (r.98-117 CE). By mid-second century CE, Rome had to find 250,000 to 500,000 new slaves per year to “refresh” their slave population. By 180 CE “nearly a third of Roman senators were of African origin. In fact, by the end of second century CE, an African (Severus) ruled Rome. His half-African son Caracalla succeeded him. Rome had more than twenty-five rulers in fewer than fifty years after 235 CE – some of them never even went once to Rome.
By the end of the reign of Augustus, most Roman legions were stationed in Europe, where the greatest threat to the empire was. It was getting clear to Rome’s subjects that they were paying for their own occupation (much like in Gaza and West Bank today) while those occupied were getting nothing in return. Roman territory soon “began to break away in chunks.” In 380 CE pagan activity became illegal under Augustus Theodosius and all Roman subjects had then to kiss the ass of a militant Jesus who suddenly tolerated the cross as justifying violence against fellow humans. The lovely post-380 CE atmosphere of Christianity Uber Alles, and Rules R Us, decreased Mediterranean maritime traffic and Josphine writes, “houses became huts, pottery was now handmade, and farms appeared in cities.”
Think of the Islamic conquest of North Africa this way; incoming Muslims took advantage of the unpopularity of the Roman government in North Africa, and of how much local Berber rebels preferred the newcomers. This led to the period of religious toleration (Convivencia) over the large Iberian territory called “al-Andalus”. Churches, mosques, and synagogues co-existed for hundreds of years, proving Israel could easily do the same in peace if it chose a live in peace with equal rights solution. Islamophobes will never tell you that “the classic works of Greek science and philosophy were translated into Arabic before they were translated into other European languages – including Latin.”
Haters of Russia won’t tell you how Russia began in Kyiv/Kiev (capital of present Ukraine), a commercial capital, where the inhabitants were known as the Rus by 880 CE. Paper comes from second century BCE China. The first paper mill was built in 790’s CE Baghdad. It soon replaced papyrus. The author believes that the Vikings landed in North America in search of timber (they already cut down Iceland’s trees and Greenland had none). Viking settlement “L’Anse aux Meadows” in Newfoundland dates to 1021 CE. Rome and Constantinople broke off relations in 1054 causing the “Great Schism” between Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodoxy. If you meet a true foaming Islamophobe, tell them because of their clear hatred they should then never again say the words “tariff, traffic, bazaar or check” because they were originally Arabic words. The Lateran IV Council of 1215 barred Jews from public office; in 1218, “Jews in England were legally obliged to wear a special badge.”
The Mongols were about conquering, commerce, and offering safe passage at a price. Mongols commanded half the horses of the world during the Mongol height of power. Meanwhile, Africa was gold mining at purities of 98 to 99%, but at the mining expense of lowering local water tables. 3,000 to 5,000 African slaves arrived in Europe annually back then. Americans are consciously taught today by mainstream media to fear China (which never mentions dozens of countries the US has boldly invaded) and our media never tells you that China gave the West siege engines, gunpowder, the sternpost rudder and the compass. You can’t get into a swimming pool w/o kids shouting “Marco… Polo!” However, Ibn Battuta travelled further than Marco Polo but you aren’t taught his name instead because he “ain’t” white and mainstream media is too Islamophobic. In 29 years, Ibn travelled 75,000 miles around the world (leaving and returning to Morocco) yet never got any frequent flyer miles or met a single stewardess. Christian humanists like Petrarch “ignored entirely the literature and learning of the Islamic world.”
Coffee was brewed for the first time, not by Juan Valdez, but in Yemen (another country the US and Israel hates) around 1400. Christians began drinking it (long after the craze for it began) after 1600. The Spanish wiped out the indigenous population of the Canaries (the Guanches) and the islands were switched over to sugar production. “It had taken the Spanish 150 years to exterminate the Guanches.” Today’s Zionists and their American financial backers could have done that in half the time. Amateurs…
Explain this one: “Murano glass beads made in Venice were found in Alaska in contexts dated by radiocarbon to the mid-fifteenth century, before European ships had crossed the Atlantic, suggesting they arrived through the Bering Strait.” Wow…
I fully expected this book to show how the economic and intellectual wealth of the West came first from the West plundering the world …or to show the “World Made the West” in that the West only reached its heights by standing on the shoulders of those it controlled through brute force (after adopting their best ideas w/o credit). This book instead was instead relentlessly apolitical. This book ends with a centrist sold-out sentence that would infuriate esteemed anti-Civ warriors like Derrick Jensen, James C. Scott, David Graeber, Daniel Quinn, and even Gandhi (see his quote on Western Civilization) and Rousseau: Josephine says, “The question we now face is not whether Western Civilization is bad or good, but whether civilizational thinking helps explain much of anything at all.” This book had all the depth of reading a Time/Life book, or something by Rachel Maddow or Megan Kelly. Instead, of this book please read David Graeber’s infinitely more paradigm-shifting book, “The Dawn of Everything”, or please consider Micheal Parenti’s or Derrick Jensen’s terrific writings on history. Centrist Josephine Quinn has zero interest in writing even one sentence critical of Western Civ – anthropologist Graeber, Jensen and others clearly show that indigenous peoples were NEVER into the complete extermination of a people – even armed battles between indigenous always ended short of ethnic genocide. So far, it’s ONLY Western Civilization that doesn’t know when to stop.
Josephine will never tell you how Westerners historically consciously destroyed their land base and then travelled to a new place to destroy its landbase. Just look at the history of wood (John Perlin book) – Cut down all your trees then use force and cut down everyone’s trees (after subduing your neighbors) just because YOU want more. Josephine will never discuss the role of agriculture, capitalism, and gluttonous desire for the profits of militarism in bringing us where we are today. However, this book will be fine with most people because it is intentionally devoid of all politics and civilization critiques, that might make uncomfortable those seated in comfortable armchairs, casually searching for something witty to say during the next dinner conversation.
Mediterranean: The Mediterranean had pirate choke points in the first millennium BC at the Strait of Gibraltar, the Sicilian Strait, between the boot of Italy and Greece, and two more at both ends of the Sea of Marmara (Istanbul). Phoenicians were basically people from the Levant, and unlike Trump supporters, they didn’t see themselves as a group. Not one ever called themselves a Phoenician, or wrote a song about “Walk like a Phoenician”. Silver was used as cash back then in the Levant – sealed bags of a certain weight were used before the first stamped coins appeared. Camels were used to transport stuff across the North African desert – they could go 40 to 50 kilometers per day (2x human distance) and could carry a load of up to 250 kilos, and even survive on water once a week.
