Reviewed by Mark Janzen, Assistant Professor of History, Louisiana College on 4/25/20
Comprehensiveness
rating:
see less
The chapters covered in this first volume are well-organized and the major topics are addressed but sometimes without sufficient space (more in "Consistency" section). I was especially happy to the ancient world given several chapters instead of just 2-3 chapters as many books do.
Since the book is apparently marketed in three parts, I think it's important to provide an index for each part. Certain institutions or programs may use only volume 1, for example, and there is no index for it.
Content Accuracy
rating:
Most sections I found to be accurate but there were a few errors, some more troubling than others. Jews, Christians, and Muslims do not worship the same god as the Introduction claims. There are substantial differences -- Trinitarian God vs. Allah is One, Deity of Christ, etc. -- to the extent that devout believers of each faith would bristle at the notion that they worship the same god. If the intent was to inform students that the three 3 largest monotheistic faiths have much in common due to their Abrahamic heritage, then that needs to be said. Claiming they all worship the same god is a gross simplification and requires far too much "cleaning up" from the professor to my mind. Either this needs to be removed or given a fuller treatment with far more nuance. The explanation regarding the Trinity is also a bit muddy and it felt like the author was not quite sure how to explain it. I also find using terms like "party line" to discuss a religious dogma to be in poor state and this risks giving students an overly politicized view of religion. Of course, religion and politics mixed often in that time period, but again I thought nuance was lacking here. Overall the sections on religion need the most work.
Another area that needs more nuance is the so-called "Dark Ages" and the long since worn out characterization of the Germanic tribes are barbarians. The author appears to be aware of this by continually putting it "barbarians" in quotes and then explaining it in one paragraph. The term, however, should be replaced by the actual names of the tribes for their distinctions to be noted. They were not one homogenous group. There's no reason to perpetuate the Roman stereotype of them. Note it and move on to addressing them by name.
A colleague of mine has read it as well and made some additional observations I'd like to highlight. The sections involving Latin terms also need to be cleaned up a bit. "Coloni" are not slaves but colonists. Most Coloni were "veterani" or their descendants who were settled in conquered provinces to secure Roman power. They kept the peace and were given land as incentive for military service. They were by definition free Roman citizens, in contrast to the rustici or nativi who were non-citizens and often suffered under early forms of serfdom.
A few topics deserve more treatment, in particular the time between the Arab Conquest and the Crusades. More should be said of the Carolingians, the Holy Roman Empire, etc.
Relevance/Longevity
rating:
I think it's relevant and appears like it would be easy to update. I don't know if the author is a Wikipedia writer but at times it reads very similar to Wiki entries and makes use of Wiki Commons media/images. I don't not say this as a criticism necessarily. If anything, such a relationship makes updating even more streamlined.
I will include these next remarks here because of the relationship to Wikipedia. I considered placing them in the first section as well. I would greatly appreciate a section "For Further Reading" so that the reliance on Wiki would be mitigated a bit. Considering that nearly every professor I know tells his/her students to not rely too much on Wiki, it's important that the book provide additional sources.
Clarity
rating:
See some of my comments above, but overall I think it is well-written for an early Undergraduate textbook. I would like a bit more precision and nuance on certain topics (some addressed above) but the overall prose is lucid and accessible. I think this is written in a more readable prose for Freshman than the vast majority of textbooks.
Consistency
rating:
Terminology is fine so far as I could tell. I do think the framework needs to tweaked some (see comments above about the time periods between the Arabic Conquest and the Crusades). I think more should also be said of a few ancient events like Late Bronze Age Collapse and the Peloponnesian War. That said, I greatly appreciated the space devoted to the ANE, Greece, and Rome.
Modularity
rating:
No issues here. The headings are intuitive and provide a generally fair amount of reading for each section. Easily digestible for undergrads.
Organization/Structure/Flow
rating:
They are logical and clear other than the last chapter or two on Islam and the Early Middle Ages which feels rushed (see comments above)
Interface
rating:
Layout, pixelation, etc. are all well done.
Grammatical Errors
rating:
No major issues.
Cultural Relevance
rating:
It's inclusive. A bit more on women/gender throughout would be helpful. The section on women in Egypt was great to see but so short. Much more could said there and in other regions and times. See also my previous comments on religion.
Comments
My other major concern is that there is a lack of primary source citations. Many expensive texts include text-boxes or something similar to address this. Others include an entirely separate book. Considering cost, the latter is a bad option, of course. Good instructors will no doubt supplement this book with primary sources, but I would like to see more sources cited in the text to demonstrate how vibrant, exciting, and relevant history is. For example, when I discuss women in Egypt, I discuss letters from the worker's village at Deir el-Medina from two women to each other. One essentially states she has nothing to wear for the social function that week, so she wants to borrow something from the letter recipient. My students get a good laugh at that! More significantly, that conversation allows us to discuss literacy rates and gender. Did these women know how to write or have access to scribes somehow if not? Both options have interesting implications for their treatment in Egyptian society. I say all this as one example how vital including primary sources is to make history come alive. The book is well-written but needs more of this for history to come alive, which I find is often an uphill battle in Civ classes, as many students come into the class after a poor experience with history class in high school (IE, boring).
Finally, I'd like to note that there is a good chance my department adopts this book. It does a nice job overall. My comments above are made in hopes of improving it further.