What do you think?
Rate this book
Worlds at War: The 2,500-Year Struggle Between East and West
Spanning two and a half millennia, Anthony Pagden’s mesmerizing Worlds at War delves deep into the roots of the “clash of civilizations” between East and West that has always been a battle over ideas, and whose issues have never been more urgent.
Worlds At War begins in the ancient world, where Greece saw its fight against the Persian Empire as one between freedom and slavery, between monarchy and democracy, between individuality and the worship of men as gods. Here, richly rendered, are the crucial battle of Marathon, considered the turning point of Greek and European history; the heroic attempt by the Greeks to turn the Persians back at Thermopylae; and Salamis, one of the greatest naval battles of all time, which put an end to the Persian threat forever.
From there Pagden’s story sweeps to Rome, which created the modern concepts of citizenship and the rule of law. Rome’s leaders believed those they conquered to be free, while the various peoples of the East persisted in seeing their subjects as property. Pagden dramatizes the birth of Christianity in the East and its use in the West as an instrument of government, setting the stage for what would become, and has remained, a global battle of the secular against the sacred. Then Islam, at first ridiculed in Christian Europe, drives Pope Urban II to launch the Crusades, which transform the relationship between East and West into one of competing religious beliefs.
Modern times bring a first world war, which among its many murky aims seeks to redesign the Muslim world by force. In our own era, Muslims now find themselves in unwelcoming Western societies, while the West seeks to enforce democracy and its own secular values through occupation in the East. Pagden ends on a cautionary note, warning that terrorism and war will continue as long as sacred and secular remain confused in the minds of so many.
Eye-opening and compulsively readable, Worlds at War is a stunning work of history and a triumph of modern scholarship. It is bound to become the definitive work on the reasons behind the age-old and still escalating struggle that, more than any other, has come to define the modern world–a book for anyone seeking to know why “we came to be the way we are.”
Worlds At War begins in the ancient world, where Greece saw its fight against the Persian Empire as one between freedom and slavery, between monarchy and democracy, between individuality and the worship of men as gods. Here, richly rendered, are the crucial battle of Marathon, considered the turning point of Greek and European history; the heroic attempt by the Greeks to turn the Persians back at Thermopylae; and Salamis, one of the greatest naval battles of all time, which put an end to the Persian threat forever.
From there Pagden’s story sweeps to Rome, which created the modern concepts of citizenship and the rule of law. Rome’s leaders believed those they conquered to be free, while the various peoples of the East persisted in seeing their subjects as property. Pagden dramatizes the birth of Christianity in the East and its use in the West as an instrument of government, setting the stage for what would become, and has remained, a global battle of the secular against the sacred. Then Islam, at first ridiculed in Christian Europe, drives Pope Urban II to launch the Crusades, which transform the relationship between East and West into one of competing religious beliefs.
Modern times bring a first world war, which among its many murky aims seeks to redesign the Muslim world by force. In our own era, Muslims now find themselves in unwelcoming Western societies, while the West seeks to enforce democracy and its own secular values through occupation in the East. Pagden ends on a cautionary note, warning that terrorism and war will continue as long as sacred and secular remain confused in the minds of so many.
Eye-opening and compulsively readable, Worlds at War is a stunning work of history and a triumph of modern scholarship. It is bound to become the definitive work on the reasons behind the age-old and still escalating struggle that, more than any other, has come to define the modern world–a book for anyone seeking to know why “we came to be the way we are.”
656 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2008
73 people are currently reading
1048 people want to read
About the author
Anthony Pagden
50 books55 followersAnthony Pagden was educated in Santiago (Chile), London, Barcelona and Oxford and holds a B.A.. M.A. and D.Phil. from the University of Oxford. He has been a free-lance translator and a publisher in Paris a Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, Senior Research Fellow of the Warburg Institute (London), Professor of History at the European University Institute (Florence), University Reader in Intellectual History and Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge and the Harry C. Black Professor of History at Johns Hopkins. He joined UCLA in the Fall of 2002. His research has concentrated on the relationship between the peoples of Europe and its overseas settlements and those of the non-European world from the Atlantic to the Pacific. He is primarily interested in the political theory of empire, in how the West sought to explain to itself how and why it had come to dominate so much of the world, and in the present consequences of the erosion of that domination. His research has led to an interest in the formation of the modern concept of Europe and most recently in the roots of the conflict between the ‘West’ and the (predominantly Muslim) ‘East’. He has also written on the history of law, and on the ideological sources of the independence movements in Spanish-America, and is currently completing a book on cosmopolitanism and the Enlightenment . He has written or edited some fifteen books, the most recent of which are, Lords of all the World. Ideologies of Empire in Britain, France and Spain (1995), Peoples and Empires (2001), La Ilustración y sus enemigos (2002), Worlds at War, The 2500 year struggle between East and West (2008), and, as editor, The Idea of Europe from Antiquity to the European Union (2002). – all of which have been translated into several European and Asian languages. He is a regular contributor to the Times Literary Supplement, and The London Review of Books, and has written for The New Republic, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Il Sole 24 Ore (Milan), El Mundo (Spain), El Pais, (Spain) and La Nueva Provincia (Argentina).
He teaches classes in the history of political thought from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, in the theory of international relations, and seminars on imperialism and nationalism and on the theory of racism and ethnicity since antiquity.
He teaches classes in the history of political thought from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, in the theory of international relations, and seminars on imperialism and nationalism and on the theory of racism and ethnicity since antiquity.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews
September 7, 2015
Two core principles of difference are drawn out in the course of all the selective history that is presented:
1. The West was the realm of individual freedom and the East was the realm of despotism. Hence the East could never develop incentives. (Italics are my extrapolation)
2. The West was the realm where laws were made of, by and for humans, the East was the realm where laws were made of, by and for gods (or their representatives). Hence the east could never develop institutions. (Italics are my extrapolation)
This is why the two world views so incompatible had to clash and clash violently. Such differences cannot easily co-exist, especially since one is clearly superior. Of course the wars of West with West would have spoiled the narrative. Hence we have a sweeping history book that ignores the greatest theater of war, including the two greatest showdowns, the world wars. Wonder what small differences of opinion and worldview precipitated those minor conflicts.
July 21, 2014
The author's make-believe take on the East excludes India, barely mentioned, and China and Japan, mentioned even less. By the East he means the Persian Empire and the Islamic middle east. He has a fantasy that the history of the world can be described by the "battle line drawn" between Europe and the East over 2300 years ago.
The author is never at a wont for describing the East in generic negative terms. I'll bet he referred to directly or quoted others that the East is "feminine" more than 10 times. What does it mean when a culture is feminine? He never tells me, but he clearly uses that as a negative trait. Besides, why would it be bad for a culture to be feminine or good if it were masculine? The East, according to him (or the ones he quotes favorably) are lover of boys and are disordered and not for liberty. Even when he talks about the advances made under Islamic civilizations during the West's dark ages, he just dismisses them by saying since they were ruled by such disordered leaders there indigenous populations got to flourish because they were poorly led and got to be themselves because of the poor leadership, whatever.
Western Civilization History is usually told by looking within and very little of the between is told. The author does tell the story by focusing only on the between providing the listener with insights into the development of the West which is not usually told in such great detail in survey of history books. That's the feature of the book I liked and it's why I tolerated the author's comic book characterizations of the "East", but in the end his characterizations of Persia and Islam sounded like the pigs in Animal farm repeating a mantra over and over that "four legs good, two legs bad" or in his case "Western Christians good, East Muslim bad".
Life is too short to read books that have such an obvious silly take on world history and I would recommend a good book on World History instead such as "The History of the World" by Roberts instead of this comic book characterization.
The author is never at a wont for describing the East in generic negative terms. I'll bet he referred to directly or quoted others that the East is "feminine" more than 10 times. What does it mean when a culture is feminine? He never tells me, but he clearly uses that as a negative trait. Besides, why would it be bad for a culture to be feminine or good if it were masculine? The East, according to him (or the ones he quotes favorably) are lover of boys and are disordered and not for liberty. Even when he talks about the advances made under Islamic civilizations during the West's dark ages, he just dismisses them by saying since they were ruled by such disordered leaders there indigenous populations got to flourish because they were poorly led and got to be themselves because of the poor leadership, whatever.
Western Civilization History is usually told by looking within and very little of the between is told. The author does tell the story by focusing only on the between providing the listener with insights into the development of the West which is not usually told in such great detail in survey of history books. That's the feature of the book I liked and it's why I tolerated the author's comic book characterizations of the "East", but in the end his characterizations of Persia and Islam sounded like the pigs in Animal farm repeating a mantra over and over that "four legs good, two legs bad" or in his case "Western Christians good, East Muslim bad".
Life is too short to read books that have such an obvious silly take on world history and I would recommend a good book on World History instead such as "The History of the World" by Roberts instead of this comic book characterization.
August 30, 2024
Brilliant analysis of East-West historical dynamics
The relationship between the West (defined in this book as Europe and later on North-America) and the East (defined in this book as the Middle East) has been marked by conflict, competition, and cultural misunderstandings. This book traces the historical roots of these strained relations, covers a vast timeline, starting from the ancient Greco-Persian Wars and extending to contemporary conflicts, including the American invasion of Iraq.
For me the nicest surprise was that Anthony Pagden hasn't written solely an chronological recounting of accounts but brilliantly succeeds in placing them in a wider context. This is a book about the clash between democracy and autocracy, secularism and religious fundamentalism, and individualism versus collectivism. It shows how these different views have shaped the identities and policies of both the West and the East.
Starting with the Greco-Persian Wars, Pagden shows how this was also a battle between individual liberty and civic participation versus the Persian model of centralized, autocratic rule. These events helped shape Western political thought, emphasizing the value of individual freedom and participatory governance. Continuing with the religous differences between Islam and Christianity, Pagden shows how Islam (submission) managed to influence all parts of society and government (Sharia law) where Christianity was more focussed on the individual and kept apart from the government ("Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s", Matthew 22:21). Therefore, the Renaissance never happened in the East, whereas Europe - after the decline of the Ottoman Empire - managed to develop to became a dominant (colonial) power.
The book spends considerable time with Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798, as according to Pagden this introduced Enlightenment ideas, which influenced local intellectuals and reformers and led to a greater exchange of ideas and knowledge between West and East. Ending with the Cold War Era and the Gulf Wars and the American Invasion(s) of Iraq deepened anti-Western sentiment and got us at what we are today.
Pagden does not offer any solutions or recommendations on how to improve the strained relation. He also does not take sides, instead offering more nuanced and balanced understanding of history. He emphasizes how the knowledge from the Islamic world was transmitted to Europe, significantly influencing the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution but also shows how the literal take on the Quran prevented any scientific advances.
Despite its size, Worlds at War offered me an engaging and accesible reading experience and manged to enable me to place the historical events in a wider context. I particularly found the differences between Islam and Christianity enlightening and the chapters dealing with Napoleon's invasion in Egypt interesting. Although outdated (the book was written in 2008) - for example Pagden describes Turkey as secular state which no doubt will soon join the EU - it still offers valuable insights. A worthwhile read for anyone looking to understand the complexities of East-West relations.
