I gave up on this book after a little more than 100 pages. So what made me dislike this book? To explain I will compare it to a favorite big picture hI gave up on this book after a little more than 100 pages. So what made me dislike this book? To explain I will compare it to a favorite big picture history book of mine, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy. What makes that book great? First, it has well defined theory, which is summed up by the term "imperial overreach". After 100 pages I don't really know what the theory in "After Tamerlane" is. I've been given a lot of reasons why the west was not yet ready to take on the rest of Eurasia as late as the 18th century, the latest reason (when I stopped reading) being that their military forces were geared towards fighting other forces of the same kind. This latest idea is presented without going into enough detail to be convinced unless you already know the story as well as John Darwin. I could say the same thing about every idea presented in the book, but the sad fact is that I don't remember anything else, as there is no overarching theory which ties everything together, like in Paul Kennedys book. As far as I remember, Kennedys book also had a better narrative. This may be because Kennedy is better at presenting his ideas, but it could also be that "After Tamerlane" tries to cover too much. Kennedy focuses on one power at a time (the domininant western power in each period) and the conflicts tied to that powers rise and fall, whereas Darwin covers the whole of Eurasia, all the time. Even though I read a lot of history books, there is just too much in Darwins book that is skimmed over for me. I would need a much more detailed narrative to be able to appreciate his arguments. As it is this book gave me nothing. There is no narrative and no grand theory that I will remember from this book. Even the one idea I presented above (about military forces in the west) will probably be forgotten in a week....more
Loading...
