Rating: 
Summary: A fabulous reference
Review: A great reference book and also somthing to pick up and browse.
I love it!
Rating: 
Summary: Tiresome
Review: A Short History of the World definitely has a slant to it. The author calls the French and Indian War the Seven Year War. I think it would've been easier to use the French and Indian War, afterall there's been only one French and Indian War in the history of the human race-- there's been countless wars that have lasted seven years and can be called a Seven Year War. Furthermore, he even uses outdated names for mountain ranges and countries. He mentioned a range in America that I couldn't find on a map-- I think he was referring to the Appalachians or Rockies, but I'm not sure. Plus he uses the term "Anatolia" instead of Asia Minor/Turkey. I've never heard "Anatolia" used before, but then I don't have a PhD in history. Lastly, this book is boring. Basically he says a lot about nothing. It rambles. I finally finished it after three months.
Rating: 
Summary: Informative
Review: A Short History of the World lays the foundation for studying the past. Good organization, quick read, and effective. Minus a star for no maps.
Rating:
Summary: Simply wonderful
Review: An excellent synopsis of world history. I'd only had two history classes in high school (avoided it in college), and now, 10 years later, decided that I wanted to learn more about the development of humanity. This book is not just names and dates - he takes you through the "how"s and "why"s of historical events. I gained many insights from reading it, plus a new perspective on the last few decades. I would recommend this book to anyone.
Rating:
Summary: This book is using very antiquated racial theories.
Review: I am sad to see the "hamitic" hypothesis is alive and well after reading the first sections of human history here, and to see the author claim that the Sumerians were "probably caucasian in root" (43) According to Matthew Frye Jacobson's very good book, Whiteness of a Different Color, the "caucasian" racial category was cooked up some time in the 1920s and has no scientific basis. The naturalizing of racial categories in this book is disappointing, and I am sad to see that a book using them received such uncritical reviews from such respected publications as The Economist and the Christian Science Monitor. As an antidote to this version of world history, I'd suggest a little Basil Davidson and Martin Bernal.
Rating:
Summary: a good balance
Review: I believe that Roberts found a good balance between being detailed and yet stating the needed facts. His work is a survey of History not a detailed study. Anything less then 500 pages would be a time line and not a book. The book is a good introduction to history.
However I would like to add that Roberts sentence structure could be improved
Rating:
Summary: Fine, if you want sociology, not history
Review: I didn't find this book well-written or much of a history at all. If you are more interested in how people and countries reacted to history than in history, you'll love the book. If you want to know what happened and the interactions between countries, find another book. Unfortunately, Roberts makes the assumption that you already know all the historical facts and leaves many out and just refers to them(like the French loss of Canada), or gives you one table of facts and then rambles on about sociology for 20 or so pages. There are NO illustrations, no maps and he uses old names for regions that aren't listed on current-day map (i.e. Anatolia). The sentence structure is very bizarre and hard to understand. The structure of the book is also puzzling; he writes about one region for hundreds (even thousands) of years, then jumps to another country, goes back to the beginning(or where he left off a hundred pages back) and then jumps to another region. If the jumps were caused by bringing two countries up to the same point, to compare them or present a common event, I could understand, but that is rarely the case. It wasn't all bad or I wouldn't have finished the book, but the good stuff was only found by heavy slogging.
Rating: 
Summary: A Difficult book to finish
Review: I found this book to be entirely too detailed. When I purchased this book I was looking for a simple 'outline' of world history. What I got was a 350 page sleeping pill! This book is so incredible boring. I am an avid reader and had a very difficult time finishing this book. The book doesn't take the time to explain complex jargon, whih makes the book difficult to follow. The book skips around far too much. If you have a basic knowledge of world history this book would be ideal for an elaboration and insight on major events. However, if you're looking to learn about 'world history' I suggest looking somewhere else. To give credit to Roberts, the book does provide some very compelling insight. However,this insight is meaningless if you don't have a basic knowledge of world events!
Rating:
Summary: Yawn
Review: I had to struggle to finish this book, it was that painful! This book needs a glossary.
Rating:
Summary: A great book that everyone should read.
Review: I have read many concise history texts, and this is far and away the best one I've come across. Mr. Roberts communicates all the major events in history without confusing the reader with too many details. He does more then tell you what happened, and when it happened, he explains why and what impact it has on us today. This is a book that every citizen should read and a great introduction for young scholars just cutting their teeth on history. It would make a great text for a freshman level general history course, or for high achieving high schoolers.
| 