Chickens were rare back then. They came from “red jungle fowl that lived in the trees in Southeast Asia” and started coming down from the trees when local rice and millet farming offered them a tasty treat down below. Back then race and ethnic purity was “rarely” a thing. Modern Italian comes from medieval Tuscan. The Phoenician language was that of ninth century Tyre. The Greeks used the Tyrian alphabet. By 700 BCE, Athens only had around 5,000 people (a small US town size today), while at this time Tyre had 30,000, and Assyrian Nineveh had more than 100,000. Babylon was the largest city back then with a population of more than 150,000.
It is considered normal to see Western Civ begin in the Greek Aegean and then moving on to Roman Italy. This book briefly goes into stories of the contributions of the other power centers at the time, but this book did not stimulate any rethink of the time period – of course there were contributions to Western Civ from people of that time who were NEITHER Greek nor Roman. Of course, Greeks and Romans didn’t live in a closet. Fun Fact: The Persian Empire at its biggest, was larger than the Roman Empire at its biggest. Any American can tell you about Persian cats, but almost none can tell you where Persia would be on a map, or that Persia changed its name to Iran in 1935. Comically, few Americans could find Iran on a map of the world either. Scythians were merely semi-nomadic shepherds, riders and warriors who rode the Steppe (those who didn’t ride & drink ran a 12 Steppe Program) and produced metal weapons.
Assorted Fun Facts: Hitler had a fantasy that Aryans were white, but they came from central Asia and were also found in ancient Indian and Iranian texts. Persepolis was the ceremonial center of King Darius. Bactria back then, is now known as Afghanistan. Herodotus said Persians learned to have sex with boys from the Greeks. Did Michael Jackson learn from the Greeks or the Persians? Americans are taught about Muslim women having to cover their faces and bodies, but not that Athenian women in Greece also had to cover their heads and sometime wear veils. When Alexander the Great was 20 years old, he had been a general for two years. Diogenes the Cynics (c. 390-323), lived in a jar (you read that right) in Athens and spent his time masturbating. I wonder if he died of a stroke.
Cleopatra married not one but two of her brothers when they were about ten (p.245). I’m surprised the movie Cleopatra didn’t include scenes of her riding both ten-year-old brothers during their nap time – such family entertainment. Parthian riders could shoot arrows backward while on horses in flight. Power in Rome was restricted to a much smaller class than in Ancient Greece. The largest the Roman Empire ever got was under Trajan (r.98-117 CE). By mid-second century CE, Rome had to find 250,000 to 500,000 new slaves per year to “refresh” their slave population. By 180 CE “nearly a third of Roman senators were of African origin. In fact, by the end of second century CE, an African (Severus) ruled Rome. His half-African son Caracalla succeeded him. Rome had more than twenty-five rulers in fewer than fifty years after 235 CE – some of them never even went once to Rome.
By the end of the reign of Augustus, most Roman legions were stationed in Europe, where the greatest threat to the empire was. It was getting clear to Rome’s subjects that they were paying for their own occupation (much like in Gaza and West Bank today) while those occupied were getting nothing in return. Roman territory soon “began to break away in chunks.” In 380 CE pagan activity became illegal under Augustus Theodosius and all Roman subjects had then to kiss the ass of a militant Jesus who suddenly tolerated the cross as justifying violence against fellow humans. The lovely post-380 CE atmosphere of Christianity Uber Alles, and Rules R Us, decreased Mediterranean maritime traffic and Josphine writes, “houses became huts, pottery was now handmade, and farms appeared in cities.”
Think of the Islamic conquest of North Africa this way; incoming Muslims took advantage of the unpopularity of the Roman government in North Africa, and of how much local Berber rebels preferred the newcomers. This led to the period of religious toleration (Convivencia) over the large Iberian territory called “al-Andalus”. Churches, mosques, and synagogues co-existed for hundreds of years, proving Israel could easily do the same in peace if it chose a live in peace with equal rights solution. Islamophobes will never tell you that “the classic works of Greek science and philosophy were translated into Arabic before they were translated into other European languages – including Latin.”
Haters of Russia won’t tell you how Russia began in Kyiv/Kiev (capital of present Ukraine), a commercial capital, where the inhabitants were known as the Rus by 880 CE. Paper comes from second century BCE China. The first paper mill was built in 790’s CE Baghdad. It soon replaced papyrus. The author believes that the Vikings landed in North America in search of timber (they already cut down Iceland’s trees and Greenland had none). Viking settlement “L’Anse aux Meadows” in Newfoundland dates to 1021 CE. Rome and Constantinople broke off relations in 1054 causing the “Great Schism” between Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodoxy. If you meet a true foaming Islamophobe, tell them because of their clear hatred they should then never again say the words “tariff, traffic, bazaar or check” because they were originally Arabic words. The Lateran IV Council of 1215 barred Jews from public office; in 1218, “Jews in England were legally obliged to wear a special badge.”
The Mongols were about conquering, commerce, and offering safe passage at a price. Mongols commanded half the horses of the world during the Mongol height of power. Meanwhile, Africa was gold mining at purities of 98 to 99%, but at the mining expense of lowering local water tables. 3,000 to 5,000 African slaves arrived in Europe annually back then. Americans are consciously taught today by mainstream media to fear China (which never mentions dozens of countries the US has boldly invaded) and our media never tells you that China gave the West siege engines, gunpowder, the sternpost rudder and the compass. You can’t get into a swimming pool w/o kids shouting “Marco… Polo!” However, Ibn Battuta travelled further than Marco Polo but you aren’t taught his name instead because he “ain’t” white and mainstream media is too Islamophobic. In 29 years, Ibn travelled 75,000 miles around the world (leaving and returning to Morocco) yet never got any frequent flyer miles or met a single stewardess. Christian humanists like Petrarch “ignored entirely the literature and learning of the Islamic world.”
