Worlds at War

The 2,500-Year Struggle Between East and West

By: Anthony Pagden

Narrated by: John Lee

Length: 20 hrs and 36 mins

Publisher's summary

In the tradition of Jared Diamond and Jacques Barzun, prize-winning historian Anthony Pagden presents a sweeping history of the long struggle between East and West, from the Greeks to the present day.

The relationship between East and West has always been one of turmoil. In this historical tour de force, a renowned historian leads us from the world of classical antiquity, through the Dark Ages, to the Crusades, Europe's resurgence, and the dominance of the Ottoman Empire, which almost shattered Europe entirely. Pagden travels from Napoleon in Egypt to Europe's carving up of the finally moribund Ottomans - creating the modern Middle East along the way - and on to the present struggles in Iraq.

Throughout, we learn a tremendous amount about what "East" and "West" were and are, and how it has always been competing worldviews and psychologies, more than religion or power grabs, that have fed the mistrust and violence between East and West. In Pagden's dark but provocative view, this struggle cannot help but go on.

©2008 Anthony Pagden (P)2008 Tantor

Critic reviews

"An accessible and lucid exploration of the history of the East-West split....Fans of Jacques Barzun and Jared Diamond will be most impressed by Pagden's big picture perspective." ( Publishers Weekly)

Unsupported secular snarky secular commentary

What could have made this a 4 or 5-star listening experience for you?

A logical framework for the story. The point of the book seemed to be a chronological drive-by ridiculing of all religious believers.

Would you ever listen to anything by Anthony Pagden again?

No.

Which scene was your favorite?

The historical topic is interesting. The authors handling, incredibly poor.

You didn’t love this book... but did it have any redeeming qualities?

The historical topic is interesting. The authors handling, incredibly poor.

Any additional comments?

The author assumes that you share his sense of ironic humor at all historical people and their varied beliefs. However, it doesn't make any arguments as to why that is a correct viewpoint. If you share the author's presuppositions, you may enjoy this book. It does cover an interesting historical comparison of cultures.

misleading "history"

Would you try another book from Anthony Pagden and/or John Lee?

Never by Anthony Pagden ... John Lee ... certainly.

What could Anthony Pagden have done to make this a more enjoyable book for you?

He could have written a history - instead of invented one.

You didn’t love this book... but did it have any redeeming qualities?

unfortunately, no. When a "history" book misleads - there's no redemption.

Any additional comments?

The issue is this: Mr. Pagden attempts to create a narrative - the West democratic and the East prone to monarchy and leader-worship. His vision is lovely: that history has been a continuous fight of the Trojan War. Unfortunately, he imposes his narrative upon the history such that he ignores facts that contradicts his desired story line. He never mentions that all histories of the Persian empire that he vilifies were written by Greeks and so shouldn't be expected to be laudatory or unbiased.

This just isn't a history. It's a man's wishful vision of a history - in which he paints a narrative and ignores any facts that contradict it.

If I had never read any other history of the middle-east ... I wouldn't have known that Anthony Pagden stole my money.

Good insights, heavy bias, factually unreliable.

What could have made this a 4 or 5-star listening experience for you?

The book certainly has some good insights, or at least speculations, about the social and psychological evolution of the East-West cultural divide. That said, the author wastes a lot of time following his own bunny trails and ranting about how he views the world. All authors who write about historical events spin their narrative to support their beliefs to some extent, but Padgen's lack of objectivity is blatant. Having to weed credible ideas out of an overbearingly-obvious philosophical agenda gets tiring. Several times he made statements as if they were fact that are merely weak historical theories. Other times he employs bizarre logic and an obvious 21st-century filter to draw sweeping conclusions about complex causes in the progression of history. Worst of all, the author categorically rejects any historical example that contradicts his already-drawn conclusions. If it is a person, he brushes them aside as insincere and probably a liar. If it is a historical event, he immediately assumes it is historically inaccurate...

What could Anthony Pagden have done to make this a more enjoyable book for you?

Padgen could have double checked his facts, avoided presenting theories as definite truths, and at least attempted to be a little more objective in his narrative. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't all bad, there were some positive insights in the book. However, while the cover looks like a respectable, academic work, it reads more like the opinions of a wanna-be historian who read Wikipedia and delights himself in making philosophical conclusions about history.

What about John Lee’s performance did you like?

The narrator was solid. Good voice, good pace.

What reaction did this book spark in you? Anger, sadness, disappointment?

Disappointment. I was looking for something with a little more complexity and the mature ability to see situations from multiple angles. Instead, the author reads history strictly through the lens of his conclusions and his philosophy.

Disappointed somewhat:

Would you try another book from Anthony Pagden and/or John Lee?

Not really

Has Worlds at War turned you off from other books in this genre?

No

Which scene was your favorite?

Details about Alexander the Great.

What reaction did this book spark in you? Anger, sadness, disappointment?

I am always interested in history, but I don't like his atheistic views that are so strong that it colors the historical view. He likes to attack the Bible, and not purely accurate in his charge which would make me doubt other facts that may be colored by his views. I know this is normal for college professor material. But having graduated many years ago I don't appreciate the atheistic religion that is taught along with the facts.

Any additional comments?

He had many details in history that was very interesting. I just don't like that haughty anti- God reiterate that make young people think that atheism is education.

Historical errors

I regret purchasing this audio book. The author made numerous factual errors. He has a right to his opinions, but the historical errors are egregious.

very one sided pro Turksi

trying to explain the armenian genocide, the author tries to explain it by mentioning that the Turks thought the Armenians killed Turks when they declared independence in 1915. this ignores the murder of all educated and leaders of the armenian community in the 1890's.

typical british view that created the current trouble in Middle east with their meddling.

An author's grudge

I was hoping for a good history book and the author said in his introduction that he hated religion of all sorts and how it was a stain on history. That is my paraphrase and I am happy to read a book with that viewpoint. However, I found it interesting that an author so opposed to religion would spend so much time talking about it. You would think that he would gloss over those parts and instead focus on the parts of history he enjoyed. Alas, the focus appears to be more of the defamation of all religions, rather than the discussion of history. The title should therefore be changed to "why I hate god"...

Didn't do his research in the right places

The author did a lot of research but I have no clue as to where he did his research about the religions of Judiasm and Christianity. His conclusions were glaringly out of touch with what Judaism & Christianity really are and what the belief concepts are as well. It sounds like he read all kinds of opinions but did not go to the source, The Bible.

Incredible!

Incredible!I read from chapter to chapter, paragraph to paragraph in utter amazement. Anthony Pagden is to complimented on his writing skills...revisionism at its best!I have not seen anyone with the ability to revise history with subtlety for that he is to be complimented, for revising history he should be castigated.

Rah Rah Rah! Go Europe, Middle East Sucks!

This is just about the most polemical, biased history I've ever "read". It consists primarily of a bunch of quotes from Europeans stating how much the Middle East and all its countries and people suck, interspersed with quick glosses of famous battles, leaders, etc. There is no explanation of *why* any of the events unfolded the way they did - no discussion of technology, institutions, etc. The characteristics attributed to "The East" (i.e. the Mideast) are almost laughably inconsistent - Middle Easterners are decadent girly-men one chapter, then rough uncivilized barbarians the next. But the derision and smug superiority never lets up for an instant. There is very little history in this history book, but a whole lot of cheerleading for the author's tribe. If you skip it, you won't be missing much.