The relationship between the West (defined in this book as Europe and later on North-America) and the East (defined in this book as the Middle East) has been marked by conflict, competition, and cultural misunderstandings. This book traces the historical roots of these strained relations, covers a vast timeline, starting from the ancient Greco-Persian Wars and extending to contemporary conflicts, including the American invasion of Iraq.
For me the nicest surprise was that Anthony Pagden hasn't written solely an chronological recounting of accounts but brilliantly succeeds in placing them in a wider context. This is a book about the clash between democracy and autocracy, secularism and religious fundamentalism, and individualism versus collectivism. It shows how these different views have shaped the identities and policies of both the West and the East.
Starting with the Greco-Persian Wars, Pagden shows how this was also a battle between individual liberty and civic participation versus the Persian model of centralized, autocratic rule. These events helped shape Western political thought, emphasizing the value of individual freedom and participatory governance. Continuing with the religous differences between Islam and Christianity, Pagden shows how Islam (submission) managed to influence all parts of society and government (Sharia law) where Christianity was more focussed on the individual and kept apart from the government ("Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s", Matthew 22:21). Therefore, the Renaissance never happened in the East, whereas Europe - after the decline of the Ottoman Empire - managed to develop to became a dominant (colonial) power.
The book spends considerable time with Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt in 1798, as according to Pagden this introduced Enlightenment ideas, which influenced local intellectuals and reformers and led to a greater exchange of ideas and knowledge between West and East. Ending with the Cold War Era and the Gulf Wars and the American Invasion(s) of Iraq deepened anti-Western sentiment and got us at what we are today.
Pagden does not offer any solutions or recommendations on how to improve the strained relation. He also does not take sides, instead offering more nuanced and balanced understanding of history. He emphasizes how the knowledge from the Islamic world was transmitted to Europe, significantly influencing the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution but also shows how the literal take on the Quran prevented any scientific advances.
Despite its size, Worlds at War offered me an engaging and accesible reading experience and manged to enable me to place the historical events in a wider context. I particularly found the differences between Islam and Christianity enlightening and the chapters dealing with Napoleon's invasion in Egypt interesting. Although outdated (the book was written in 2008) - for example Pagden describes Turkey as secular state which no doubt will soon join the EU - it still offers valuable insights. A worthwhile read for anyone looking to understand the complexities of East-West relations.
January 13, 2010
Choose the right theme and you can organize the chaotic sweep of history into a coherent tale the reader can grasp. Anthony Pagden tried his best in "Worlds at War--The 2,500-Year Struggle Between East and West." But I have to wonder if the topic was too big for the book.
Pagden's thesis is deceptively easy. "The West" long embodied individualism, inquiry and initiative while "The East" stressed subservience, statism and stasis. The theme gets a good start as the author compares classical Greece with its nemesis, Persia. The east vs. west theme proceeds through new couplets--Rome vs. Parthia, Byzantium vs. Sassanid Persia, Christianity vs. Islam, secular democracy vs. theocratic autocracy. The story changes, but remains the same.
Pagden could have used a good editor, if anything to fix the small errors that annoy the reader. Ottoman Turks level the walls of Constantinople with their "canons." I never knew law books were more destructive than artillery! What a difference a missing letter makes. Names and dates are sometimes cited with casual approximation. Why is it too difficult for a historian to be precise? names and dates are the the bread and butter of his trade!
But the greater error is the structure of the narrative. The similarities of "individualistic West" and "authoritarian East" do not carry through smoothly. There were times when Christian western peoples had less freedoms than their heathen opponents. A serf in Medieval France or Germany was "bound to the soil" while a Moslem was free to wander the entire globe-spanning breadth that marked the realm of his faith.
Similarly, Pagden's narrative has to go into fast forward and rewind whenever he hits a "bump in the road." Ottomans, Safavid Persians and stillborn Arab nationalism all get their turns, each explained, but the author then must wind his tale back to pick up where he diverged, just to keep the narrative on track. The side trips were meant to be informative, but make the narrative jagged. By book's end, the reader wonders if the tale is about Christianity vs. Islam, or Greece vs. Persia. Yeah, the "east vs. west" theme is kind of there, but the shift from Classical to Medieval, then from Medieval to Modern, is jagged and grinding, as if the author failed to step on the clutch while shifting his epochal gears.
For someone who is clueless about the relationship between Western and non-Western history, "Worlds at War" is a good starter book. But the reader is advised to keep going. Pagden just gave you the road map. Further exploration is your responsibility.
Pagden's thesis is deceptively easy. "The West" long embodied individualism, inquiry and initiative while "The East" stressed subservience, statism and stasis. The theme gets a good start as the author compares classical Greece with its nemesis, Persia. The east vs. west theme proceeds through new couplets--Rome vs. Parthia, Byzantium vs. Sassanid Persia, Christianity vs. Islam, secular democracy vs. theocratic autocracy. The story changes, but remains the same.
Pagden could have used a good editor, if anything to fix the small errors that annoy the reader. Ottoman Turks level the walls of Constantinople with their "canons." I never knew law books were more destructive than artillery! What a difference a missing letter makes. Names and dates are sometimes cited with casual approximation. Why is it too difficult for a historian to be precise? names and dates are the the bread and butter of his trade!
But the greater error is the structure of the narrative. The similarities of "individualistic West" and "authoritarian East" do not carry through smoothly. There were times when Christian western peoples had less freedoms than their heathen opponents. A serf in Medieval France or Germany was "bound to the soil" while a Moslem was free to wander the entire globe-spanning breadth that marked the realm of his faith.
Similarly, Pagden's narrative has to go into fast forward and rewind whenever he hits a "bump in the road." Ottomans, Safavid Persians and stillborn Arab nationalism all get their turns, each explained, but the author then must wind his tale back to pick up where he diverged, just to keep the narrative on track. The side trips were meant to be informative, but make the narrative jagged. By book's end, the reader wonders if the tale is about Christianity vs. Islam, or Greece vs. Persia. Yeah, the "east vs. west" theme is kind of there, but the shift from Classical to Medieval, then from Medieval to Modern, is jagged and grinding, as if the author failed to step on the clutch while shifting his epochal gears.
For someone who is clueless about the relationship between Western and non-Western history, "Worlds at War" is a good starter book. But the reader is advised to keep going. Pagden just gave you the road map. Further exploration is your responsibility.
November 7, 2019
This book was interesting but crazy. Obviously, over 2000 years is a lot to cover in one book. I was oftentimes lost in the early history section because I didn't have a lot of background in the historical players, and sometimes I wasn't even sure which one Pagden was referencing when he said "he." Even though his thesis about the difficulty and incompatibility of Islam with modern secularism has to rely heavily on more modern times, the Epilogue begins in 1991. Of course, it makes sense he has to rush through history if he's going to cover all that time to make a bigger over-arching point, but why does he spend so much time talking about Napolean and Lawrence of Arabia?
He touches on the problem of fanatical religions generally, and there is no shortage of fanatics in Christianity- historically or today- but he offers no good explanation for why there's been a big difference in the development of secular societies. If President Bush wasn't slowed down by Jesus's statement to render onto Caesar what is his, then how big an impact did that one sentence really make?
I gave it 4 stars mainly because I liked reading about 2000 years in such a (relatively speaking) short book.
He touches on the problem of fanatical religions generally, and there is no shortage of fanatics in Christianity- historically or today- but he offers no good explanation for why there's been a big difference in the development of secular societies. If President Bush wasn't slowed down by Jesus's statement to render onto Caesar what is his, then how big an impact did that one sentence really make?
I gave it 4 stars mainly because I liked reading about 2000 years in such a (relatively speaking) short book.
November 10, 2018
Pagden's definition of "between East and West" covers the familiar highlights from European historiography; the Persian wars, the ascent of Islam, the Crusades, the role of the Ottoman Empire in the affairs of the Great Powers and the role of the former Great Powers behind America in the new states of the Middle East to the 21st century.
The good thing is, he deconstructs the razor-sharp antogonism constructed by Athens' orators which has been politically perpetuated. He's not afraid to hang out the dirty laundry, both ours and theirs, for example the callous phoniness of Napoleon's admiration for Islam. Also, the accomplishments of the East are praised when and where they outshine Europe's, such as in the preservation of Greco-Roman scientific knowledge.
The good thing is, he deconstructs the razor-sharp antogonism constructed by Athens' orators which has been politically perpetuated. He's not afraid to hang out the dirty laundry, both ours and theirs, for example the callous phoniness of Napoleon's admiration for Islam. Also, the accomplishments of the East are praised when and where they outshine Europe's, such as in the preservation of Greco-Roman scientific knowledge.
July 30, 2011
Excellent history of clash between estern and western ways of thinking, particularly European and Middle-Eastern in today's parlance. I am sure the struggle was not seen as such for most time, but the shape given to the struggle goes on to explain at least some of what is going on now. The book is perhaps too superficial given the timeframe it is covering but a brilliant read for anyone interested in key events.
August 21, 2021
In 1705, the Pope’s special envoy, Doro (not the one who worshiped Wei Xiaobao), came to China and issued a ban from the pope to Chinese Catholics, prohibiting believers from performing Chinese rituals, especially respecting Confucius and ancestors. At that time, there were hundreds of thousands of Catholics in China, because in 1692, Kangxi issued a decree to allow Catholics to preach. However, the ban issued by Doro angered Kangxi. He ridiculed: “In the Catholic Church, the Jesuits and the Baidoro are at odds with each other, and the Baijin and Sha Guoan are at odds; in the Jesuits, the Franciscans Only enter the church of Francis, the French only enter the church of the French..." Dolo was then taken to Macau and died in Macau Prison. Later Kangxi wrote a special letter to the Pope to clarify this matter. However, the Pope’s attitude did not change much, which made Kangxi’s attitude towards Catholicism a lot colder. During the Yongzheng period, Catholic missions were directly prohibited, and cultural exchanges between the East and the West were interrupted.
In fact, when this liturgical dispute occurred, Catholicism had been spreading in China for more than 100 years. In the earliest days, Jesus would follow the rules set by Matteo Ricci, and have been in peace. Later, Dominic I would enter China to preach. He began to accuse the Jesuits of forgiving Chinese believers to worship their ancestors and Confucius, and reported to the Holy See, which attracted the intervention of the Holy See. The result of this liturgical dispute is naturally that both sides lose out. For the Catholic Church, it has lost an opportunity to spread the influence of preaching, while for China, it has lost the opportunity to get in touch with Western science. Chinese people often say that you have to go to the countryside and do what you like, but the Holy See's approach is very arrogant and unreasonable, and it is just a dispute over etiquette. It is really a little fussy and puzzling. But after reading the book "The War of Two Worlds", we can understand why the Holy See has this attitude, and we can also understand why the West always spares no effort to promote the so-called universal values, and use this as the banner. Intervene in other countries, especially the Middle East.