Coffee was brewed for the first time, not by Juan Valdez, but in Yemen (another country the US and Israel hates) around 1400. Christians began drinking it (long after the craze for it began) after 1600. The Spanish wiped out the indigenous population of the Canaries (the Guanches) and the islands were switched over to sugar production. “It had taken the Spanish 150 years to exterminate the Guanches.” Today’s Zionists and their American financial backers could have done that in half the time. Amateurs…
Explain this one: “Murano glass beads made in Venice were found in Alaska in contexts dated by radiocarbon to the mid-fifteenth century, before European ships had crossed the Atlantic, suggesting they arrived through the Bering Strait.” Wow…
I fully expected this book to show how the economic and intellectual wealth of the West came first from the West plundering the world …or to show the “World Made the West” in that the West only reached its heights by standing on the shoulders of those it controlled through brute force (after adopting their best ideas w/o credit). This book instead was instead relentlessly apolitical. This book ends with a centrist sold-out sentence that would infuriate esteemed anti-Civ warriors like Derrick Jensen, James C. Scott, David Graeber, Daniel Quinn, and even Gandhi (see his quote on Western Civilization) and Rousseau: Josephine says, “The question we now face is not whether Western Civilization is bad or good, but whether civilizational thinking helps explain much of anything at all.” This book had all the depth of reading a Time/Life book, or something by Rachel Maddow or Megan Kelly. Instead, of this book please read David Graeber’s infinitely more paradigm-shifting book, “The Dawn of Everything”, or please consider Micheal Parenti’s or Derrick Jensen’s terrific writings on history. Centrist Josephine Quinn has zero interest in writing even one sentence critical of Western Civ – anthropologist Graeber, Jensen and others clearly show that indigenous peoples were NEVER into the complete extermination of a people – even armed battles between indigenous always ended short of ethnic genocide. So far, it’s ONLY Western Civilization that doesn’t know when to stop.
Josephine will never tell you how Westerners historically consciously destroyed their land base and then travelled to a new place to destroy its landbase. Just look at the history of wood (John Perlin book) – Cut down all your trees then use force and cut down everyone’s trees (after subduing your neighbors) just because YOU want more. Josephine will never discuss the role of agriculture, capitalism, and gluttonous desire for the profits of militarism in bringing us where we are today. However, this book will be fine with most people because it is intentionally devoid of all politics and civilization critiques, that might make uncomfortable those seated in comfortable armchairs, casually searching for something witty to say during the next dinner conversation.
April 26, 2024
How the World Made the West is a book with a number of layers to it.
The first is as an a history of Europe from 2000 BCE to 1500 CE. Many people reading this will be limited to an exposure to that in the form of a class titled 'Western Civ' some time in secondary school. But History Marches On, as new discoveries are made and old ones reassessed. It is great, and worth it for the citations alone in compiling the most current work on a broad topic.
The second is a critique on the concept of 'Western' as a coherent thing. The author's position can be summed up as: people, not peoples; civilization, not civilizations. The cultures, cities, and nations that are now considered the West would not think of themselves so, and the author believes that they would find the idea itself confusing and contradictory to their beliefs. Identity is local and, above all else, flexible. Western Civilization is an invention of the 19th century, arising as to justify colonial ambitions, and even a concept like multi-culturalism is flawed.
The third is as polemic, and it is bad as polemic. I was reminded the most of The Daily Wire and the pressing need to dunk on the other side even if it harms the argument itself. Reasonable facts get aggravating conjecture tacked on as dicta. Events are told to accomplish effects that make them misleading. Most irritating is the futzing around with language, where the author uses idiosyncratic definitions or redefines terms. Socrates was killed for that sort of thing is all I am saying.
The first layer makes this a great book. It is probably the most useful history book that I will read this year. The third layer is a problem. I had to stop reading at points out of irritation. I am willing to mark that down as white fragility, but usually it looked like me slamming into paywalls for hours of my life as I tried to substantiate claims, which almost always lead to finding out that they were mostly accurate, it was the weasely bit that was stated as conjecture. But look, if this is what shakes up your paradigm so that you are more in line with modern historical consensus, I am glad. I feel though it probably is going to elicit an audience of who problem.
The second layer...the second layer is the topic that I see most published reviews focusing upon. Here is the thing about that layer: the argument for it stops. It will pop back in, usually on what some specific person did or thought, but from about the description of the Hellenistic period onward it stops, and the book becomes a much more principalities and powers sort of history. Some sections, the collapse of the Roman empire, both east and west for instance, feel downright historically conservative in their presentations. I found myself bouncing between the first and last chapter, trying to triangulate what was going on.
Outside of how everyone seems to forget about the Hellenistic period (shout out to the Hellenistic Age Podcast for pushing back at this), I think that there is something meaningful in the switch starting there. To take a very short go at it, I think that the idea of Western Civilization is of recent imagining, but the question of it, the idea of thinking about it, in and outside of Europe, is an old idea. And I can see why the author might not want to touch that, in the interest of not pulling her punches.
So, if the book had continued in the manner that it started, I would call it skippable. You will learn something but it is more a handbook in how to ruin Thanksgiving. However, its transition away from that to something blander makes it more useful. It does become a strong overview, intentionally broad, still occasionally misleading, but well sourced and well written. It is a good effort in this sort of modern historical reckoning. I am still waiting for someone to write what I think of as the definiative popular history to do it, though.
My thanks to the author, Josephine Quinn, for writing the book, and to the publisher, Random House Publishing, for making the ARC available to me.
The first is as an a history of Europe from 2000 BCE to 1500 CE. Many people reading this will be limited to an exposure to that in the form of a class titled 'Western Civ' some time in secondary school. But History Marches On, as new discoveries are made and old ones reassessed. It is great, and worth it for the citations alone in compiling the most current work on a broad topic.
The second is a critique on the concept of 'Western' as a coherent thing. The author's position can be summed up as: people, not peoples; civilization, not civilizations. The cultures, cities, and nations that are now considered the West would not think of themselves so, and the author believes that they would find the idea itself confusing and contradictory to their beliefs. Identity is local and, above all else, flexible. Western Civilization is an invention of the 19th century, arising as to justify colonial ambitions, and even a concept like multi-culturalism is flawed.
The third is as polemic, and it is bad as polemic. I was reminded the most of The Daily Wire and the pressing need to dunk on the other side even if it harms the argument itself. Reasonable facts get aggravating conjecture tacked on as dicta. Events are told to accomplish effects that make them misleading. Most irritating is the futzing around with language, where the author uses idiosyncratic definitions or redefines terms. Socrates was killed for that sort of thing is all I am saying.
