A review by nelsonminar
Europe: A History by Norman Davies
2.0
True confession; I only read the first chapter of this book. Didn't quit out of frustration, that was all I was interested in. I probably shouldn't be writing a review.
But I found the book readable enough. My main complaint is he reports a bunch of things which are fanciful, taking the most extreme interpretation of a limited historical record to tell the most entertaining story.
Specifically quibbling with his account of the "Anemospilia sacrifice", an archaeological find, where if you take the most breathless account an earthquake crushed the room right in the middle of a blood sacrifice aimed at stopping the destruction. Perfectly preserving two sacrificial victims, the high priest, and another temple attendant. It's a great story, one National Geographic reported. It's also probably not true and is not supported by further evidence; there's a zillion competing interpretations of what was actually found. It makes a good story, but I'd rather read a sober and careful review of evidence.
Maybe that's a minor quibble or not relevant to the rest of the book. On a quick skim I also worry about the book staying coherent for 1400 pages. Or rather, maybe too coherent, more so than real human history is.
But I found the book readable enough. My main complaint is he reports a bunch of things which are fanciful, taking the most extreme interpretation of a limited historical record to tell the most entertaining story.
Specifically quibbling with his account of the "Anemospilia sacrifice", an archaeological find, where if you take the most breathless account an earthquake crushed the room right in the middle of a blood sacrifice aimed at stopping the destruction. Perfectly preserving two sacrificial victims, the high priest, and another temple attendant. It's a great story, one National Geographic reported. It's also probably not true and is not supported by further evidence; there's a zillion competing interpretations of what was actually found. It makes a good story, but I'd rather read a sober and careful review of evidence.
Maybe that's a minor quibble or not relevant to the rest of the book. On a quick skim I also worry about the book staying coherent for 1400 pages. Or rather, maybe too coherent, more so than real human history is.