"The War of Two Worlds" won the 2008 Book Award from the Institute of Near East Policy. The author Anthony Pagden (Anthony Pagden), has taught at Oxford University, Cambridge University, Harvard University and European University College, and now serves as the Distinguished Professor of Political Science and History at the University of California, Los Angeles. The two worlds refer to the Western world and the Eastern world. Pagodon believes that the conflict between the East and the West began when Xerxes attempted to conquer Greece. After 2500 years of evolution, the Western intervention in the Middle East and the terror against the West have emerged. The root of conflict lies in the differences in values. This difference in values was manifested in the way of life in ancient times, in religion in the Middle Ages, and turned into a clash of civilizations in modern times. The dispute over Chinese etiquette is essentially a conflict of values. The arrogant attitude of the Holy See reveals a sense of Western superiority in its bones. This superiority can be traced back to the time when Xerxes expedition to Greece and continues to this day.
How to divide East and West?
The concepts of the Eastern world and the Western world have long been well-known, so how exactly is the East and West divided? According to Pagodon, 2500 years ago, there was a geographical dividing point between East and West, the Dardanelles. The Dardanelles separated ancient Greece and Persia. The west of the strait is the West, which is Europe, and the east of the strait is the East, which is Asia. Greece and Persia were actually the same at first, but they later chose different paths and showed different development trends. From then on, the East and the West began to differentiate, and the two worlds were formed. In the following 2500 years, the geographical division has long since ceased to exist, but the two worlds are very different. The Eastern world and the Western world are ebb and flow, and are engaged in eternal wars.
The war between Greece and Persia lasted for a long time, and the final result was that Alexander defeated the Persian Empire and established a huge empire. Alexander hoped to promote the universal values of Greece to the entire empire. But his empire did not last long, he died soon, and after his death the empire was divided. On the surface, the Persian empire, which represents the Eastern world, has perished, replaced by the Seleucid Empire and the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt, and the Hellenistic period has begun. Pagodon believes that only the ruler is Greek, not so much Hellenization as Persianization. Both the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Egypt inherited the Persian way of life. The original Greek way of life has been transferred to the Romans. The Western world became the Roman Empire, while the Eastern world was the Parthians who inherited the Persian mantle and later Sasanian Persia.
After the split of the Roman Empire, the Christian world formally formed, but Christianity also split. The Eastern Roman Empire, later known as the Byzantine Empire, became the Eastern world, while the Holy See and the Catholic region under its influence became the Western world. After the rise of Islam, the opposition between the Holy See and Byzantium has not changed. During the Crusades, the Crusaders captured and ransacked Constantinople. Later, when Constantinople was besieged by the Ottoman Empire, the Byzantine emperors said: "It is better to choose the turban of the sultan instead of the cardinal crown." After the fall of Constantinople, the confrontation between the East and the West was It became a confrontation between the Christian world and the Islamic world.
After Europe experienced the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, secular society replaced religious authority, and rationalism became a symbol of Western civilization. The Eastern world is no longer limited to the Islamic world. In the eyes of Westerners, the traditional and long-standing Islamic civilization, Indian civilization and Chinese civilization belong to the Eastern world in the vast area from the Bosphorus Strait to the South China Sea. The common denominator is that they lack rational spirit, are closed, conservative, and are in a state of stagnation. Although they all have skilled craftsmen, they "have no understanding of logic, geometry, metaphysics, astronomy, or natural science."
What is the difference between the East and the West?
Pagodon analyzed the differences between the two worlds from the perspective of values. The source of the Western world is the spirit of freedom in ancient Greece. Law and democratic politics were formed on the basis of freedom. The speculative spirit in ancient Greek philosophy brought rationalism, which later promoted the Enlightenment and developed science. In contrast, the Eastern world, such as Persia, chose a monarchy. The words of the monarch are the law. Other people have lost their freedom and are merely slaves of power, and tyranny is formed. Under the lack of competition, the mind stagnates and falls into ignorance.
In the Hippocratic War recorded by Herodotus, although the Greeks were not as wealthy as Persia, they had freedom. Freedom brought strength and courage. Therefore, the Greeks were not afraid of the huge Persian army led by Xerxes. Although the Persian army is huge, the Persians were driven to the battlefield. They were forced to fight because of fear of being punished. They were enslaved, and "slaves always evade their responsibilities on the battlefield." In the Battle of Salamis, which determined the fate of Greece, Persia was defeated and freedom was victorious. Later Western scholars (including Pagodon) believed that this naval battle saved Greece, preserved freedom, and laid the foundation of Europe.
The laws of ancient Greece and the citizenship of the Roman Empire all meant freedom. Although the Middle Ages were dark and chaotic, the spirit of freedom remained unbroken, hiding in the Gothic church. A series of events such as the Reformation in the 16th century, the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution, all occurred in the Western world.
The topic of freedom has been repeated. Pope Urban II said when preaching the Crusades: "The barbarians have occupied the holy city, making her and her church sad slaves." In modern times, Britain and France attacked the declining Ottoman Empire under the banner of freedom, saying that they would help the people of the Middle East to get rid of slavery and liberate from the dictatorship of Sudan. Tsarist Russia attacked the Ottoman Empire under the banner of Slav liberators. Needless to say in modern times, the United States and Britain sent troops to Libya and Iraq under the banner of fighting for freedom and democracy for the people of Libya and Iraq.
Freedom is synonymous with the Western world, while the Eastern world symbolizes tyranny. In the Age of Enlightenment, Western scholars found the same thing in the entire East from China to Egypt: they were all ruled by autocratic monarchs in different forms, their government systems were restricted by religion (or quasi-religious as in China), religion The job of persuading the public is that nature or their god only provides a way of life. Their society is made up of groups rather than individuals. Time and progress have no meaning. Entering the 19th century, Westerners are convinced that the power balance between the East and the West has rapidly tilted toward the West. Sooner or later, Asian countries will either perish or succumb to the West.
Whose hands will the scepter of the world fall into?
In the second century AD, the Athenian philosopher Aristotle once believed that the scepter of civilization would stay in Rome and that history would end in Rome. By the 18th century, Westerners believed that the scepter of the world had passed from Asia to modern Europe, and would stay here, and history would end in the modern West.
"A superpower will rise on the earth. The earth is waiting for a nation to legislate for it... The new century is about to come... It will liberate a great nation and bring hope to the world ."
The French consider themselves to be this superpower, because the French Revolution spread the values of freedom and equality, which are universal values, and they have a reason and responsibility to promote this value to the world. Napoleon was the first to act. In 1798, Napoleon led the Eastern Army to Egypt. There is also an academic institution accompanying the army: the Egyptian Academy. This academic team includes a group of translators, artists, poets, architects, philosophers, mathematicians and other scientists, as well as more than a thousand books. Napoleon hoped to transform the Egyptians with the values of freedom and equality, so that they could become new Frenchmen instead of slaves to the Ottoman Caliphate. When Napoleon was later exiled to St. Helena, he said:
"I created a religion in Egypt. I saw myself riding an elephant, wearing a headscarf, walking along the roads of Asia, holding in my hand the new "Quran" that I should have written according to my own wishes. I should complete my career, unify the experience of the two worlds, and find my goal from all the history of the world."
But the Egyptians don't feel that the French are here to liberate them. First of all, they feel uneasy because the French are questioning their beliefs. Second, the actions of the French were essentially aggression. In the eyes of Muslims, Napoleon’s group is no different from the Crusaders hundreds of years ago. If there is any difference, it is that their weapons are more advanced, and that they no longer believe in gods.
Napoleon's real intention was of course to establish a colony, occupy the Middle East, and at the same time compete with Britain, another European continent's opponent. Not long after France lost in Egypt, France captured Algeria and turned Algeria into its own colony. Later, France gained Syria and Palestine through the First World War.
The scepter of the world has indeed fallen to the Western world, Britain occupied India, Persia was jointly occupied by Britain and Russia, China continued to fall, and the Ottoman Empire disintegrated directly after the First World War. After the Second World War, the United States and the Soviet Union dominated the world. Whether it is American liberalism or Soviet socialism, they are essentially the product of Western civilization. The Islamic world in the East, India, and China either copied the liberal democratic system or adopted the socialist system.
The westernization of Islamic countries all ended in failure. Pagodon believes that because they neglected their own traditions. Among the Eastern countries, China and Japan succeeded only after rediscovering their own traditions. Islamic countries must find their own way in order to be reborn. However, Napoleon's wishes did not end. The West is still obsessed with promoting universal values throughout the world. Islamic countries are not unaware of this problem. They use terrorism to fight against the West. The war between the two worlds will continue, and it is unknown when it will end.
The overall idea of "War of Two Worlds" continues Huntington's theory of clash of civilizations. The 9/11 incident is almost a proof of prophecy. After the incident, Huntington's theory of clash of civilizations has become very popular. It seems that everything can be explained by the clash of civilizations. Pagodon tried to find the differences between the eastern and western worlds from the source of civilization, and explained the chaos in the Middle East and the root of terrorism through the different development patterns of the two worlds. He showed us a 2500-year historical scroll, and he has profound thinking and analysis on current international issues. The Western world is indeed a winner in today's world, but values may not tell everything. As Huntington said in "The Clash of Civilizations": "The West has become a winner in this world, not on its ideals, values, or religious superiority... but on its better ability to use organized violence. Westerners This fact is often forgotten; but non-Western people will never forget it.” The chaos in the Middle East cannot be explained by the clash of civilizations alone. The hegemony caused by the conflict of interests is the source of chaos. The classic line in "Hidden": "Everything I say is doctrine, and all I pretend is business!"
A history lover from mainland China is also a Chinese art youth who likes reading and playing table tennis very much. He hopes to use books as a link to strengthen new friends around the world. Don't worry, I am very democratic and have an independent mind. Anything can be private letter chat with me, I believe I can answer all the Chinese obscure history and secret Chinese culture for you.
In fact, when this liturgical dispute occurred, Catholicism had been spreading in China for more than 100 years. In the earliest days, Jesus would follow the rules set by Matteo Ricci, and have been in peace. Later, Dominic I would enter China to preach. He began to accuse the Jesuits of forgiving Chinese believers to worship their ancestors and Confucius, and reported to the Holy See, which attracted the intervention of the Holy See. The result of this liturgical dispute is naturally that both sides lose out. For the Catholic Church, it has lost an opportunity to spread the influence of preaching, while for China, it has lost the opportunity to get in touch with Western science. Chinese people often say that you have to go to the countryside and do what you like, but the Holy See's approach is very arrogant and unreasonable, and it is just a dispute over etiquette. It is really a little fussy and puzzling. But after reading the book "The War of Two Worlds", we can understand why the Holy See has this attitude, and we can also understand why the West always spares no effort to promote the so-called universal values, and use this as the banner. Intervene in other countries, especially the Middle East.
"The War of Two Worlds" won the 2008 Book Award from the Institute of Near East Policy. The author Anthony Pagden (Anthony Pagden), has taught at Oxford University, Cambridge University, Harvard University and European University College, and now serves as the Distinguished Professor of Political Science and History at the University of California, Los Angeles. The two worlds refer to the Western world and the Eastern world. Pagodon believes that the conflict between the East and the West began when Xerxes attempted to conquer Greece. After 2500 years of evolution, the Western intervention in the Middle East and the terror against the West have emerged. The root of conflict lies in the differences in values. This difference in values was manifested in the way of life in ancient times, in religion in the Middle Ages, and turned into a clash of civilizations in modern times. The dispute over Chinese etiquette is essentially a conflict of values. The arrogant attitude of the Holy See reveals a sense of Western superiority in its bones. This superiority can be traced back to the time when Xerxes expedition to Greece and continues to this day.