The first layer makes this a great book. It is probably the most useful history book that I will read this year. The third layer is a problem. I had to stop reading at points out of irritation. I am willing to mark that down as white fragility, but usually it looked like me slamming into paywalls for hours of my life as I tried to substantiate claims, which almost always lead to finding out that they were mostly accurate, it was the weasely bit that was stated as conjecture. But look, if this is what shakes up your paradigm so that you are more in line with modern historical consensus, I am glad. I feel though it probably is going to elicit an audience of who problem.
The second layer...the second layer is the topic that I see most published reviews focusing upon. Here is the thing about that layer: the argument for it stops. It will pop back in, usually on what some specific person did or thought, but from about the description of the Hellenistic period onward it stops, and the book becomes a much more principalities and powers sort of history. Some sections, the collapse of the Roman empire, both east and west for instance, feel downright historically conservative in their presentations. I found myself bouncing between the first and last chapter, trying to triangulate what was going on.
Outside of how everyone seems to forget about the Hellenistic period (shout out to the Hellenistic Age Podcast for pushing back at this), I think that there is something meaningful in the switch starting there. To take a very short go at it, I think that the idea of Western Civilization is of recent imagining, but the question of it, the idea of thinking about it, in and outside of Europe, is an old idea. And I can see why the author might not want to touch that, in the interest of not pulling her punches.
So, if the book had continued in the manner that it started, I would call it skippable. You will learn something but it is more a handbook in how to ruin Thanksgiving. However, its transition away from that to something blander makes it more useful. It does become a strong overview, intentionally broad, still occasionally misleading, but well sourced and well written. It is a good effort in this sort of modern historical reckoning. I am still waiting for someone to write what I think of as the definiative popular history to do it, though.
My thanks to the author, Josephine Quinn, for writing the book, and to the publisher, Random House Publishing, for making the ARC available to me.
Read
September 23, 2025Britanska istoričarka Džozefina Kvin polazi od notorne teze da evropska civilizacija, pa i ceo Zapad, počivaju na starom Rimu i još drevnijoj Grčkoj. Ali šta ako to nije tačno? Šta ako se u Termopilskom klancu nije odlučivala sudbina ovog dela sveta u kome danas živimo? Da li je moguće da je podli Ksereks više uticao na izgradnju Evrope nego odvažni Spartanci?
Ovaj uvod više liči na neki SF roman ili teoriju zavere, ali ne brinite. Sve je pod kontrolom racionalnog.
Knjiga „Kako je svet stvorio Zapad“ je priča o tome kako ni Grčka i Rim nisu pali sa neba, već su produkt brojnih uticaja sa drugih kontinenata. Jer istorija nije niz nasumičnih, već uzročno-posledičnih veza, međusobno zavisnih i sveprožimajućih.
Autorka nam priča četiri hiljade godina dugu istoriju sa akcentom na posledice i uticaje koje su događaji imali na potonji razvoj Evrope i Zapada.
Iako pisana se ciljem da bude popularna, nipošto nije površna, već izuzetno ozbiljna, temeljna i opširna.
Za prevod se postarao Goran Skrobonja, tako da ni tu nema greške. Šteta što je mape u dodacima prevodio neko drugi, pa se neki nazivi na mapama ne poklapaju sa nazivima toponima u tekstu.
Moj jedini problem sa knjigom je bio što sam baš suviše toga već znao, jer me baš dosta interesuje istorija, ali dobro. Obnovio sam gradivo sa malo drugačijim pogledom na okolnosti.
Izuzetno dobra knjiga za sve koje interesuje istorija. Naročito nastanak civilizacija oko Sredozemnog mora.
Ovaj uvod više liči na neki SF roman ili teoriju zavere, ali ne brinite. Sve je pod kontrolom racionalnog.
Knjiga „Kako je svet stvorio Zapad“ je priča o tome kako ni Grčka i Rim nisu pali sa neba, već su produkt brojnih uticaja sa drugih kontinenata. Jer istorija nije niz nasumičnih, već uzročno-posledičnih veza, međusobno zavisnih i sveprožimajućih.
Autorka nam priča četiri hiljade godina dugu istoriju sa akcentom na posledice i uticaje koje su događaji imali na potonji razvoj Evrope i Zapada.
Iako pisana se ciljem da bude popularna, nipošto nije površna, već izuzetno ozbiljna, temeljna i opširna.
Za prevod se postarao Goran Skrobonja, tako da ni tu nema greške. Šteta što je mape u dodacima prevodio neko drugi, pa se neki nazivi na mapama ne poklapaju sa nazivima toponima u tekstu.
Moj jedini problem sa knjigom je bio što sam baš suviše toga već znao, jer me baš dosta interesuje istorija, ali dobro. Obnovio sam gradivo sa malo drugačijim pogledom na okolnosti.
Izuzetno dobra knjiga za sve koje interesuje istorija. Naročito nastanak civilizacija oko Sredozemnog mora.
May 19, 2024
A bit of a short review for this one: it's a very enjoyable read that looks carefully at the way it's pretty much impossible to say that a civilisation develops without influence from other places. Fluidity of movement, particularly by means of the sea or river travel, means ideas and inventions moved more easily from place to place than previously thought.
It's an intriguing read, full of lots of interesting detail, and I enjoyed it very much though it's not a book to read in a couple of sittings. Instead, I ended up dipping into it for a chapter or two at a time and liked that experience very much.
I received a free copy of this book from the publisher, via Netgalley. This is my honest review of the book in question.
It's an intriguing read, full of lots of interesting detail, and I enjoyed it very much though it's not a book to read in a couple of sittings. Instead, I ended up dipping into it for a chapter or two at a time and liked that experience very much.
I received a free copy of this book from the publisher, via Netgalley. This is my honest review of the book in question.
May 30, 2024
A new perspective on history and how many of the assumptions Western-centred history is based on ignoring many of the facts and the interconnectedness of cultures well before Greek and Roman "civilisation" came into being. There was far more interconnectedness than we've been led to believe between the different peoples and cultures.
