This is not a history

If you are a novice in the topic, this book will mislead you.
If you have prior knowledge, this book will disappoint you.
I am not exaggerating when I say that Wikipedia has significantly more depth and analysis.

The book starts spectacularly well. Beginning with a glimpse into modern Iraq, the author demonstrates the complexity of identities and social life in the region and testifies on how one must consider the context and a multitude of influencing factors when studying Iraq and its rich history. As the first chapter of this book correctly argues, one must use a range of tools to carefully analyse the sources to understand the history.
The rest of the book, however, fails to consider context or to employ any critical thinking. Let's demonstrate this by a few examples:
- When addressing the history of Ur, this book repeatedly switches between historical resources and myths without informing us about this amalgamation. It presents a story as a fact that is half based on creation myths and legends instead of analyzing these precious and important myths to uncover the underlying narratives and histories.
- This book goes on a long tangent about the birth myth of Alexander the Great but fails to discuss how Alexander ruled over Iraq or what changes he implemented in the region. Not a single mention of ancient temples rebuilt by Alexander or his influence on the religious practices of the region. The long legacy of Alexander has been reduced to some unreliable historical gossip.
- When Discussing lesser-known powers and influences such as the Parthian empire, the author merely quotes ancient primary sources as historical facts without a shred of analysis or discussion of their bias or accuracy. This is an exceptionally poor practice in 21st-century historiography. Not only ancient primary sources are misrepresented, but also they are used to convey an incorrect image. To top it off, this undermines the good work of all the historians who correctly employ primary sources with the help of analysis and context to present a reliable historical narrative.
- When discussing late antiquity, The book mentions Mazdak, a historically important religious and social reformer in the region. But guess what is the only point this book considers worthy of mention? Mazdak's philosophy, complex religious dogma, or his lasting impact? No, the book only mentions that followers of Mazdak believed in the sharing of their wives! So not only does it fail to introduce this historical character, but it merely repeats the slander of Mazdak's contemporary Zoroastrian enemies and future Islamic critics.
This is the level of analysis you will get from this book: Cyrus was a genius (but let's not discuss his actual legacy), Alexander was the son of Zeus and magical (but let's not discuss his actual conduct), Parthians were barbarians and savages, and Mazdakites were polyamorous radicals.
This is a book written by a Western Christian man with a Hellenistic bias that fails to recognize his bias. This book is not written as an analysis but as sensational gossip to sell and make an easy buck.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

2 people found this helpful