How to divide East and West?
The concepts of the Eastern world and the Western world have long been well-known, so how exactly is the East and West divided? According to Pagodon, 2500 years ago, there was a geographical dividing point between East and West, the Dardanelles. The Dardanelles separated ancient Greece and Persia. The west of the strait is the West, which is Europe, and the east of the strait is the East, which is Asia. Greece and Persia were actually the same at first, but they later chose different paths and showed different development trends. From then on, the East and the West began to differentiate, and the two worlds were formed. In the following 2500 years, the geographical division has long since ceased to exist, but the two worlds are very different. The Eastern world and the Western world are ebb and flow, and are engaged in eternal wars.
The war between Greece and Persia lasted for a long time, and the final result was that Alexander defeated the Persian Empire and established a huge empire. Alexander hoped to promote the universal values of Greece to the entire empire. But his empire did not last long, he died soon, and after his death the empire was divided. On the surface, the Persian empire, which represents the Eastern world, has perished, replaced by the Seleucid Empire and the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt, and the Hellenistic period has begun. Pagodon believes that only the ruler is Greek, not so much Hellenization as Persianization. Both the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Egypt inherited the Persian way of life. The original Greek way of life has been transferred to the Romans. The Western world became the Roman Empire, while the Eastern world was the Parthians who inherited the Persian mantle and later Sasanian Persia.
After the split of the Roman Empire, the Christian world formally formed, but Christianity also split. The Eastern Roman Empire, later known as the Byzantine Empire, became the Eastern world, while the Holy See and the Catholic region under its influence became the Western world. After the rise of Islam, the opposition between the Holy See and Byzantium has not changed. During the Crusades, the Crusaders captured and ransacked Constantinople. Later, when Constantinople was besieged by the Ottoman Empire, the Byzantine emperors said: "It is better to choose the turban of the sultan instead of the cardinal crown." After the fall of Constantinople, the confrontation between the East and the West was It became a confrontation between the Christian world and the Islamic world.
After Europe experienced the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, secular society replaced religious authority, and rationalism became a symbol of Western civilization. The Eastern world is no longer limited to the Islamic world. In the eyes of Westerners, the traditional and long-standing Islamic civilization, Indian civilization and Chinese civilization belong to the Eastern world in the vast area from the Bosphorus Strait to the South China Sea. The common denominator is that they lack rational spirit, are closed, conservative, and are in a state of stagnation. Although they all have skilled craftsmen, they "have no understanding of logic, geometry, metaphysics, astronomy, or natural science."
What is the difference between the East and the West?
Pagodon analyzed the differences between the two worlds from the perspective of values. The source of the Western world is the spirit of freedom in ancient Greece. Law and democratic politics were formed on the basis of freedom. The speculative spirit in ancient Greek philosophy brought rationalism, which later promoted the Enlightenment and developed science. In contrast, the Eastern world, such as Persia, chose a monarchy. The words of the monarch are the law. Other people have lost their freedom and are merely slaves of power, and tyranny is formed. Under the lack of competition, the mind stagnates and falls into ignorance.
In the Hippocratic War recorded by Herodotus, although the Greeks were not as wealthy as Persia, they had freedom. Freedom brought strength and courage. Therefore, the Greeks were not afraid of the huge Persian army led by Xerxes. Although the Persian army is huge, the Persians were driven to the battlefield. They were forced to fight because of fear of being punished. They were enslaved, and "slaves always evade their responsibilities on the battlefield." In the Battle of Salamis, which determined the fate of Greece, Persia was defeated and freedom was victorious. Later Western scholars (including Pagodon) believed that this naval battle saved Greece, preserved freedom, and laid the foundation of Europe.
The laws of ancient Greece and the citizenship of the Roman Empire all meant freedom. Although the Middle Ages were dark and chaotic, the spirit of freedom remained unbroken, hiding in the Gothic church. A series of events such as the Reformation in the 16th century, the Enlightenment, and the French Revolution, all occurred in the Western world.
The topic of freedom has been repeated. Pope Urban II said when preaching the Crusades: "The barbarians have occupied the holy city, making her and her church sad slaves." In modern times, Britain and France attacked the declining Ottoman Empire under the banner of freedom, saying that they would help the people of the Middle East to get rid of slavery and liberate from the dictatorship of Sudan. Tsarist Russia attacked the Ottoman Empire under the banner of Slav liberators. Needless to say in modern times, the United States and Britain sent troops to Libya and Iraq under the banner of fighting for freedom and democracy for the people of Libya and Iraq.
Freedom is synonymous with the Western world, while the Eastern world symbolizes tyranny. In the Age of Enlightenment, Western scholars found the same thing in the entire East from China to Egypt: they were all ruled by autocratic monarchs in different forms, their government systems were restricted by religion (or quasi-religious as in China), religion The job of persuading the public is that nature or their god only provides a way of life. Their society is made up of groups rather than individuals. Time and progress have no meaning. Entering the 19th century, Westerners are convinced that the power balance between the East and the West has rapidly tilted toward the West. Sooner or later, Asian countries will either perish or succumb to the West.
Whose hands will the scepter of the world fall into?
In the second century AD, the Athenian philosopher Aristotle once believed that the scepter of civilization would stay in Rome and that history would end in Rome. By the 18th century, Westerners believed that the scepter of the world had passed from Asia to modern Europe, and would stay here, and history would end in the modern West.
"A superpower will rise on the earth. The earth is waiting for a nation to legislate for it... The new century is about to come... It will liberate a great nation and bring hope to the world ."
The French consider themselves to be this superpower, because the French Revolution spread the values of freedom and equality, which are universal values, and they have a reason and responsibility to promote this value to the world. Napoleon was the first to act. In 1798, Napoleon led the Eastern Army to Egypt. There is also an academic institution accompanying the army: the Egyptian Academy. This academic team includes a group of translators, artists, poets, architects, philosophers, mathematicians and other scientists, as well as more than a thousand books. Napoleon hoped to transform the Egyptians with the values of freedom and equality, so that they could become new Frenchmen instead of slaves to the Ottoman Caliphate. When Napoleon was later exiled to St. Helena, he said:
"I created a religion in Egypt. I saw myself riding an elephant, wearing a headscarf, walking along the roads of Asia, holding in my hand the new "Quran" that I should have written according to my own wishes. I should complete my career, unify the experience of the two worlds, and find my goal from all the history of the world."
But the Egyptians don't feel that the French are here to liberate them. First of all, they feel uneasy because the French are questioning their beliefs. Second, the actions of the French were essentially aggression. In the eyes of Muslims, Napoleon’s group is no different from the Crusaders hundreds of years ago. If there is any difference, it is that their weapons are more advanced, and that they no longer believe in gods.
Napoleon's real intention was of course to establish a colony, occupy the Middle East, and at the same time compete with Britain, another European continent's opponent. Not long after France lost in Egypt, France captured Algeria and turned Algeria into its own colony. Later, France gained Syria and Palestine through the First World War.
The scepter of the world has indeed fallen to the Western world, Britain occupied India, Persia was jointly occupied by Britain and Russia, China continued to fall, and the Ottoman Empire disintegrated directly after the First World War. After the Second World War, the United States and the Soviet Union dominated the world. Whether it is American liberalism or Soviet socialism, they are essentially the product of Western civilization. The Islamic world in the East, India, and China either copied the liberal democratic system or adopted the socialist system.
The westernization of Islamic countries all ended in failure. Pagodon believes that because they neglected their own traditions. Among the Eastern countries, China and Japan succeeded only after rediscovering their own traditions. Islamic countries must find their own way in order to be reborn. However, Napoleon's wishes did not end. The West is still obsessed with promoting universal values throughout the world. Islamic countries are not unaware of this problem. They use terrorism to fight against the West. The war between the two worlds will continue, and it is unknown when it will end.
The overall idea of "War of Two Worlds" continues Huntington's theory of clash of civilizations. The 9/11 incident is almost a proof of prophecy. After the incident, Huntington's theory of clash of civilizations has become very popular. It seems that everything can be explained by the clash of civilizations. Pagodon tried to find the differences between the eastern and western worlds from the source of civilization, and explained the chaos in the Middle East and the root of terrorism through the different development patterns of the two worlds. He showed us a 2500-year historical scroll, and he has profound thinking and analysis on current international issues. The Western world is indeed a winner in today's world, but values may not tell everything. As Huntington said in "The Clash of Civilizations": "The West has become a winner in this world, not on its ideals, values, or religious superiority... but on its better ability to use organized violence. Westerners This fact is often forgotten; but non-Western people will never forget it.” The chaos in the Middle East cannot be explained by the clash of civilizations alone. The hegemony caused by the conflict of interests is the source of chaos. The classic line in "Hidden": "Everything I say is doctrine, and all I pretend is business!"
A history lover from mainland China is also a Chinese art youth who likes reading and playing table tennis very much. He hopes to use books as a link to strengthen new friends around the world. Don't worry, I am very democratic and have an independent mind. Anything can be private letter chat with me, I believe I can answer all the Chinese obscure history and secret Chinese culture for you.
September 19, 2008
Pagden’s first chapter summarizes the most telling episodes of Herodotus’ Histories, including not only the Battles of Marathon and Salamis, but also the constitutional debate that preceded the accession of Darius to the Persian throne and the deliberations instigated by the Persian King Xerxes prior to his invasion of Greece. Before Darius became king, the Persians considered the constitutional alternatives to monarchy, with one Persian aristocrat, named Otanes, arguing for democracy. Darius, however, makes the case for their sticking with kingship; and then makes sure that he’s the one who becomes king. Pagden writes that “At this moment in their history, the Persians could have followed the path the Athenians had taken at the end of the sixth century, when Cleisthenes introduced the rule of the majority into Athens. Herodotus, who is writing what amounts to a chronicle of the power of democracy to triumph over monarchy, has given them their chance, but they have turned it down” (16-17). Darius’ son Xerxes, having decided to invade Greece and already given the orders for the mustering of an enormous invasion force, rather unaccountably solicits the advice of his court. He wants to invade, but he wants a debate. Mardonius, one of his generals, praises the king and endorses his plan. Artabanus, one of his uncles, is the only other one to speak, and only dares to speak because of his kinship with the king. He points out that in a debate both sides should be heard, and goes on to make a strong case against the invasion. Xerxes responds angrily that if Artabanus had not been his uncle, he would lose his head for speaking his mind. The invasion will go forward, but Artabanus will be left behind with the women. Pagden writes that “Once again reasoned disputation is suppressed by precisely what Otanes had identified as one of monarchy’s greatest weaknesses: the inability of a monarch to listen to the voices of any but those who tell him what he wishes to hear” (28-29).
May 16, 2019
So biased that I found myself arguing with the author as I tried to make headway.