It is a very detailed account with plenty of information that would be very interesting to historians and people looking to learn more. I can see how this would inspire readers to start digging in more detail into ancient history, although it is a book that needs to be read slowly: it moves beyond easy anecdotes and history as entertainment.
A good present for readers interested in ancient history and with an open mind.
It is a very detailed account with plenty of information that would be very interesting to historians and people looking to learn more. I can see how this would inspire readers to start digging in more detail into ancient history, although it is a book that needs to be read slowly: it moves beyond easy anecdotes and history as entertainment.
A good present for readers interested in ancient history and with an open mind.
October 17, 2025
Secondo me il libro fallisce in pieno nel mostrare la tesi con cui parte, cioè che la divisione che l'occidente ha creato sia posticcia e i nostri antenati ben diversi. Spiega troppo, e troppo a lungo, e benché capisca che a livello storico una credenza deve essere spiegata anche dagli avvenimenti, i punti in cui si parla di come gli antichi si consideravano e vedevano il mondo si perde o finisce per diventare un semplice "la gente viaggiava e si parlava" che vale ancora adesso.
Mi è piaciuto perché tra i vari capitoli racconta anche episodi e storie meno note e parla anche di esami scientifici per stabilire le cronologie, ma resta prolisso e verso gli ultimi capitoli, quando la storia si fa complessa, non è che un elenco di vicende rapidissime che non servono a nulla.
Lo consiglierei al massimo a chi di storia è proprio digiuno e vuole un'infarinatura con la possibilità di approfondire poi i singoli periodi.
Mi è piaciuto perché tra i vari capitoli racconta anche episodi e storie meno note e parla anche di esami scientifici per stabilire le cronologie, ma resta prolisso e verso gli ultimi capitoli, quando la storia si fa complessa, non è che un elenco di vicende rapidissime che non servono a nulla.
Lo consiglierei al massimo a chi di storia è proprio digiuno e vuole un'infarinatura con la possibilità di approfondire poi i singoli periodi.
July 13, 2025
I thought this was going to be a history of ideas. Well, there is some history of ideas in the book, to be sure, but it I drowned in an avalanche of almost randomly selected facts in what I would rather call "A history of the regions surrounding the Mediterranean". This is a pity, as the central thesis of the book is quite interesting. Paradoxically, Quinn stops her book exactly at the point where she claims the concept of "Europe" as a distinct civilization was borne.
April 2, 2024
A superb, thought-provoking challenge to long-established assumptions about the origins and rise of Western civilisation.
The core argument is that the dividing lines between cultures are fuzzy and porous, even over long distances, go back far further than one might assume, and that the idea of Europe or "the West" as distinct from "the East", "Asia" or "Africa" is a far more recent concept than many might think.
Is this argument new? No. But it is superbly laid out here, drawing on a vast array of up-to-date evidence from archaeology, tree ring analysis, carbon dating, DNA testing, and much more - as well as an impressive range of primary documentary sources.
Despite the vast scope and timeline - the Persian invasions of Greece in the late 5th century BCE only arrive in chapter 15 of 30 - Quinn does a superb job of keeping the argument coherent and the pace brisk. This is rare for books covering this most ancient of histories, where the evidence is often scant - with the bigger picture connecting thread providing a coherence and focus that more traditional linear histories of these early civilisations often struggle to provide.
This means that for non-specialists this is extremely accessible and highly readable - probably the best introduction to ancient history I've encountered. For the more academically-inclined, copious endnotes point the way to much, much more detail.
Are there things to quibble with? Of course. Religion plays surprisingly little role. I'd also personally have preferred a bit more about travellers' tales and myths in shaping understandings of the world. I'd have been interested too to have more on the rise of intra-European national identities as a contrast to the macro-scale emergence of a sense of West versus East (or Christendom versus Islam), and how this played out during the Crusades in particular.
But that's what makes this such good fun - it's designed to provoke thought and discussion, and succeeds admirably. Having started out listening to the audiobook, halfway through I picked up a hard copy (the maps for each chapter really help, and the notes and index are invaluable), and I'll be re-reading and returning to this again and again to take it all in, and to find more areas to disagree with and explore.
A new favourite.
The core argument is that the dividing lines between cultures are fuzzy and porous, even over long distances, go back far further than one might assume, and that the idea of Europe or "the West" as distinct from "the East", "Asia" or "Africa" is a far more recent concept than many might think.
Is this argument new? No. But it is superbly laid out here, drawing on a vast array of up-to-date evidence from archaeology, tree ring analysis, carbon dating, DNA testing, and much more - as well as an impressive range of primary documentary sources.
Despite the vast scope and timeline - the Persian invasions of Greece in the late 5th century BCE only arrive in chapter 15 of 30 - Quinn does a superb job of keeping the argument coherent and the pace brisk. This is rare for books covering this most ancient of histories, where the evidence is often scant - with the bigger picture connecting thread providing a coherence and focus that more traditional linear histories of these early civilisations often struggle to provide.
This means that for non-specialists this is extremely accessible and highly readable - probably the best introduction to ancient history I've encountered. For the more academically-inclined, copious endnotes point the way to much, much more detail.
Are there things to quibble with? Of course. Religion plays surprisingly little role. I'd also personally have preferred a bit more about travellers' tales and myths in shaping understandings of the world. I'd have been interested too to have more on the rise of intra-European national identities as a contrast to the macro-scale emergence of a sense of West versus East (or Christendom versus Islam), and how this played out during the Crusades in particular.
But that's what makes this such good fun - it's designed to provoke thought and discussion, and succeeds admirably. Having started out listening to the audiobook, halfway through I picked up a hard copy (the maps for each chapter really help, and the notes and index are invaluable), and I'll be re-reading and returning to this again and again to take it all in, and to find more areas to disagree with and explore.
A new favourite.
February 5, 2025
An erudite summary of 4000 years of western civilisation from the Sumerians to the age of exploration.
Quinn challenges the notion of Western civilisation as an independently formed Greco-Roman entity with tact and poise. Instead a wider variety of influences are outlined on the modern West from the Persians, Assyrians and Babylonians in ancient times, to the Ottomans and Mongols in the medieval period.
Where Quinn truly shines is elaborating on the interaction of the Greco-Roman civilisations cultural exchanges with other major powers su h as the Persians, Celts and later Vikings to form Europe. Discourse on the Roman Empire and its role as a trading hub in a larger interconnected network was excellent.
