Review of 'Toute Lhistoire Du Monde De La Prhistoire Nos Jours' on Goodreads
1 star
The title of the book is wrong. It should be "History of the world from France's point of view".
The authors' myopic and biased point of view in favor of France is hilarious. The period from prehistory up until the nation of France comes to be, is hastily given. After that it becomes an exhaustive discussion of French history, to minute detail. Events not linked to the French empire are only briefly mentioned.
For example, the Mongol empire, the largest empire in the human history, is not discussed at all. The Chinese history is left mostly untouched, only ever brought up when linked to European or French matters. Worse still, the birth of the United States of America, the enormous significance of its modern constitution which didn't revolve around godly kings or emperors is only mentioned to discuss how the French and English empire were affected. Same goes with the …
The title of the book is wrong. It should be "History of the world from France's point of view".
The authors' myopic and biased point of view in favor of France is hilarious. The period from prehistory up until the nation of France comes to be, is hastily given. After that it becomes an exhaustive discussion of French history, to minute detail. Events not linked to the French empire are only briefly mentioned.
For example, the Mongol empire, the largest empire in the human history, is not discussed at all. The Chinese history is left mostly untouched, only ever brought up when linked to European or French matters. Worse still, the birth of the United States of America, the enormous significance of its modern constitution which didn't revolve around godly kings or emperors is only mentioned to discuss how the French and English empire were affected. Same goes with the American Civil war.
On the contrary, enormous amount of effort is dedicated to discuss the internal spaghetti history of the French royals. Countless names are dropped one after the other, their only significance linked to some minute esoteric factoid of royal gossip.
Similarly, Napoleon is endlessly praised as a faultless military mastermind. Page after page is dedicated to his military achievements, his lasting praise continued well into the 20th century. The fact that a rebel became an ordinary power-hungry emperor full of hubris does not seem to bother the authors.
The same attitude continues with World War 2. France's faults are usually given a pass while the rest of the nations' efforts are usually presented as the minimum expected.
In the end I think that there is some value in this book. On the one hand it can be use as an example to avoid. On the other hand it serves as an example of how biased History is by definition. Before I came up with the above comments, I realized that I might be doing exactly the same when I think about and try to talk about my own history. This book made me think twice before I talk about things I think of as objective.