March 5, 2025
A very disappointing book. The contents are a much smarter and more nuanced standard of clash of civilizations type: the West, which is, for whatever reason, democratic, rational, liberal, pitted against 'the East', here only the Arab Middle East, Iran and Turkey, which is despotic, irrational, arbitrary and everything else we're supposed to hate. Mind you, Pagden is at least aware that these concepts are not just innate or natural, and he attempts to add some social, economic and political analysis to muddy up his shallow waters. When that history isn't questionable (his bit on Roman citizenship and universal human rights) it is badly twisted to fit a mendacious argument about the inherent and abiding differences between East and West. Why is it dishonest? Well, Pagden deliberately leaves out China and India, for starters, and writes as if Said's 'Orientalism' (a troubled but insightful book) had never existed. Most unforgivably, Pagden is a historian of imperial ideologies: he has devoted much of his academic career to studying the ways in which European justified their overseas conquests, and yet he seems barely away of the supreme irony that his work is itself redolent with imperialist ideology. Ugh.
August 1, 2017
A good book providing a tour de force history of the interactions between the various European societies/cultures and those of the Arab & Persian worlds (which in practice creates a history of the broader Mediterranean communities). The book also gives an in-depth comparison of the religious and political strains which have shaped this history. The title is, however, misleading. Rather than being a Christianity versus Islam tome, the book traces the many interactions, the convoluted history, and very much shared story of the peoples in these areas. There is a lengthy epilogue with commentary on current differences shaping the future. But most of the book is a tale of how this point was reached and how cultural and political differences have been, more often than not, minimalized by steady interactions.
September 6, 2023
Its seldom that you come away from a book of this length asking yourself what was the point? Worlds of War is unfortunately one of those books. The book is choppy and disorganized, the author constantly takes meandering breaks from the narrative only to emerge again several hundred years later at some convenient spot. Large swaths of history and epoch making events directly related to the topic are ignored. The author seems unable to make a point without adding a caveat disproving his original idea. Islam is treated with kid gloves throughout, the author seems to lack the will to provide an honest assessment of its impact.
For a more concise and braver attempt to encompass this massive topic, it is better to look elsewhere.
For a more concise and braver attempt to encompass this massive topic, it is better to look elsewhere.
June 29, 2019
I purchased this book thinking it would spend some time on East Asia and not just what is now referred to as the "Middle East" (a topic I have little to no interest in). That was my fault, but it was a good thing, because it actually got the book in my hands and as soon as I started reading it I was hooked. Pagden somehow made something I know very little about (the ancient world) and two things I care little about (Europe and the Middle East) fascinating, and that is a rare experience for me, my interests being so strictly defined.
November 13, 2011
I found this book a fascinating exploration of the long history of conflict between East and West, and the way the powers in charge of each sphere (whether Greek, Trojan, Roman, Persian, Christian, Muslim, French, Ottoman, British, or Arabic) have often seen themselves as inheritors of all the earlier struggles. Of course, it should be noted right away that by “The East”, Pagden generally means the near and middle east, the lands from Asia Minor to the region that's modern Iran -- China, India, and Japan don’t figure into the book at all. In fact, his focus is really more on the development of the West and its experience with the East than the reverse.
It should also be noted that Pagden has a strong bias towards liberal, secular, democratic values, which he feels are the essence of Western culture (he states as much in the forward). Religion, both Christianity and Islam, are portrayed in a dim light, as institutional obstacles to reason, human rights, and progress. Not that I don’t largely agree with this assessment, but some readers might take offense. Still, he seems to be fair-minded about it, giving Muslim societies credit for brief periods of learning and relative tolerance, and indicting the modern West for its more counterproductive forays into the Middle East, which understandably stoked the fires of Muslim distrust and resentment. Indeed, the final chapter warns, convincingly, of continued bloody conflict between an uncompromising pan-Islamic worldview, whose adherents have enjoyed few of the fruits of the West and see little of their value, and countries like the US, whose leaders naively assume that their own democratic attitudes are universally held, and fail to account for a divide with deep historic roots.
However, I don’t want to place too much emphasis on modern politics, which take a back seat to the fact that this is a comprehensive, well-researched history, outlining many episodes over 2,500 years that I was only dimly aware of (e.g. Napoleon’s adventures in Egypt), and pulling them into a readable, continuous narrative. Especially interesting was reading of the ways in which the West’s often-skewed perception of the East as an "other" to strive against has nonetheless shaped its own attitudes towards freedom, tolerance, and science.
It should also be noted that Pagden has a strong bias towards liberal, secular, democratic values, which he feels are the essence of Western culture (he states as much in the forward). Religion, both Christianity and Islam, are portrayed in a dim light, as institutional obstacles to reason, human rights, and progress. Not that I don’t largely agree with this assessment, but some readers might take offense. Still, he seems to be fair-minded about it, giving Muslim societies credit for brief periods of learning and relative tolerance, and indicting the modern West for its more counterproductive forays into the Middle East, which understandably stoked the fires of Muslim distrust and resentment. Indeed, the final chapter warns, convincingly, of continued bloody conflict between an uncompromising pan-Islamic worldview, whose adherents have enjoyed few of the fruits of the West and see little of their value, and countries like the US, whose leaders naively assume that their own democratic attitudes are universally held, and fail to account for a divide with deep historic roots.
However, I don’t want to place too much emphasis on modern politics, which take a back seat to the fact that this is a comprehensive, well-researched history, outlining many episodes over 2,500 years that I was only dimly aware of (e.g. Napoleon’s adventures in Egypt), and pulling them into a readable, continuous narrative. Especially interesting was reading of the ways in which the West’s often-skewed perception of the East as an "other" to strive against has nonetheless shaped its own attitudes towards freedom, tolerance, and science.
July 11, 2013
I really enjoyed the first few sample chapters...He traces the East-West conflict all the way back to the Trojan war and brings the reader to al-Qaeda and their sworn ambition of "final destruction of the west." The Trojan war might be an ancient myth but it was taken seriously. The Ottoman sultan Mehmed II, visited the site of the Trojan war in 1462. He stood at the shore (where the Greeks had arrived with their thousand ships). It wasn't like baywatch and the Sultan made a politically charged statement expressing his happiness on successfully avenging the defeat of Troy. In 1918 the British and Italian troops entered Istanbul and made some remarks about taking back the "second Rome." The author suggests that that while treaties and political favors are exchanged we have this habit of returning to the destructive theme of east vs west.
February 9, 2016
This was an enjoyable comprehensive survey of the conflict between the East and West spanning the last 2,500 years. Beginning with the Greek and Persian empires all the way up through the modern day conflicts that fill the news, the author draws you into the narrative. Having read it, I feel like I have a bit more of an understanding about these two worlds and how it'll continue to impact our future.
November 17, 2015
An excellent history of the relationship of the West and the Near East from the Persian wars 2,500 years ago to 2007 when the book was written.
If the reader is looking for a historical context for the confrontation between Islam and the West this is an excellent place to begin.
Highly recommended.
Rating: 5 out of 5.
If the reader is looking for a historical context for the confrontation between Islam and the West this is an excellent place to begin.
Highly recommended.
Rating: 5 out of 5.
October 3, 2021
The title lead me to assume that China, Japan, India and other countries would be included in the analysis. They were only just mentioned. The book is about the middle East, Turkey, Greece and Europe. As such it is very good, perhaps, though with a Christian, Western bias at some points. An illuminating read!
Read
October 31, 2025Very poor Book. Author, regardless of his lack of religious background, ought to keep his prejudices to himself. Very Simplistic retelling of world history with no depth of understanding. A waste of time and money. Zero rating.
June 8, 2013
I loved this book. It goes 100mph through the entire course of history between the Western world vs. the Middle Eastern. I like it because it is readable; this book is made for the more novice historian and it is well-written throughout.
June 15, 2020
Competent but not a very novel retelling of world history. The running theme seems very much in the background despite constant callbacks. Maybe that's why you need the callbacks - because it's not really visible otherwise.
November 8, 2020
An Excellent overview of history between East and West and why are they so incompatible. Explains a lot of things about world today and where this world is going. History have tendency to repeat it self. An excellent book.
June 8, 2022
I got so much from reading this book! I highly recommend it. It filled in many gaps for me in my understanding of the conflict between east and west, especially in the 20th century which was always a muddle to me.
October 15, 2025
Worlds at War: The 2,500- Year Struggle Between East and West by Anthony Pagden
9.3 out of 10
A superb book, this great tome helps the reader find unknown details of this interaction, refresh whatever he or she has leaned in high school and sometimes annihilate myths gathered from movies that often make little difference between cartoon super heroes and historical figures.
Like any solid, well written history book, Words at War is a manifest, exquisite pleasure to read, for it takes one to the distant time of Alexander the Great, the great Persian kings and their Greek counterparts and their phenomenal clashes - made somewhat grotesque, although popular with audiences that would never pick up this book in 300 - and then takes time to analyze the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the real, smaller role played by Lawrence of Arabia, hero of one of the best films ever made, but which inevitably takes liberties in the name of artistic license.
The lucky reader is told about the major battles of Constantinople- 1453 - and Poitiers, which are glorified in the West and exaggerated in their importance as moments when the East and the West clashed.
There is a tendency to ignore the extraordinary importance that the East had in the western culture - and evidently vice versa - if it weren't for the transcripts of a multitude of ancient works that the Arabs passed on, we would never have access to them, to give just one example.
In his introduction, Anthony Pagden explains with authority, referring to Voltaire among others - who suggested thinking of the Crimean peninsula, now occupied by Putin's Russia, to see how relative the position is - that when thinking of West and East, it all depends on where we are.
Furthermore, West and East mean much more than geography and in my mind, one happy example comes to the fore:
My country is more 'Western' on some level than America.
We have recently voted out some Byzantine elements- well, sort of - while the quintessential democracy has at its top a man who thinks himself as a sultan, pushing his daughter on the world stage, in spite of her evident inadequacy, together with an ill equipped son in law, a man that looks as corrupt as the tyrants he admires loudly.
If we think this is just an accident, one person will be soon - Insh'Allah! - voted out of office, then we need to consider his recent...increase in approval ratings, which suggest that American society has an unfortunate Byzantine streak within it.
However, when we read this magisterial book, we find reason to be optimistic, from the early tolerance of Islam, which looked benignly over to the other monotheistic religions, to the present day peaceful interpretation of the Koran, from which only fundamentalist elements take the jihad to mean a violent struggle.
In fact, this educational book serves as an excellent manual for those who want to learn more about the birth of Islam, the early rise of Mohamed, the one they see as their prophet and his acceptance within the community that had been polytheistic.
Indeed, in simplistic terms, Islam presupposes the idea that:
There is no God but Allah and Mohamed is his prophet.
Thereby the religion has the advantage of being easy to adhere to in some ways, it does not address complicated issues, although this could be a criticism for some.
There are serious internal divisions though,notably the one between Sunni - which represents the majority of Muslims - Saudi Arabia and its allies on one side and Shia Iran on the other - which has also a multitude of organizations to rely on, most of them nefarious - Hizbollah and similar entities.
The religious fights that took place within the Christian world are not avoided, with their defenestrations, the schisms that would first divide the Catholic from the Eastern Orthodox Christian and then, with the Martin Luther and Calvin thesis, the 'West' itself would be divided.