I felt the part on the Age of Exploration was glossed over and the significance of the interactions between Castile and the Almohad’s to influence the literary, economic and religious culture of Europe could use further depth to enhance her central hypothesis.
A worthy historical effort, well worth a read for any enticed by a summary of Western history up to the early renaissance period.
Quinn challenges the notion of Western civilisation as an independently formed Greco-Roman entity with tact and poise. Instead a wider variety of influences are outlined on the modern West from the Persians, Assyrians and Babylonians in ancient times, to the Ottomans and Mongols in the medieval period.
Where Quinn truly shines is elaborating on the interaction of the Greco-Roman civilisations cultural exchanges with other major powers su h as the Persians, Celts and later Vikings to form Europe. Discourse on the Roman Empire and its role as a trading hub in a larger interconnected network was excellent.
I felt the part on the Age of Exploration was glossed over and the significance of the interactions between Castile and the Almohad’s to influence the literary, economic and religious culture of Europe could use further depth to enhance her central hypothesis.
A worthy historical effort, well worth a read for any enticed by a summary of Western history up to the early renaissance period.
June 3, 2024
An impressive display of learning and command of much information and facts. It covers a lot on the theme of the interconnectedness of ancient and medieval empires . However , in my view, although countries, empires have always traded together it really fails to persuade me that this means we are all the same. There is no discussion of the development of liberal democracy and the rights of the individual which distinguish The West from countries such as China and Russia with their autocracies let alone countries such as Iran . The West is a distinctive mindset based on the rights to personal freedom which seems increasingly fragile today.
November 5, 2024
A lot of potential but for me lacked structure and felt rather jarring most of the time. I think some aspects I didn't like might have been improved by reading the book rather than listening to this one though hence the two stars.
December 9, 2024
The connective work the author claims to do does not come through because there is simply too much emphasis on details. The book is a great example of why people don’t like history classes. It misses the forest for the trees. That said, it is thorough.
May 17, 2025
Josephine Quinn's book How The World Made The West became available through my library at the same time that I was reading John Haywood's book, Ocean: A History of the Atlantic Before Columbus. It was an apt book to read in tandom, as both authors were exploring a smiliar place and point and history. The Atlantic's history is interwoven with the history of the West, as the West was born through the storied pages of its crossin.
What seperates the two books is that Haywood is interested in exploring the pre-historic world that gives shape to the Atlantic's eventual occupation on its Eastern shores, seeing that as the lens through which to illuminate its modern identity, while Quinn is focused specifically on a more narrowed sense of the "civilization" that gave rise to what became known as Western "civilization. Quinn's specific relates to exploring how the West is often wrongly represented as a singular response (the modern world) that arises in response to a singular problem (the ancient world), using the enlightenment allegiance to progress to create this sense of "particularism," allowing the West to single itself out as the aim of this progress. Or: better than, set apart, superceded, advanced. Here then this universalism gives rise to the concept of civilizations- us versus them This tendency to rewrite history as a civilizations creates the us versus them conceptions that are so pervasive in this revisionist and reimagined approach to history. In fact, the West is reflective of the world it develops from, a product of varied cultural and societal and historical realities. When we understand this, what it underscores two simple facts- this belief in the uniqueness of western "progress" creates harmful social systems and tendencies which divide the world, and indeed humanity, into parts, and second, it disguises the fact that civilization can only ever be understood as a singular whole, not contained to the west but rooted in the same narrative.
There is a curious point he draws out at the beginning of the book that, while he doesn't connect the dots directly in this way, seems to me to be all but prevelant in the way he fleshes out the body of his argument within the book. In the introduction he points out how the Judeo-Christian narrative encapsulates what history was before the west turned history into competing civilzations- which is a world shaped by shared origins. A single global people sharing a single global story. And what we find inherent to the story of Israel is the history of a people in which all of these connecting cultures and beliefs keep converging in this collecation of people bound by and shaped by the liberation from Empire, the very concept that the West would coopt and use to reinterpret the shape of history according to the narrative of progress. Isreal itself is shaped by the confluence of all these influences coming together with a global identity, creating a society within history that is built on connections, not disconnections or supersessionisms.
It is extremely curious to me then, to see how Quinn appears to talk around the story of israel in this book, coming back to it only where he is forced to, but otherwise speaking of it in theory by way of speaking of these surrounding influences and connections that keep coming back to this singular observation- a global people. This seemed obvious to me. The result is a book that is quite profound in its observations about the worlds function, but a bit evasive in establishing a foundation. If civilization is a universal truth or idea in which we find the different and unique fabrics of our coexisting social and societal constructs, that universal needs a foundation. That foundation, as the intro seems to betray, is the inhernet shared identity or value of all people, precisely because we all share the same source.
Haywood's book actually brings some helpful insight into this reality, as he spends time unpacking a world of shared stories which keep intersecting and overlaping in ways that seem to reflect these universal understandings. By the time we reach the shores of the Atlantic, these shared stories keep repeating themselves within the life of the scattered people and kingdoms and empires. The patterns emerge witin this conceptualization of humanity as a people anchored in this shared identity, even as it expresses itself within different orgin stories. Haywood sees the crossing of the Atlantic, the development of the West, as a a point which in some respects robs the story of its wonder, a necessary facet of its exploration of the world. Similar to how the West's conception of civilizations robs the world of its shared identity.
It's a good book. Heavy on the information at times. I would have liked more direct tie ins to his theories along the way. But for anyone who is interested in the details there's lots here to enjoy.
What seperates the two books is that Haywood is interested in exploring the pre-historic world that gives shape to the Atlantic's eventual occupation on its Eastern shores, seeing that as the lens through which to illuminate its modern identity, while Quinn is focused specifically on a more narrowed sense of the "civilization" that gave rise to what became known as Western "civilization. Quinn's specific relates to exploring how the West is often wrongly represented as a singular response (the modern world) that arises in response to a singular problem (the ancient world), using the enlightenment allegiance to progress to create this sense of "particularism," allowing the West to single itself out as the aim of this progress. Or: better than, set apart, superceded, advanced. Here then this universalism gives rise to the concept of civilizations- us versus them This tendency to rewrite history as a civilizations creates the us versus them conceptions that are so pervasive in this revisionist and reimagined approach to history. In fact, the West is reflective of the world it develops from, a product of varied cultural and societal and historical realities. When we understand this, what it underscores two simple facts- this belief in the uniqueness of western "progress" creates harmful social systems and tendencies which divide the world, and indeed humanity, into parts, and second, it disguises the fact that civilization can only ever be understood as a singular whole, not contained to the west but rooted in the same narrative.
