In brief, it's a popular history book on the Mediterranean. And it's that one little word, "history", that gets it in trouble. Here's some examples.
First, in Chapter I: Beginnings, he tells us all about the Hebrews, the Exodus, King David and the kingdoms of Israel and Judaea, basically recounting the biblical narrative. As it happens, there are a few problems with that. The simple fact is that the archeological record just does not support the historicity of any of the events he recounts. For at least a good part of his first chapter, Norwich has seen fit to completely abandon sources and simply recount the Bible as fact. Now, if this was a book on the Bible, why not, but this is presented as a history book.
Another tidbit from the first chapters: in Chapter III, titled "Rome: The Republic":
The rise of Rome was due, more than anything else, to the character and qualities of the Romans themselves. They were a simple, straightforward, law-abiding people with a strong sense of family values, willing to accept discipline when required to do so (...)
It feels like the entire passage was lifted from a Victorian schoolbook. The national characteristics of the Romans were the reason for their success. Obviously, that implies that the national character of other Mediterranean peoples must have been inferior, because the Romans were able to subjugate them. See where we end up? He is basically reiterating the classic, racist paradigm of history where "superior" nations triumph over "inferior" ones because of their "racial characteristics".
**
After a beginning like this, I didn't hold out much hope that the book was going to be worth reading, and it isn't.
In a book that purports to be a history of the Mediterranean, there is a surprising lack of attention given to, well, the Mediterranean. The sea itself is barely present in the narrative. Instead, Norwich is content to recount the basic political history of nations on the Mediterranean coast at a high school level, albeit at some length.
The simple problem of the book is exactly this. If you have any knowledge of the history he writes about, you will find this book largely trite and uninformative. I would advise you to not read it. If, on the other hand, the subject is fairly new to you, I strongly caution you to not read it, because you won't be able to tell which parts are actual history and which are pure hogwash. So in a very real sense, this is a book no-one should read.
No comments:
Post a Comment