Today, the biggest risk seems to be that America would fight a war with Iran, although it is not a simple West versus East conflict, nor a Christian against Muslim war, for the Saudis, Emirates and others are fierce enemies of the Shia Ayatollahs and thus the eventual war would be a more complex one.
Words at War is often magnificent, if not always, and remains a book that perhaps everyone concerned about the past and the future of these two worlds, that have clashed so often and are likely to do so again, must read.
9.3 out of 10
A superb book, this great tome helps the reader find unknown details of this interaction, refresh whatever he or she has leaned in high school and sometimes annihilate myths gathered from movies that often make little difference between cartoon super heroes and historical figures.
Like any solid, well written history book, Words at War is a manifest, exquisite pleasure to read, for it takes one to the distant time of Alexander the Great, the great Persian kings and their Greek counterparts and their phenomenal clashes - made somewhat grotesque, although popular with audiences that would never pick up this book in 300 - and then takes time to analyze the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the real, smaller role played by Lawrence of Arabia, hero of one of the best films ever made, but which inevitably takes liberties in the name of artistic license.
The lucky reader is told about the major battles of Constantinople- 1453 - and Poitiers, which are glorified in the West and exaggerated in their importance as moments when the East and the West clashed.
There is a tendency to ignore the extraordinary importance that the East had in the western culture - and evidently vice versa - if it weren't for the transcripts of a multitude of ancient works that the Arabs passed on, we would never have access to them, to give just one example.
In his introduction, Anthony Pagden explains with authority, referring to Voltaire among others - who suggested thinking of the Crimean peninsula, now occupied by Putin's Russia, to see how relative the position is - that when thinking of West and East, it all depends on where we are.
Furthermore, West and East mean much more than geography and in my mind, one happy example comes to the fore:
My country is more 'Western' on some level than America.
We have recently voted out some Byzantine elements- well, sort of - while the quintessential democracy has at its top a man who thinks himself as a sultan, pushing his daughter on the world stage, in spite of her evident inadequacy, together with an ill equipped son in law, a man that looks as corrupt as the tyrants he admires loudly.
If we think this is just an accident, one person will be soon - Insh'Allah! - voted out of office, then we need to consider his recent...increase in approval ratings, which suggest that American society has an unfortunate Byzantine streak within it.
However, when we read this magisterial book, we find reason to be optimistic, from the early tolerance of Islam, which looked benignly over to the other monotheistic religions, to the present day peaceful interpretation of the Koran, from which only fundamentalist elements take the jihad to mean a violent struggle.
In fact, this educational book serves as an excellent manual for those who want to learn more about the birth of Islam, the early rise of Mohamed, the one they see as their prophet and his acceptance within the community that had been polytheistic.
Indeed, in simplistic terms, Islam presupposes the idea that:
There is no God but Allah and Mohamed is his prophet.
Thereby the religion has the advantage of being easy to adhere to in some ways, it does not address complicated issues, although this could be a criticism for some.
There are serious internal divisions though,notably the one between Sunni - which represents the majority of Muslims - Saudi Arabia and its allies on one side and Shia Iran on the other - which has also a multitude of organizations to rely on, most of them nefarious - Hizbollah and similar entities.
The religious fights that took place within the Christian world are not avoided, with their defenestrations, the schisms that would first divide the Catholic from the Eastern Orthodox Christian and then, with the Martin Luther and Calvin thesis, the 'West' itself would be divided.
Today, the biggest risk seems to be that America would fight a war with Iran, although it is not a simple West versus East conflict, nor a Christian against Muslim war, for the Saudis, Emirates and others are fierce enemies of the Shia Ayatollahs and thus the eventual war would be a more complex one.
Words at War is often magnificent, if not always, and remains a book that perhaps everyone concerned about the past and the future of these two worlds, that have clashed so often and are likely to do so again, must read.
December 16, 2024
Πιότερο 2,5
Όχι ακριβώς αυτό που περιμένει κανείς όταν ξεκινάει το βιβλίο.
Καλά, ας αφήσουμε τι περιμένει και ας εστιάσουμε στο τι βρίσκει.
Αρχικώς, λάθη, που δεν θα έπρεπε να έχουν γίνει και δε θα έπρεπε να έχουν περάσει από την επιμέλεια. Και επειδή το έψαξα και στην ελληνική μετάφραση… ξέφυγαν και στη μετάφραση (όχι όλα, σε κάποια ο μεταφραστής ή ο επιμελητής της ελληνικής έκδοσης προβαίνει σε διόρθωση).
Έπειτα, λάθη που αφορούν σε έλλειψη επαφής με το αντικείμενο, αντιληπτά με άνεση από τον Έλληνα αναγνώστη για παράδειγμα στα σημεία που αφορούν σε εγνωσμένα τμήματα της ελληνικής ιστορίας και αφηγήσεις που έχουν καταρρεύσει (π.χ. ότι ο Παλαιών Πατρών Γερμανός σήκωσε το φλάμπουρο της επανάστασης στις 25/3/1821 και το κράτησε μέχρι να πάθει λουμπάγκο, κάτι που έχει αποδειχθεί ότι συνέβη όσο και οι περιπέτειες του Μπομπ Σφουγγαράκη στο βυθό του Μπικίνι). Τα λάθη αυτά, δεν ενοχλούν ιδιαίτερα per se, αλλά προβληματίζουν ως προς το πόσα άλλα δεν γίνονται αντιληπτά σε κομμάτια της Ευρωπαϊκής και μεσανατολικής ιστορίας που ο αναγνώστης κατέχει λιγότερο ή καθόλου.
Ξεπερνώντας τον μανιχαϊσμό του βιβλίου που είναι άλλωστε έκδηλος από τον τίτλο ακόμα, παρατηρεί κανείς ότι πέρα από τον αυθαίρετο χαρακτηρισμό ανατολής και δύσης που επέβαλλαν οι Ευρωπαίοι (ΟΚ, Άντονι, δε θα στον χρεώσω αυτόν, αλλά μπορούσες να βάλεις τη δική σου πινελιά εδώ και έχασες την ευκαιρία), ο συγγραφέας πρακτικά ξεχνά την τεράστια εδαφικά και πληθυσμιακά Κίνα, η οποία όχι απλώς ήρθε σε αντιπαράθεση με την Ευρώπη (τη «Δύση»), αλλά αναγκάστηκε μπροστά στις κανονιοφόρους της (πολυκαθωσπρέπει και μη φανεί καμιά κάλτσα με αστράγαλο μέσα, θα γίνει σκάνδαλο) Βασίλισσας Βικτώριας να ανοίξει τις αγορές της για το… όπιο που έφερναν οι Ευρωπαίοι. Τινάζει αδιάφορα σαν πιτυρίδα από τη βάτα του του την Ινδία (που ρούφηξε αγγλική αποικιοκρατία για ΠΟΛΥ καιρό) και χαιρετά από μακριά με ύφος «Μελάνια Τραμπ» (αυτό με τα σουρωμένα μάτια τύπου «κάπου σε ξέρω, αλλά στ’ @@ μου να θυμηθώ από πού») την Ιαπωνία. Φιλιππίνες, Ινδονησία, Τιμόρ (που μάλιστα έχει «ανατολικό και δυτικό»), ΚΟΡΕΑ (δεν είναι τυχαία η έκφραση «έγινε της Κορέας»), ΒΙΕΤΝΑΜ (αλήθεια Άντονι, δεν είδες ανατολή και δύση σε σύγκρουση, εκεί που οι δυτικότεροι του βασιλέως γεωγραφικά και πολιτικά -γκαπιταλισταί- αμερικάνοι συνεκρούσθησαν μετά των ανατολιτών γεωγραφικά και πολιτικά -γκομουνιστώνε- Βιετκόνχ;) νιαουρίζουν στα κεραμίδια σκύλος που ξέρει ξένες γλώσσες, αλλά δε φαίνεται να ενοχλούν κανέναν. Υποθέτω, υπάρχει εδώ έναβροντώδες, βαθυβόρβορο και ουρανομήκες μικρό ξέπλυμμα του δυτικού ιμπεριαλισμού όταν δεν προέρχεται από σταυροφόρους ή το (σατανά ουσιξσιξσιξ) Ναπολέοντα. Α, ναι η λέξη ιμπεριαλισμός όταν εμφανίζεται στο βιβλίο είναι πάντα από στόματα ανατολιτών που παραπονιούνται για τις πρακτικές της Δύσης.
Ωστόσο, υπάρχουν σημεία που το βιβλίο είναι καλό, εξαιρετικά καλό και αποζημιώνουν για τις αβλεψίες και τις αστοχίες που παρατηρούνται σε άλλα, με αποτέλεσμα να μη μπορεί κανείς να το ρίξει στον Καιάδα και να αποσπά (με το ζόρι είναι η αλήθεια) ένα 3αράκι, κυρίως γιατί δεν έχω το κουράγιο και το χρόνο να κάνω έρευνα για όλα τα σημεία που με ξένισαν και αναρωτήθηκα αν έγιναν όντως έτσι ή είναι μεσανατολικά και ευρωπαϊκά αντίστοιχα της μούφας με τον Παλαιώνε Πατρώνε.
Γραμμένο… προφανώς από «δυτική» σκποπιά, δεν αποφεύγει να παρουσιάσει τη δύση (τον ιδεότυπο της Δύσης «εγκαλιτολιμπερτοφρατερνιζέ» φιλελεύθερης, αστικά δημοκρατικής) σαν φορέα προόδου και να χρεώσει στο Ισλάμ την καθυστέρηση του «ανατολικού κόσμου». Δεν είμαι σίγουρος ότι συμφωνώ με την συνολική ανάλυση (όχι ότι θεωρώ το ισλάμ αβάν γκάρντ του πολιτισμού, γελάνε και οι πέτρες με τις οποίες λιθοβολούν μοιχαλίδες, ομοφυλόφιλους και διανοούμενους) και την απόδοση αιτίων στα… αιτιατά (καθυστέρηση, υπανάπτυξη, οπισθοδρόμηση), ούτε στην παντελή ανικανότητα εκκοσμίκευσης των ισλαμικών χωρών (ότι ο συντελεστής δυσκολίας είναι υψηλότερος από τετραπλό άξελ, είναι δεδομένο).
Από τα πιο απολαυστικά σημεία η αποδόμηση του Λώρενς της Αραβίας ως κοντοστούπη, εμμονικού, μυθομανούς, πικραμένου ομοφυλόφιλου με καλές δημόσιες σχέσεις και μηδενική συμμετοχή σε μάχες.
Τέλος πάντων, γενικά το κρατάμε, με κάποιες (αρκετές) επιφυλάξεις.
Όχι ακριβώς αυτό που περιμένει κανείς όταν ξεκινάει το βιβλίο.
Καλά, ας αφήσουμε τι περιμένει και ας εστιάσουμε στο τι βρίσκει.
Αρχικώς, λάθη, που δεν θα έπρεπε να έχουν γίνει και δε θα έπρεπε να έχουν περάσει από την επιμέλεια. Και επειδή το έψαξα και στην ελληνική μετάφραση… ξέφυγαν και στη μετάφραση (όχι όλα, σε κάποια ο μεταφραστής ή ο επιμελητής της ελληνικής έκδοσης προβαίνει σε διόρθωση).