There is a curious point he draws out at the beginning of the book that, while he doesn't connect the dots directly in this way, seems to me to be all but prevelant in the way he fleshes out the body of his argument within the book. In the introduction he points out how the Judeo-Christian narrative encapsulates what history was before the west turned history into competing civilzations- which is a world shaped by shared origins. A single global people sharing a single global story. And what we find inherent to the story of Israel is the history of a people in which all of these connecting cultures and beliefs keep converging in this collecation of people bound by and shaped by the liberation from Empire, the very concept that the West would coopt and use to reinterpret the shape of history according to the narrative of progress. Isreal itself is shaped by the confluence of all these influences coming together with a global identity, creating a society within history that is built on connections, not disconnections or supersessionisms.
It is extremely curious to me then, to see how Quinn appears to talk around the story of israel in this book, coming back to it only where he is forced to, but otherwise speaking of it in theory by way of speaking of these surrounding influences and connections that keep coming back to this singular observation- a global people. This seemed obvious to me. The result is a book that is quite profound in its observations about the worlds function, but a bit evasive in establishing a foundation. If civilization is a universal truth or idea in which we find the different and unique fabrics of our coexisting social and societal constructs, that universal needs a foundation. That foundation, as the intro seems to betray, is the inhernet shared identity or value of all people, precisely because we all share the same source.
Haywood's book actually brings some helpful insight into this reality, as he spends time unpacking a world of shared stories which keep intersecting and overlaping in ways that seem to reflect these universal understandings. By the time we reach the shores of the Atlantic, these shared stories keep repeating themselves within the life of the scattered people and kingdoms and empires. The patterns emerge witin this conceptualization of humanity as a people anchored in this shared identity, even as it expresses itself within different orgin stories. Haywood sees the crossing of the Atlantic, the development of the West, as a a point which in some respects robs the story of its wonder, a necessary facet of its exploration of the world. Similar to how the West's conception of civilizations robs the world of its shared identity.
It's a good book. Heavy on the information at times. I would have liked more direct tie ins to his theories along the way. But for anyone who is interested in the details there's lots here to enjoy.
March 12, 2025
3.5 stars rounded up to 4. It’s a book by a classics professor, so naturally it was of interest to me (my degree is in classics). I loved all the history, especially the recent studies in ancient DNA and recent archaeological finds, which weren’t available to read about back when I was in college. I also loved the way that it brought together the history of many different cultures rather than focusing on any one in particular.
As for her main argument about “the West,” I basically ignored it because I don’t really care.* I didn’t become a classics major because I had a particular reverence for “Western Civilization” as a concept; I was just fascinated by ancient history and loved learning languages.
I really like the way this book doesn’t end with the “fall of Rome” in the 400s AD (which she rightly points out wasn’t the end of Roman civilization; the Byzantines always considered themselves Roman). It continues the story right up until the age of Columbus. In this way, you get to see history as a continuing story; the “Dark Ages” weren’t as dark or uninteresting as we usually tend to think.
Like most classics professors, the author displays the typical dismissive attitude of secular historians toward the Bible as a source of historical knowledge. She even betrays her woeful ignorance of the Bible when she mentions the time when “Yahweh asked King David to build him a temple.” Riiiiiiigght. That’s totally what happened.
However, her scholarship seems impeccable the rest of the time (which makes that lapse stand out all the more). It’s an extremely well-documented work with a zillion footnotes, and just as a gathering of all that scholarship in one place, it’s a valuable book, in my opinion. I quite enjoyed reading it.
*Edit: if you do care about her argument, I found a review on the Gospel Coalition website that gives a pretty good analysis:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/re...
As for her main argument about “the West,” I basically ignored it because I don’t really care.* I didn’t become a classics major because I had a particular reverence for “Western Civilization” as a concept; I was just fascinated by ancient history and loved learning languages.
I really like the way this book doesn’t end with the “fall of Rome” in the 400s AD (which she rightly points out wasn’t the end of Roman civilization; the Byzantines always considered themselves Roman). It continues the story right up until the age of Columbus. In this way, you get to see history as a continuing story; the “Dark Ages” weren’t as dark or uninteresting as we usually tend to think.
Like most classics professors, the author displays the typical dismissive attitude of secular historians toward the Bible as a source of historical knowledge. She even betrays her woeful ignorance of the Bible when she mentions the time when “Yahweh asked King David to build him a temple.” Riiiiiiigght. That’s totally what happened.
However, her scholarship seems impeccable the rest of the time (which makes that lapse stand out all the more). It’s an extremely well-documented work with a zillion footnotes, and just as a gathering of all that scholarship in one place, it’s a valuable book, in my opinion. I quite enjoyed reading it.
*Edit: if you do care about her argument, I found a review on the Gospel Coalition website that gives a pretty good analysis:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/re...
October 25, 2025
I wasn't thrilled or anything while reading this book, but after comparing it with the other popular Big Histories my colleagues read for this week of our proseminar, I am all the more impressed with Quinn's book. To give a history of "Western Civilization" while also delivering a polemic against the post-Enlightenment construction of "Western Civilization" is a serious effort. It would be one thing to write a book that simply critiques the idea of Western Civilization and provides a history of the concept. But to do so while writing a heterodox history of what has come to be called the West is very impressive. Quinn rightly identifies that such histories are still necessary: on the first page she talks about all the students who apply to Cambridge because they want to learn the history of the West. People still want to know this stuff, and Quinn's book manages to be informative while also being critical of the root of that desire. It's really astonishing.
Quinn writes what Hegel would call history in-and-for-itself, Critical History, almost even a philosophy of history, beginning with (quoting Hegel) "the Ironic apprehension of the necessarily arbitrary and fragmentary character of all genuinely historical knowledge." Quinn successfully demonstrates the arbitrariness which is the simultaneous contingency and agency in history: history carried out by contact, which is deliberate, and yet also stochastic, borne out by the acquisitions and non-acquisitions of technologies (writing, sailing) and geographical contingencies. She a good job not being a history of Great Men but of the individuals–merchants, mercenaries–involved in contact. She also handles the time after the sack of Rome very well, staying away from familiar narratives of decline.
Quinn writes what Hegel would call history in-and-for-itself, Critical History, almost even a philosophy of history, beginning with (quoting Hegel) "the Ironic apprehension of the necessarily arbitrary and fragmentary character of all genuinely historical knowledge." Quinn successfully demonstrates the arbitrariness which is the simultaneous contingency and agency in history: history carried out by contact, which is deliberate, and yet also stochastic, borne out by the acquisitions and non-acquisitions of technologies (writing, sailing) and geographical contingencies. She a good job not being a history of Great Men but of the individuals–merchants, mercenaries–involved in contact. She also handles the time after the sack of Rome very well, staying away from familiar narratives of decline.
Read
August 25, 2025Imagine you were writing a book on why the world wasn't flat, but didn't yet have access to the hypothesis that it was round. What you'd get is a a stupendous catalogue (certainly, reality would furnish no shortage of material!) of facts totally inconsistent with the flat earth theory, but without them adding up to much of anything. Each paragraph is great, but it's less than the sum of its parts, especially if you didn't think much of her target in the first place.
I find myself mostly reinforced in my pre-existing belief: "the West" *is* a relatively coherent thing, you just have to include West Asia from the Levant to Persia, as well as North Africa, as core parts of it, and Europe north of the Pyrenees as a relatively late addition, like the Americas. This zone has a relatively coherent and highly interconnected history that you can tell. Nobody wants to do this because "the West" *in practice* means "white people/NATO," which is useless from the perspective of historical understanding, but flypaper for anyone who wants to grind a political axe (in any direction.)
Also: I very much doubt that Quinn wrote this with ChatGPT, but it has a bunch of prose tics that FEEL like it and thus end up grating, things like pointing to a concept through three alliterative examples, like (I'm making this example up) "prostitutes, porters, and pickpockets strolled, strutted, and swam along the harbor." Not her fault but I've developed a yuck reaction over the last year regardless.
I find myself mostly reinforced in my pre-existing belief: "the West" *is* a relatively coherent thing, you just have to include West Asia from the Levant to Persia, as well as North Africa, as core parts of it, and Europe north of the Pyrenees as a relatively late addition, like the Americas. This zone has a relatively coherent and highly interconnected history that you can tell. Nobody wants to do this because "the West" *in practice* means "white people/NATO," which is useless from the perspective of historical understanding, but flypaper for anyone who wants to grind a political axe (in any direction.)
Also: I very much doubt that Quinn wrote this with ChatGPT, but it has a bunch of prose tics that FEEL like it and thus end up grating, things like pointing to a concept through three alliterative examples, like (I'm making this example up) "prostitutes, porters, and pickpockets strolled, strutted, and swam along the harbor." Not her fault but I've developed a yuck reaction over the last year regardless.
December 6, 2025
A very ambitious and learned history of interaction and mutual-influence between Europe, Asia and Africa over 1000s of years. It's a convincing riposte to hackneyed notion of a "Western Civilization" with a unique, independent course of development from ancient Greece and Rome to today's New York, Paris and London. The context of this historical deep-dive is obvious: The idea that a superior "Western Civilization" emerged independently from and in conflict with inferior rival civilizations has been a key ideological weapon justifying modern imperialist military adventures (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc) and obscene systems of racist discrimination (e.g. Apartheid in South Africa & Palestine, Islamophobia). What Quinn calls "civilizational thinking" is a 19th century invention that has next to zero historical justification. Quinn's argument is that debates over whether Western Civilization is good or bad miss the point. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests rival, separate civilizations do not and have never really existed. Rather, mutual connection, trade and cultural exchange between peoples is a critically important aspect of the past. None of us are a product of a civilization that arose independently from other civilizations, like individual trees in a forest - save that kind of thinking for the Sid Meyer game.
January 26, 2025
An ambitious book subtitled "A 4000-Year History" which was a fascinating read and opened my eyes to the movement of ideas between societies in the ancient world. Unfortunately, I thought that the argument it makes about societies not having individual "cultures" and stressing connections and contact was overplayed and unconvincing. But a well written, engaging read and recommended.
March 27, 2025
Fantastic maps and a comprehensive wide-ranging history of the ways that global communities have bumped up against, co-existed, and overrun each other over the centuries. Quinn argues that the “west” created/isolated itself quite late and in denial of the rich, varied, and accomplished cultures that created the Petri dish that eventually grew Europe. She emphasizes that Europe was a backwater for much of human history.
Professor Quinn has an astonishing grasp of history and has written a book full of sweeping generalizations and interesting minutiae. Easy to read, although frequent breaks to absorb the information and study the maps are needed.
Professor Quinn has an astonishing grasp of history and has written a book full of sweeping generalizations and interesting minutiae. Easy to read, although frequent breaks to absorb the information and study the maps are needed.
October 27, 2024
An eye-opening account of the ancient world, focusing on the links between peoples and the changes that sprang from those connections. I found the earliest chapters most interesting, because they covered ground that was unfamiliar to me, and the archaeology is well described.
January 15, 2025
This is not the book I thought it was going to be, though it could be my fault for checking it out based on the title alone. I assumed it would expound on “The West” being a relatively modern invention used to justify colonialism, genocide, paternalism, etc., in service to capital, Christianity, racism, etc., while ignoring how these civilizations came to be in the first place. That last bit is close to the book’s major theme, which is that “civilizational thinking”—the idea that “western” civilizations developed independently from the rest of the world—runs counter to the evidence that the world has been cosmopolitan for millennia. I should have paid attention to the subtitle, A 4,000 Year History, because that’s exactly what this is. The author presents the history of the Mediterranean and Mesopotamian civilizations that run through the Greeks and Romans and lead to early ideas of “Europe.” While they make it a point to show the sorts of cultural exchanges that support the concept, this is mostly a straightforward and apolitical history book. It’s well-written, researched, and presented, just not a book I needed or wanted to read as it doesn’t shed new light on any of these cultures.
January 3, 2025
Thanks Random House for the free book. Set aside some time for this slow but important read that complicates everything you thought you knew about the history of “Western Civilization.”
February 10, 2025
Fantastic.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 192 reviews