Έπειτα, λάθη που αφορούν σε έλλειψη επαφής με το αντικείμενο, αντιληπτά με άνεση από τον Έλληνα αναγνώστη για παράδειγμα στα σημεία που αφορούν σε εγνωσμένα τμήματα της ελληνικής ιστορίας και αφηγήσεις που έχουν καταρρεύσει (π.χ. ότι ο Παλαιών Πατρών Γερμανός σήκωσε το φλάμπουρο της επανάστασης στις 25/3/1821 και το κράτησε μέχρι να πάθει λουμπάγκο, κάτι που έχει αποδειχθεί ότι συνέβη όσο και οι περιπέτειες του Μπομπ Σφουγγαράκη στο βυθό του Μπικίνι). Τα λάθη αυτά, δεν ενοχλούν ιδιαίτερα per se, αλλά προβληματίζουν ως προς το πόσα άλλα δεν γίνονται αντιληπτά σε κομμάτια της Ευρωπαϊκής και μεσανατολικής ιστορίας που ο αναγνώστης κατέχει λιγότερο ή καθόλου.
Ξεπερνώντας τον μανιχαϊσμό του βιβλίου που είναι άλλωστε έκδηλος από τον τίτλο ακόμα, παρατηρεί κανείς ότι πέρα από τον αυθαίρετο χαρακτηρισμό ανατολής και δύσης που επέβαλλαν οι Ευρωπαίοι (ΟΚ, Άντονι, δε θα στον χρεώσω αυτόν, αλλά μπορούσες να βάλεις τη δική σου πινελιά εδώ και έχασες την ευκαιρία), ο συγγραφέας πρακτικά ξεχνά την τεράστια εδαφικά και πληθυσμιακά Κίνα, η οποία όχι απλώς ήρθε σε αντιπαράθεση με την Ευρώπη (τη «Δύση»), αλλά αναγκάστηκε μπροστά στις κανονιοφόρους της (πολυκαθωσπρέπει και μη φανεί καμιά κάλτσα με αστράγαλο μέσα, θα γίνει σκάνδαλο) Βασίλισσας Βικτώριας να ανοίξει τις αγορές της για το… όπιο που έφερναν οι Ευρωπαίοι. Τινάζει αδιάφορα σαν πιτυρίδα από τη βάτα του του την Ινδία (που ρούφηξε αγγλική αποικιοκρατία για ΠΟΛΥ καιρό) και χαιρετά από μακριά με ύφος «Μελάνια Τραμπ» (αυτό με τα σουρωμένα μάτια τύπου «κάπου σε ξέρω, αλλά στ’ @@ μου να θυμηθώ από πού») την Ιαπωνία. Φιλιππίνες, Ινδονησία, Τιμόρ (που μάλιστα έχει «ανατολικό και δυτικό»), ΚΟΡΕΑ (δεν είναι τυχαία η έκφραση «έγινε της Κορέας»), ΒΙΕΤΝΑΜ (αλήθεια Άντονι, δεν είδες ανατολή και δύση σε σύγκρουση, εκεί που οι δυτικότεροι του βασιλέως γεωγραφικά και πολιτικά -γκαπιταλισταί- αμερικάνοι συνεκρούσθησαν μετά των ανατολιτών γεωγραφικά και πολιτικά -γκομουνιστώνε- Βιετκόνχ;) νιαουρίζουν στα κεραμίδια σκύλος που ξέρει ξένες γλώσσες, αλλά δε φαίνεται να ενοχλούν κανέναν. Υποθέτω, υπάρχει εδώ ένα
Ωστόσο, υπάρχουν σημεία που το βιβλίο είναι καλό, εξαιρετικά καλό και αποζημιώνουν για τις αβλεψίες και τις αστοχίες που παρατηρούνται σε άλλα, με αποτέλεσμα να μη μπορεί κανείς να το ρίξει στον Καιάδα και να αποσπά (με το ζόρι είναι η αλήθεια) ένα 3αράκι, κυρίως γιατί δεν έχω το κουράγιο και το χρόνο να κάνω έρευνα για όλα τα σημεία που με ξένισαν και αναρωτήθηκα αν έγιναν όντως έτσι ή είναι μεσανατολικά και ευρωπαϊκά αντίστοιχα της μούφας με τον Παλαιώνε Πατρώνε.
Γραμμένο… προφανώς από «δυτική» σκποπιά, δεν αποφεύγει να παρουσιάσει τη δύση (τον ιδεότυπο της Δύσης «εγκαλιτολιμπερτοφρατερνιζέ» φιλελεύθερης, αστικά δημοκρατικής) σαν φορέα προόδου και να χρεώσει στο Ισλάμ την καθυστέρηση του «ανατολικού κόσμου». Δεν είμαι σίγουρος ότι συμφωνώ με την συνολική ανάλυση (όχι ότι θεωρώ το ισλάμ αβάν γκάρντ του πολιτισμού, γελάνε και οι πέτρες με τις οποίες λιθοβολούν μοιχαλίδες, ομοφυλόφιλους και διανοούμενους) και την απόδοση αιτίων στα… αιτιατά (καθυστέρηση, υπανάπτυξη, οπισθοδρόμηση), ούτε στην παντελή ανικανότητα εκκοσμίκευσης των ισλαμικών χωρών (ότι ο συντελεστής δυσκολίας είναι υψηλότερος από τετραπλό άξελ, είναι δεδομένο).
Από τα πιο απολαυστικά σημεία η αποδόμηση του Λώρενς της Αραβίας ως κοντοστούπη, εμμονικού, μυθομανούς, πικραμένου ομοφυλόφιλου με καλές δημόσιες σχέσεις και μηδενική συμμετοχή σε μάχες.
Τέλος πάντων, γενικά το κρατάμε, με κάποιες (αρκετές) επιφυλάξεις.
January 14, 2026
Πιότερο 2,5
Όχι ακριβώς αυτό που περιμένει κανείς όταν ξεκινάει το βιβλίο.
Καλά, ας αφήσουμε τι περιμένει και ας εστιάσουμε στο τι βρίσκει.
Αρχικώς, λάθη, που δεν θα έπρεπε να έχουν γίνει και δε θα έπρεπε να έχουν περάσει από την επιμέλεια. Και επειδή το έψαξα και στην ελληνική μετάφραση… ξέφυγαν και στη μετάφραση (όχι όλα, σε κάποια ο μεταφραστής ή ο επιμελητής της ελληνικής έκδοσης προβαίνει σε διόρθωση).
Έπειτα, λάθη που αφορούν σε έλλειψη επαφής με το αντικείμενο, αντιληπτά με άνεση από τον Έλληνα αναγνώστη για παράδειγμα στα σημεία που αφορούν σε εγνωσμένα τμήματα της ελληνικής ιστορίας και αφηγήσεις που έχουν καταρρεύσει (π.χ. ότι ο Παλαιών Πατρών Γερμανός σήκωσε το φλάμπουρο της επανάστασης στις 25/3/1821 και το κράτησε μέχρι να πάθει λουμπάγκο, κάτι που έχει αποδειχθεί ότι συνέβη όσο και οι περιπέτειες του Μπομπ Σφουγγαράκη στο βυθό του Μπικίνι). Τα λάθη αυτά, δεν ενοχλούν ιδιαίτερα per se, αλλά προβληματίζουν ως προς το πόσα άλλα δεν γίνονται αντιληπτά σε κομμάτια της Ευρωπαϊκής και μεσανατολικής ιστορίας που ο αναγνώστης κατέχει λιγότερο ή καθόλου.
Ξεπερνώντας τον μανιχαϊσμό του βιβλίου που είναι άλλωστε έκδηλος από τον τίτλο ακόμα, παρατηρεί κανείς ότι πέρα από τον αυθαίρετο χαρακτηρισμό ανατολής και δύσης που επέβαλλαν οι Ευρωπαίοι (ΟΚ, Άντονι, δε θα στον χρεώσω αυτόν, αλλά μπορούσες να βάλεις τη δική σου πινελιά εδώ και έχασες την ευκαιρία), ο συγγραφέας πρακτικά ξεχνά την τεράστια εδαφικά και πληθυσμιακά Κίνα, η οποία όχι απλώς ήρθε σε αντιπαράθεση με την Ευρώπη (τη «Δύση»), αλλά αναγκάστηκε μπροστά στις κανονιοφόρους της (πολυκαθωσπρέπει και μη φανεί καμιά κάλτσα με αστράγαλο μέσα, θα γίνει σκάνδαλο) Βασίλισσας Βικτώριας να ανοίξει τις αγορές της για το… όπιο που έφερναν οι Ευρωπαίοι. Τινάζει αδιάφορα σαν πιτυρίδα από τη βάτα του του την Ινδία (που ρούφηξε αγγλική αποικιοκρατία για ΠΟΛΥ καιρό) και χαιρετά από μακριά με ύφος «Μελάνια Τραμπ» (αυτό με τα σουρωμένα μάτια τύπου «κάπου σε ξέρω, αλλά στ’ @@ μου να θυμηθώ από πού») την Ιαπωνία. Φιλιππίνες, Ινδονησία, Τιμόρ (που μάλιστα έχει «ανατολικό και δυτικό»), ΚΟΡΕΑ (δεν είναι τυχαία η έκφραση «έγινε της Κορέας»), ΒΙΕΤΝΑΜ (αλήθεια Άντονι, δεν είδες ανατολή και δύση σε σύγκρουση, εκεί που οι δυτικότεροι του βασιλέως γεωγραφικά και πολιτικά -γκαπιταλισταί- αμερικάνοι συνεκρούσθησαν μετά των ανατολιτών γεωγραφικά και πολιτικά -γκομουνιστώνε- Βιετκόνχ;) νιαουρίζουν στα κεραμίδια σκύλος που ξέρει ξένες γλώσσες, αλλά δε φαίνεται να ενοχλούν κανέναν. Υποθέτω, υπάρχει εδώ ένα βροντώδες, βαθυβόρβορο και ουρανομήκες μικρό ξέπλυμμα του δυτικού ιμπεριαλισμού όταν δεν προέρχεται από σταυροφόρους ή το (σατανά ουσιξσιξσιξ) Ναπολέοντα. Α, ναι η λέξη ιμπεριαλισμός όταν εμφανίζεται στο βιβλίο είναι πάντα από στόματα ανατολιτών που παραπονιούνται για τις πρακτικές της Δύσης.
Ωστόσο, υπάρχουν σημεία που το βιβλίο είναι καλό, εξαιρετικά καλό και αποζημιώνουν για τις αβλεψίες και τις αστοχίες που παρατηρούνται σε άλλα, με αποτέλεσμα να μη μπορεί κανείς να το ρίξει στον Καιάδα και να αποσπά (με το ζόρι είναι η αλήθεια) ένα 3αράκι, κυρίως γιατί δεν έχω το κουράγιο και το χρόνο να κάνω έρευνα για όλα τα σημεία που με ξένισαν και αναρωτήθηκα αν έγιναν όντως έτσι ή είναι μεσανατολικά και ευρωπαϊκά αντίστοιχα της μούφας με τον Παλαιώνε Πατρώνε.
Γραμμένο… προφανώς από «δυτική» σκποπιά, δεν αποφεύγει να παρουσιάσει τη δύση (τον ιδεότυπο της Δύσης «εγκαλιτολιμπερτοφρατερνιζέ» φιλελεύθερης, αστικά δημοκρατικής) σαν φορέα προόδου και να χρεώσει στο Ισλάμ την καθυστέρηση του «ανατολικού κόσμου». Δεν είμαι σίγουρος ότι συμφωνώ με την συνολική ανάλυση (όχι ότι θεωρώ το ισλάμ αβάν γκάρντ του πολιτισμού, γελάνε και οι πέτρες με τις οποίες λιθοβολούν μοιχαλίδες, ομοφυλόφιλους και διανοούμενους) και την απόδοση αιτίων στα… αιτιατά (καθυστέρηση, υπανάπτυξη, οπισθοδρόμηση), ούτε στην παντελή ανικανότητα εκκοσμίκευσης των ισλαμικών χωρών (ότι ο συντελεστής δυσκολίας είναι υψηλότερος από τετραπλό άξελ, είναι δεδομένο).
Από τα πιο απολαυστικά σημεία η αποδόμηση του Λώρενς της Αραβίας ως κοντοστούπη, εμμονικού, μυθομανούς, πικραμένου ομοφυλόφιλου με καλές δημόσιες σχέσεις και μηδενική συμμετοχή σε μάχες.
Τέλος πάντων, γενικά το κρατάμε, με κάποιες (αρκετές) επιφυλάξεις.
Όχι ακριβώς αυτό που περιμένει κανείς όταν ξεκινάει το βιβλίο.
Καλά, ας αφήσουμε τι περιμένει και ας εστιάσουμε στο τι βρίσκει.
Αρχικώς, λάθη, που δεν θα έπρεπε να έχουν γίνει και δε θα έπρεπε να έχουν περάσει από την επιμέλεια. Και επειδή το έψαξα και στην ελληνική μετάφραση… ξέφυγαν και στη μετάφραση (όχι όλα, σε κάποια ο μεταφραστής ή ο επιμελητής της ελληνικής έκδοσης προβαίνει σε διόρθωση).
Έπειτα, λάθη που αφορούν σε έλλειψη επαφής με το αντικείμενο, αντιληπτά με άνεση από τον Έλληνα αναγνώστη για παράδειγμα στα σημεία που αφορούν σε εγνωσμένα τμήματα της ελληνικής ιστορίας και αφηγήσεις που έχουν καταρρεύσει (π.χ. ότι ο Παλαιών Πατρών Γερμανός σήκωσε το φλάμπουρο της επανάστασης στις 25/3/1821 και το κράτησε μέχρι να πάθει λουμπάγκο, κάτι που έχει αποδειχθεί ότι συνέβη όσο και οι περιπέτειες του Μπομπ Σφουγγαράκη στο βυθό του Μπικίνι). Τα λάθη αυτά, δεν ενοχλούν ιδιαίτερα per se, αλλά προβληματίζουν ως προς το πόσα άλλα δεν γίνονται αντιληπτά σε κομμάτια της Ευρωπαϊκής και μεσανατολικής ιστορίας που ο αναγνώστης κατέχει λιγότερο ή καθόλου.
Ξεπερνώντας τον μανιχαϊσμό του βιβλίου που είναι άλλωστε έκδηλος από τον τίτλο ακόμα, παρατηρεί κανείς ότι πέρα από τον αυθαίρετο χαρακτηρισμό ανατολής και δύσης που επέβαλλαν οι Ευρωπαίοι (ΟΚ, Άντονι, δε θα στον χρεώσω αυτόν, αλλά μπορούσες να βάλεις τη δική σου πινελιά εδώ και έχασες την ευκαιρία), ο συγγραφέας πρακτικά ξεχνά την τεράστια εδαφικά και πληθυσμιακά Κίνα, η οποία όχι απλώς ήρθε σε αντιπαράθεση με την Ευρώπη (τη «Δύση»), αλλά αναγκάστηκε μπροστά στις κανονιοφόρους της (πολυκαθωσπρέπει και μη φανεί καμιά κάλτσα με αστράγαλο μέσα, θα γίνει σκάνδαλο) Βασίλισσας Βικτώριας να ανοίξει τις αγορές της για το… όπιο που έφερναν οι Ευρωπαίοι. Τινάζει αδιάφορα σαν πιτυρίδα από τη βάτα του του την Ινδία (που ρούφηξε αγγλική αποικιοκρατία για ΠΟΛΥ καιρό) και χαιρετά από μακριά με ύφος «Μελάνια Τραμπ» (αυτό με τα σουρωμένα μάτια τύπου «κάπου σε ξέρω, αλλά στ’ @@ μου να θυμηθώ από πού») την Ιαπωνία. Φιλιππίνες, Ινδονησία, Τιμόρ (που μάλιστα έχει «ανατολικό και δυτικό»), ΚΟΡΕΑ (δεν είναι τυχαία η έκφραση «έγινε της Κορέας»), ΒΙΕΤΝΑΜ (αλήθεια Άντονι, δεν είδες ανατολή και δύση σε σύγκρουση, εκεί που οι δυτικότεροι του βασιλέως γεωγραφικά και πολιτικά -γκαπιταλισταί- αμερικάνοι συνεκρούσθησαν μετά των ανατολιτών γεωγραφικά και πολιτικά -γκομουνιστώνε- Βιετκόνχ;) νιαουρίζουν στα κεραμίδια σκύλος που ξέρει ξένες γλώσσες, αλλά δε φαίνεται να ενοχλούν κανέναν. Υποθέτω, υπάρχει εδώ ένα βροντώδες, βαθυβόρβορο και ουρανομήκες μικρό ξέπλυμμα του δυτικού ιμπεριαλισμού όταν δεν προέρχεται από σταυροφόρους ή το (σατανά ουσιξσιξσιξ) Ναπολέοντα. Α, ναι η λέξη ιμπεριαλισμός όταν εμφανίζεται στο βιβλίο είναι πάντα από στόματα ανατολιτών που παραπονιούνται για τις πρακτικές της Δύσης.
Ωστόσο, υπάρχουν σημεία που το βιβλίο είναι καλό, εξαιρετικά καλό και αποζημιώνουν για τις αβλεψίες και τις αστοχίες που παρατηρούνται σε άλλα, με αποτέλεσμα να μη μπορεί κανείς να το ρίξει στον Καιάδα και να αποσπά (με το ζόρι είναι η αλήθεια) ένα 3αράκι, κυρίως γιατί δεν έχω το κουράγιο και το χρόνο να κάνω έρευνα για όλα τα σημεία που με ξένισαν και αναρωτήθηκα αν έγιναν όντως έτσι ή είναι μεσανατολικά και ευρωπαϊκά αντίστοιχα της μούφας με τον Παλαιώνε Πατρώνε.
Γραμμένο… προφανώς από «δυτική» σκποπιά, δεν αποφεύγει να παρουσιάσει τη δύση (τον ιδεότυπο της Δύσης «εγκαλιτολιμπερτοφρατερνιζέ» φιλελεύθερης, αστικά δημοκρατικής) σαν φορέα προόδου και να χρεώσει στο Ισλάμ την καθυστέρηση του «ανατολικού κόσμου». Δεν είμαι σίγουρος ότι συμφωνώ με την συνολική ανάλυση (όχι ότι θεωρώ το ισλάμ αβάν γκάρντ του πολιτισμού, γελάνε και οι πέτρες με τις οποίες λιθοβολούν μοιχαλίδες, ομοφυλόφιλους και διανοούμενους) και την απόδοση αιτίων στα… αιτιατά (καθυστέρηση, υπανάπτυξη, οπισθοδρόμηση), ούτε στην παντελή ανικανότητα εκκοσμίκευσης των ισλαμικών χωρών (ότι ο συντελεστής δυσκολίας είναι υψηλότερος από τετραπλό άξελ, είναι δεδομένο).
Από τα πιο απολαυστικά σημεία η αποδόμηση του Λώρενς της Αραβίας ως κοντοστούπη, εμμονικού, μυθομανούς, πικραμένου ομοφυλόφιλου με καλές δημόσιες σχέσεις και μηδενική συμμετοχή σε μάχες.
Τέλος πάντων, γενικά το κρατάμε, με κάποιες (αρκετές) επιφυλάξεις.
January 15, 2025
It would have been so ridiculously easy for an audiobook like this to descend into Islamophobic tub-thumping about the ideological struggle between the 'Enlightened West' & 'Barbaric East.' (Meaning Islam.) And for that reason, I had my finger hovering over the '1 Star' icon for almost the entire time that I was listening.
However, to my immense surprise, relief and delight, even when discussing Said Kutb's vision of the Islamic State and the rise of radical, political, Islamist Terrorism in the 20th & 21st centuries, the author remained refreshingly insightful and balanced. Pointing out that in places like Iraq & Afghanistan, we were fatally naïve to assume that people would eagerly embrace so-called 'Western, Liberal Democracy;' especially when literally their only experience of it in most cases was as Western Imperialism & Godlessness "at the wrong end of a gun." So while I've only given this audiobook 4 stars for the moment in case I've missed something vital, I will almost certainly be listening to it again and can't recommend it highly enough to everyone.
However, to my immense surprise, relief and delight, even when discussing Said Kutb's vision of the Islamic State and the rise of radical, political, Islamist Terrorism in the 20th & 21st centuries, the author remained refreshingly insightful and balanced. Pointing out that in places like Iraq & Afghanistan, we were fatally naïve to assume that people would eagerly embrace so-called 'Western, Liberal Democracy;' especially when literally their only experience of it in most cases was as Western Imperialism & Godlessness "at the wrong end of a gun." So while I've only given this audiobook 4 stars for the moment in case I've missed something vital, I will almost certainly be listening to it again and can't recommend it highly enough to everyone.
December 30, 2020
The introduction was so off-putting. Started out like a lot of other books I don’t really like, starts throwing insults and has an obvious vendetta against the Greeks and provides very little evidence to the claims they make left, right, and center. And then they keep making claims that make no sense with the confidence of a four year old telling you carbon doesn’t exist because they’ve never seen it before. For instance, the author claims that the world is becoming more United than ever. And the author doesn’t mean the fact that global trade helps spread ideas as well as conflict, which would have made sense, instead he insists that all borders are being eaten away and even divisions between families are disappearing. None of that has to do with the title or his main thesis, even if the claim made any sense. Our worlds differing cultures clash constantly to say we are decades away from singing cumbayah together or being one global government is quite a stretch and is pretty naive.
August 23, 2017
This book looks at the relationship between East and West (Europe and Asia) from the time of the Persian Wars until the present day. The author compares the culture and animating ideas of the two areas in various times. I thought the book was well-written, especially in that it covered thousands of years of history in an engaging way for the non-specialist, but I didn't think the author made the case that the relationship between East and West has always been one of competition or struggle. He didn't explain why there was conflict in some periods and more cooperation in others adequately. It was still a good introduction, however, and I would recommend it to anyone wanting an introduction to East-West history on a macro scale.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews