What do you think?
Rate this book
How the West Won: The Neglected Story of the Triumph of Modernity
Finally the Truth about the Rise of the West
Modernity developed only in the West—in Europe and North America. Nowhere else did science and democracy arise; nowhere else was slavery outlawed. Only Westerners invented chimneys, musical scores, telescopes, eyeglasses, pianos, electric lights, aspirin, and soap.
The question is, Why?
Unfortunately, that question has become so politically incorrect that most scholars avoid it. But acclaimed author Rodney Stark provides the answers in this sweeping new look at Western civilization.
How the West Won demonstrates the primacy of uniquely Western ideas—among them the belief in free will, the commitment to the pursuit of knowledge, the notion that the universe functions according to rational rules that can be discovered, and the emphasis on human freedom and secure property rights.
Taking readers on a thrilling journey from ancient Greece to the present, Stark challenges much of the received wisdom about Western history. Stark also debunks absurd fabrications that have flourished in the past few that the Greeks stole their culture from Africa; that the West’s “discoveries” were copied from the Chinese and Muslims; that Europe became rich by plundering the non-Western world. At the same time, he reveals the woeful inadequacy of recent attempts to attribute the rise of the West to purely material causes—favorable climates, abundant natural resources, guns and steel.
How the West Won displays Rodney Stark’s gifts for lively narrative history and making the latest scholarship accessible to all readers. This bold, insightful book will force you to rethink your understanding of the West and the birth of modernity—and to recognize that Western civilization really has set itself apart from other cultures.
Modernity developed only in the West—in Europe and North America. Nowhere else did science and democracy arise; nowhere else was slavery outlawed. Only Westerners invented chimneys, musical scores, telescopes, eyeglasses, pianos, electric lights, aspirin, and soap.
The question is, Why?
Unfortunately, that question has become so politically incorrect that most scholars avoid it. But acclaimed author Rodney Stark provides the answers in this sweeping new look at Western civilization.
How the West Won demonstrates the primacy of uniquely Western ideas—among them the belief in free will, the commitment to the pursuit of knowledge, the notion that the universe functions according to rational rules that can be discovered, and the emphasis on human freedom and secure property rights.
Taking readers on a thrilling journey from ancient Greece to the present, Stark challenges much of the received wisdom about Western history. Stark also debunks absurd fabrications that have flourished in the past few that the Greeks stole their culture from Africa; that the West’s “discoveries” were copied from the Chinese and Muslims; that Europe became rich by plundering the non-Western world. At the same time, he reveals the woeful inadequacy of recent attempts to attribute the rise of the West to purely material causes—favorable climates, abundant natural resources, guns and steel.
How the West Won displays Rodney Stark’s gifts for lively narrative history and making the latest scholarship accessible to all readers. This bold, insightful book will force you to rethink your understanding of the West and the birth of modernity—and to recognize that Western civilization really has set itself apart from other cultures.
461 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 24, 2013
188 people are currently reading
1636 people want to read
About the author
Rodney Stark
68 books292 followersRodney Stark grew up in Jamestown, North Dakota, and began his career as a newspaper reporter. Following a tour of duty in the U.S. Army, he received his PhD from the University of California, Berkeley, where he held appointments as a research sociologist at the Survey Research Center and at the Center for the Study of Law and Society. He left Berkeley to become Professor of Sociology and of Comparative Religion at the University of Washington. In 2004 he joined the faculty of Baylor University. He has published 30 books and more than 140 scholarly articles on subjects as diverse as prejudice, crime, suicide, and city life in ancient Rome. However, the greater part of his work has been on religion. He is past president of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and of the Association for the Sociology of Religion. He also has won a number of national and international awards for distinguished scholarship. Many of his books and articles have been translated and published in foreign languages, including Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish, Slovene, and Turkish.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews
April 6, 2023
Rodney Stark's book reminds me of Victor Davis Hanson's "Carnage and Culture". In the current leftist-dominated academic sphere it has become "unfashionable" to study the merits of Western Society. Stark does a very good, and detailed, job of showing the advantages accrued by the West in terms of thought, religion, and commerce.
While it is true that the Western powers were colonial and racist, the truth is so was, and still is, everyone else. The fact that colonialism was an economic negative for the Colonial power puts paid to the "it was for their own profit only" argument, while the truth about slavery seems to forget the important role other African tribes played in the slavery business. The same can be said for the Crusades, which were in response to Islamic imperialism.
Stark also targets conservative thoughts as well- by showing the fallacy of Max Weber's "Protestant work ethic" theory. Stark looks at periods of history starting from Classical Beginnings (500 BC- AD 500); The Not-So-Dark-Ages (500-1200); Medieval Transformations (1200-1500); The Dawn of Modernity (1500-1750) and Modernity (1750- now).
From science to religion to the social contract between rulers and the ruled, there were some very specific, and possibly, unique features to Western development that were not matched anywhere else in the world.
An interesting and accurate historical analysis of what caused the West to develop the way it did.
While it is true that the Western powers were colonial and racist, the truth is so was, and still is, everyone else. The fact that colonialism was an economic negative for the Colonial power puts paid to the "it was for their own profit only" argument, while the truth about slavery seems to forget the important role other African tribes played in the slavery business. The same can be said for the Crusades, which were in response to Islamic imperialism.
Stark also targets conservative thoughts as well- by showing the fallacy of Max Weber's "Protestant work ethic" theory. Stark looks at periods of history starting from Classical Beginnings (500 BC- AD 500); The Not-So-Dark-Ages (500-1200); Medieval Transformations (1200-1500); The Dawn of Modernity (1500-1750) and Modernity (1750- now).
From science to religion to the social contract between rulers and the ruled, there were some very specific, and possibly, unique features to Western development that were not matched anywhere else in the world.
An interesting and accurate historical analysis of what caused the West to develop the way it did.
October 23, 2015
Book summary:
1) Despite what everyone else thinks, the Roman empire led to no advances of civilization. Pagans.
2) Random chapters about religion and slavery, the author's research areas, without ties to overall story.
3) Despite what everyone else thinks, the Dark Ages were a great time of advancement.
4) Random chapters about religion and slavery, the author's research areas, without ties to overall story.
5) Religion is not only helpful to science, but required for scientific inquiry, despite 90% of modern scientists being non-religious. If Galileo and others got in trouble with the church because of their discoveries, it was largely their fault.
6) At no point since the Greek Miracle did any non-Western society ever surpass a Western society. Ever.
1) Despite what everyone else thinks, the Roman empire led to no advances of civilization. Pagans.
2) Random chapters about religion and slavery, the author's research areas, without ties to overall story.
3) Despite what everyone else thinks, the Dark Ages were a great time of advancement.
4) Random chapters about religion and slavery, the author's research areas, without ties to overall story.
5) Religion is not only helpful to science, but required for scientific inquiry, despite 90% of modern scientists being non-religious. If Galileo and others got in trouble with the church because of their discoveries, it was largely their fault.
6) At no point since the Greek Miracle did any non-Western society ever surpass a Western society. Ever.
January 25, 2016
If any professor tried to tell this story today, he'd probably lose his tenure. but Stark really isn't worried about that. This is a must-read for anyone who wants to "get another opinion" on how we got to the condition we are in.
Top-notch. Much myth busting. But what he does so well is to show that quality of life always improves and thrives where there is less oppression from heavy-handed governments and dictators.
The worldview and religion of a people group completely affects its ability to invent and improve the quality of life.
Stark demonstrates this beginning with the Greeks and ending with the Industrial Revolution.
I've read this twice, and I think I will like to come back to it often.
Top-notch. Much myth busting. But what he does so well is to show that quality of life always improves and thrives where there is less oppression from heavy-handed governments and dictators.
The worldview and religion of a people group completely affects its ability to invent and improve the quality of life.
Stark demonstrates this beginning with the Greeks and ending with the Industrial Revolution.
I've read this twice, and I think I will like to come back to it often.
February 2, 2015
This is one of those "history books" that I would call propaganda. Not only is it not "history" but it's premise is not true either. This is one of the few books I have taken back per Audible.com's satisfaction guaranteed policy.
The author tells us that Western Civilization, Christianity and capitalism are the greatest because all great inventions came from the West. He says even though China invented gunpowder they only used it for fireworks the West adapted it for war. That is simply not true. Not only was gunpowder used for war as early as 1044 but they also invented the gun and grenade.
I don't care if an author is politically incorrect as long as he tells the truth. I could see little truth in this book.
From doing some research I discovered the author began as an "agonistic or atheist" who taught Comparative religions and Christianity courses at many colleges, now Baylor. He then found religion in Christianity and all of his books since have been Pro Christian and Western Civilization to the point of propaganda.
He conveniently forgets to add China's invention of currency, porcelain, silk, pasta, etc. as many of the greatest inventions ever conceived.
He forgets about the Arab/Muslim world's numerical system, checks, alphabet, vaccinations and also used gunpowder before the West caught on.
I would say if you like Fox News than this is the book for you.
The author tells us that Western Civilization, Christianity and capitalism are the greatest because all great inventions came from the West. He says even though China invented gunpowder they only used it for fireworks the West adapted it for war. That is simply not true. Not only was gunpowder used for war as early as 1044 but they also invented the gun and grenade.
I don't care if an author is politically incorrect as long as he tells the truth. I could see little truth in this book.
From doing some research I discovered the author began as an "agonistic or atheist" who taught Comparative religions and Christianity courses at many colleges, now Baylor. He then found religion in Christianity and all of his books since have been Pro Christian and Western Civilization to the point of propaganda.
He conveniently forgets to add China's invention of currency, porcelain, silk, pasta, etc. as many of the greatest inventions ever conceived.
He forgets about the Arab/Muslim world's numerical system, checks, alphabet, vaccinations and also used gunpowder before the West caught on.
I would say if you like Fox News than this is the book for you.
January 3, 2021
I have to give credit to How the West Won for being provocative and expressing interesting ideas. I even agree with the main thrust of the book’s argument, which is that Western Civilization rose to world dominance through a chain of events beginning with the freedom of thought unleashed in the democratic Greek city states. This was followed by a freeze in progress caused by the monolithic dominance of the Roman Empire. The fall of the empire cleared the way for a new bloom of creativity and commerce. Far from being a brake on progress, Stark argues that most of the time Christianity was a spur to education, scientific discovery, and the expansion of freedom. The keys to Western dominance were capitalism, respect for private property, and the greater prevalence of freedom in general. These factors led not only to greater innovation, but also to a greater ability to put innovations into wide use, so that when the West met the East or the new world in conflict, the West was able to dominate through its superior technology.
Where Stark falls down is in the particulars. While there may be something in his argument that the Catholic church was not the stick thrust into the spokes of scientific progress that it is popular to assume, I don’t know if he succeeds in proving that the church was the spur to progress he thinks it was. Stark feels like the idea of progress is built into Christian theology and that this belief prodded progress forward, but when you look at specific scientists, they always seem to be motivated by simple curiosity more than religion or anything else. It’s true that Newton was a devout Christian, but I don’t see any evidence here that his religion motivated his discoveries. And in the case of Galileo, Stark goes way off the rails. Stark argues that Galileo’s persecution wasn’t really that bad, and that he had it coming anyway because of his arrogance. His argument is very close to the argument that a rape victim had it coming if she was “dressed like a slut.” Galileo should have been free to say whatever he wanted in whatever way he wanted to, and there is no getting around the fact that the treatment he suffered at the hands of the inquisition is a back mark against the Catholic church.
Also, although I agree with Stark that the fall of Rome was ultimately a good thing because it freed Europe from the kind of stultifying imperial culture that froze Chinese progress in its tracks for hundreds of years, I disagree about whether or not the Dark Ages happened. Stark’s pooh-poohing of the achievements of Roman engineering is ridiculous. The Roman roads were used for a thousand years, and the aqueducts improved life for millions of people over their useful lifetimes. After the fall, nothing similar was built for hundreds of years. The decline in art and literature following Roman collapse is also undeniable. The reason the Dark Ages were originally called the Dark Ages was because we simply didn’t know much about them. The historical record went dark. This is because literacy disappeared in some parts of the empire. Stark tries to say the loss of literacy wasn’t that big of a deal because (using the lowest possible estimate) the level of literacy in the empire was only 5% anyway. But the fall from 5% to 0% is a huge one, and some parts of the empire seem to have experienced this. Technologies were also lost. It’s incredible, but in some parts of the former empire the technology of spinning pots on a wheel was lost for a few hundred years. Also, Stark thinks Christianity is an important component of the rise of Western Civilization, but apparently doesn’t think that it’s disappearance across much of the former Roman empire following the collapse of Rome was a big deal. Finally, those who lived in relative peace and security inside the borders of the empire during the reigns of the good emperors would probably have called the dissolution of those borders a very dark event indeed. You can argue about the depth and the duration of the dark ages (by the time Gothic cathedrals were being built, they were over, so you can’t use Gothic art to argue the Dark Ages didn’t happen), but they definitely happened.
When discussing the Reformation, Stark argues that “the rise of Protestantism was anything but the triumph of tolerance,” and in the short term this is correct as any study of Calvin’s Geneva or the wars of religion will quickly show. But if the fall of the Roman Empire opened the way for progress in the West, then I think Stark should also admit that the Reformation ultimately opened the way for tolerance. Stark’s Catholic bias leaks out all over this book.
Stark is probably right that in recent years scholars have developed the politically correct habit of overstating the achievements of the Muslim world. And he’s also right that Muslim atrocities during the Crusades (including the initial conquest of Christian lands by Muslim forces that led to the Crusades) are downplayed and Christian atrocities played up. But he also seems to want to pretend that the Crusades weren’t usually disasters for Europeans. His claim that Richard I never really intended to take Jerusalem is just silly. He says things like, “The fall of Constantinople . . . was the cause of wild celebrations across Islam and of great consternation in the West. Both reactions were unwarranted. By this time Byzantium consisted of little more than the capital city, and therefor it’s fall to the Ottomans was of little geopolitical significance.” But why was Byzantium little more than it’s capital by that time? Because the Turks had already taken the rest of it. Stark is repeatedly guilty of this kind of lame spin.
I could go on and on with the problems I have with this book. It seems unlikely that anybody will ever read my review even this far, however, so I’ll stop here and simply say that despite all this, I sort of enjoyed reading How the West Won. It’s good to see someone take a crack at the prevailing dogma. I just wish Stark had been more judicious and fair minded.
Where Stark falls down is in the particulars. While there may be something in his argument that the Catholic church was not the stick thrust into the spokes of scientific progress that it is popular to assume, I don’t know if he succeeds in proving that the church was the spur to progress he thinks it was. Stark feels like the idea of progress is built into Christian theology and that this belief prodded progress forward, but when you look at specific scientists, they always seem to be motivated by simple curiosity more than religion or anything else. It’s true that Newton was a devout Christian, but I don’t see any evidence here that his religion motivated his discoveries. And in the case of Galileo, Stark goes way off the rails. Stark argues that Galileo’s persecution wasn’t really that bad, and that he had it coming anyway because of his arrogance. His argument is very close to the argument that a rape victim had it coming if she was “dressed like a slut.” Galileo should have been free to say whatever he wanted in whatever way he wanted to, and there is no getting around the fact that the treatment he suffered at the hands of the inquisition is a back mark against the Catholic church.
Also, although I agree with Stark that the fall of Rome was ultimately a good thing because it freed Europe from the kind of stultifying imperial culture that froze Chinese progress in its tracks for hundreds of years, I disagree about whether or not the Dark Ages happened. Stark’s pooh-poohing of the achievements of Roman engineering is ridiculous. The Roman roads were used for a thousand years, and the aqueducts improved life for millions of people over their useful lifetimes. After the fall, nothing similar was built for hundreds of years. The decline in art and literature following Roman collapse is also undeniable. The reason the Dark Ages were originally called the Dark Ages was because we simply didn’t know much about them. The historical record went dark. This is because literacy disappeared in some parts of the empire. Stark tries to say the loss of literacy wasn’t that big of a deal because (using the lowest possible estimate) the level of literacy in the empire was only 5% anyway. But the fall from 5% to 0% is a huge one, and some parts of the empire seem to have experienced this. Technologies were also lost. It’s incredible, but in some parts of the former empire the technology of spinning pots on a wheel was lost for a few hundred years. Also, Stark thinks Christianity is an important component of the rise of Western Civilization, but apparently doesn’t think that it’s disappearance across much of the former Roman empire following the collapse of Rome was a big deal. Finally, those who lived in relative peace and security inside the borders of the empire during the reigns of the good emperors would probably have called the dissolution of those borders a very dark event indeed. You can argue about the depth and the duration of the dark ages (by the time Gothic cathedrals were being built, they were over, so you can’t use Gothic art to argue the Dark Ages didn’t happen), but they definitely happened.
When discussing the Reformation, Stark argues that “the rise of Protestantism was anything but the triumph of tolerance,” and in the short term this is correct as any study of Calvin’s Geneva or the wars of religion will quickly show. But if the fall of the Roman Empire opened the way for progress in the West, then I think Stark should also admit that the Reformation ultimately opened the way for tolerance. Stark’s Catholic bias leaks out all over this book.
Stark is probably right that in recent years scholars have developed the politically correct habit of overstating the achievements of the Muslim world. And he’s also right that Muslim atrocities during the Crusades (including the initial conquest of Christian lands by Muslim forces that led to the Crusades) are downplayed and Christian atrocities played up. But he also seems to want to pretend that the Crusades weren’t usually disasters for Europeans. His claim that Richard I never really intended to take Jerusalem is just silly. He says things like, “The fall of Constantinople . . . was the cause of wild celebrations across Islam and of great consternation in the West. Both reactions were unwarranted. By this time Byzantium consisted of little more than the capital city, and therefor it’s fall to the Ottomans was of little geopolitical significance.” But why was Byzantium little more than it’s capital by that time? Because the Turks had already taken the rest of it. Stark is repeatedly guilty of this kind of lame spin.
I could go on and on with the problems I have with this book. It seems unlikely that anybody will ever read my review even this far, however, so I’ll stop here and simply say that despite all this, I sort of enjoyed reading How the West Won. It’s good to see someone take a crack at the prevailing dogma. I just wish Stark had been more judicious and fair minded.
April 16, 2014
Prof. Stark has brought together, over a lifetime of study, a very powerful argument which is, in many ways, refreshing to read. The restoration of the West to its proper place within world history is an important enterprise and one that is beginning to be given voice to as the grip the Counter Culture has held Western Universities in for the past forty plus years begins to fade.
However, Prof. Stark often ‘overcompensates’ for the Counter Culture’s self-loathing by engaging in what might be viewed as over-stated positions [the idea that the West invented Science is not entirely with merit, but it is true if we speak of Science in its modern form] and upon more than one occasion his vitriolic language when dealing with the Counter Culture [what Prof. Stark refers to as PC/Politically Correct] is difficult to abide.
Where he is on firmer ground is demonstrating how Scholasticism was responsible for laying the foundation which made the Scientific Revolution possible. The author is even on firmer ground when he argues there was no revolution, but a natural evolution which took place over many centuries.
They go on to argue an increasingly popular position: that there was no Dark Ages. Prof. Stark contends, rightly, this was the invention of the 18th Century Enlightenment and put forward by those hostile to religion. Along with this, he argues that Empires are bad for economic and political development, especially the Roman Empire which killed innovation. Perhaps this is, also, an overstatement, but an interesting one.
One of the author’s import points was that disunity and competition among individuals and states was essential to the West’s triumph.
However, Prof. Stark does not argue that everything was good. The author does deal with slavery, but they brush the negative effects of this and the responsibility of the West for it away too quickly. Still and all, he recognizes the West entered a world where slavery was endemic and that it was the British who ended this across their Empire [This makes me wonder how he deals with it in the face of his argument that Empires are bad?].
Some of his points are revolutionary and some disturbing, but this was a very good book. The only reason the book receives 4 instead of 5 stars is that Prof. Stark diminishes non-Western accomplishments on occasion, overstates some positions [that it was only in the West that true Science emerged], and his use of non-collegial language hampers good arguments.
Recommended for those interested in the restitution of the West in world history, and the place of religion in this
However, Prof. Stark often ‘overcompensates’ for the Counter Culture’s self-loathing by engaging in what might be viewed as over-stated positions [the idea that the West invented Science is not entirely with merit, but it is true if we speak of Science in its modern form] and upon more than one occasion his vitriolic language when dealing with the Counter Culture [what Prof. Stark refers to as PC/Politically Correct] is difficult to abide.
Where he is on firmer ground is demonstrating how Scholasticism was responsible for laying the foundation which made the Scientific Revolution possible. The author is even on firmer ground when he argues there was no revolution, but a natural evolution which took place over many centuries.
They go on to argue an increasingly popular position: that there was no Dark Ages. Prof. Stark contends, rightly, this was the invention of the 18th Century Enlightenment and put forward by those hostile to religion. Along with this, he argues that Empires are bad for economic and political development, especially the Roman Empire which killed innovation. Perhaps this is, also, an overstatement, but an interesting one.
One of the author’s import points was that disunity and competition among individuals and states was essential to the West’s triumph.
However, Prof. Stark does not argue that everything was good. The author does deal with slavery, but they brush the negative effects of this and the responsibility of the West for it away too quickly. Still and all, he recognizes the West entered a world where slavery was endemic and that it was the British who ended this across their Empire [This makes me wonder how he deals with it in the face of his argument that Empires are bad?].
Some of his points are revolutionary and some disturbing, but this was a very good book. The only reason the book receives 4 instead of 5 stars is that Prof. Stark diminishes non-Western accomplishments on occasion, overstates some positions [that it was only in the West that true Science emerged], and his use of non-collegial language hampers good arguments.
Recommended for those interested in the restitution of the West in world history, and the place of religion in this
March 23, 2015
Short Review: This is really a 4.5 star book. Rodney Stark has made a career of countering the prevailing mood of Academic historians. So he wrote a generally pro-crusades history and a book about the rise of Christianity that not only used historical and sociological tools but also took seriously the actual spiritual content. Now he is writing a very pro-western culture book about the rise of Western modernity. What keeps this from being a 5 star book is that Stark does some of the things he complains about others doing. He takes his argument too far and dismisses legitimate critique to easily. But this is a very well written history and one that is well worth reading.
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/how-the-west-won-the...
My full review is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/how-the-west-won-the...
August 25, 2016
Despite the author's pretensions to shatter the "politically correct" histories of Western Civilization which he believes to have taken over academia, his own revisionist narrative is a fairly standard Whig history, and it offers little in the way of originality in terms of research and insight. The book is a loosely-organized mishmash of amateur military history (mostly borrowed from the work of Victor Davis Hanson), criticisms of Islamic history, and apologia for the various misdeeds committed by western peoples over the centuries.
I am no great defender of political correctness, so it is not due to hostility to Stark's overall perspective that I found the book as a whole weak and insubstantial. He is not the first to claim that large, centralized empires tend to inhibit political and technological development; nor is he the first to take issue with often-caricatured history of the Catholic Church, specifically with regards to its relationship with science. And he is certainly not the first to claim that Islam is fundamentally irrational in a way that Judaism and Christianity are not (an insight that would probably have come as a surprise to many prominent Muslim philosophers and theologians). The arguments themselves are worth considering; the problem here is that Stark does not substantially develop any of them. Instead, he hops from one pet subject to another almost flippantly, clumsily stringing the pieces together into his "glorious" (Stark actually uses that term) history.
I am no great defender of political correctness, so it is not due to hostility to Stark's overall perspective that I found the book as a whole weak and insubstantial. He is not the first to claim that large, centralized empires tend to inhibit political and technological development; nor is he the first to take issue with often-caricatured history of the Catholic Church, specifically with regards to its relationship with science. And he is certainly not the first to claim that Islam is fundamentally irrational in a way that Judaism and Christianity are not (an insight that would probably have come as a surprise to many prominent Muslim philosophers and theologians). The arguments themselves are worth considering; the problem here is that Stark does not substantially develop any of them. Instead, he hops from one pet subject to another almost flippantly, clumsily stringing the pieces together into his "glorious" (Stark actually uses that term) history.
July 25, 2014
A refreshing and fast-paced take on the history of Western civilization, minus the politically correct nonsense that's fashionable in history texts such as these. This book will definitely offend those who subscribe to Howard Zinn's vision of the world, but surprisingly also to those who believe that the Protestant Reformation was a triumph of tolerance. While this text is primarily a defense of the West, he doesn't whitewash the many abuses the West has committed over the centuries either. He places everything in its historical context, backing his work up with the latest findings of his field (among others). Although I agree with my fellow Goodreads reviewer that Stark's sounds uncollegial at times, the liveliness of his prose and his engaging storytelling style offsets this tonal issue.
(Note on the Kindle version: it seems like the book ends at the 53% mark, with the remainder being notes, bibliography and index. It's funny, since in the paper version these materials would only take up about an eighth of the text block. I still can't get used to how e-books track their readers' progress)
(Note on the Kindle version: it seems like the book ends at the 53% mark, with the remainder being notes, bibliography and index. It's funny, since in the paper version these materials would only take up about an eighth of the text block. I still can't get used to how e-books track their readers' progress)
November 2, 2014
As some already pointed, this book is "MythBusters" for history.
Although the description is correct, it seems to me, that we are rather dealing here with some kind of cycle of "MythBustering". It was obvious to most people that the western civilization is superior to others (in terms of ability to achieve economic growth), then it was not so obvious (partially due to political correctness), and now it is rather obvious once again (because of advances in history sciences and new institutionalisms movement in economics).
Some interesting ideas include:
*Roman Empire was a setback for development
*There was no “dark ages”; it was a period of rapid progress and innovation
*Christianity was among the greatest innovation in history
The authors arguments are sometimes quite superficial and naïve, but as far as I know (regarding the role of institutions in the process of economic and social development) there are a lot of real research supporting authors basic claims.
Although the description is correct, it seems to me, that we are rather dealing here with some kind of cycle of "MythBustering". It was obvious to most people that the western civilization is superior to others (in terms of ability to achieve economic growth), then it was not so obvious (partially due to political correctness), and now it is rather obvious once again (because of advances in history sciences and new institutionalisms movement in economics).
Some interesting ideas include:
*Roman Empire was a setback for development
*There was no “dark ages”; it was a period of rapid progress and innovation
*Christianity was among the greatest innovation in history
The authors arguments are sometimes quite superficial and naïve, but as far as I know (regarding the role of institutions in the process of economic and social development) there are a lot of real research supporting authors basic claims.
January 14, 2016
It was a great primer on Western history, and was a great antidote for me against the historically warped and inaccurate liberal perspective that I was taught in my education in the government schools.
July 23, 2016
The premise of Stark's work is that it was freedom and Christianity that were directly responsible for the rise of western culture. He takes us on a brief tour of history from the days of ancient Greece through Mediaeval times and into the present, showing how the greatest progress was made where these influences were greatest. The final chapter is the jewel in the crown. The author reveals the foolishness of those who have denigrated Western Civilization. He reveals the horrendous customs that you would have to be complacent with if you were to embrace the modern philosophical stance that equates all cultures. Certainly a worthwhile read.
January 4, 2020
Excellent!
January 25, 2015
This book for me is a very mixed bag. The author begins by noting that the traditional mandatory liberal arts college freshman course in the history of western civilization has now been dropped everywhere in the U.S. due to political correctness pressure from the faculties. This is the result of the cry for multi-culturalism and no longer teaching how great were that bunch of dead white men.
The author goes on to say that this book is the truth of why the west came to dominate the world in the history of civilization versus the rest of the world He will explode all the myths from the political correctness movement.
He then posits that the answer to how the west won is the theology of the Christian religion, and mainly that of the Catholic church. His arguments to support this claim, for me, simply don't begin to answer this enormously complex question. About half the book is devoted to the role of religion and theology in the history of peoples around the world, I give this portion of the book focusing on religion 1 star.
The rest of the book presents a lot of actual history which I found interesting, so I give the book 2 stars overall.
I looked up the author in Wikipedia and found that he is a professor of religious sociology at Baylor University. I didn't know there was such a professorship, but it explains the content of the book.
The author goes on to say that this book is the truth of why the west came to dominate the world in the history of civilization versus the rest of the world He will explode all the myths from the political correctness movement.
He then posits that the answer to how the west won is the theology of the Christian religion, and mainly that of the Catholic church. His arguments to support this claim, for me, simply don't begin to answer this enormously complex question. About half the book is devoted to the role of religion and theology in the history of peoples around the world, I give this portion of the book focusing on religion 1 star.
The rest of the book presents a lot of actual history which I found interesting, so I give the book 2 stars overall.
I looked up the author in Wikipedia and found that he is a professor of religious sociology at Baylor University. I didn't know there was such a professorship, but it explains the content of the book.
July 24, 2015
يصل المؤلف بعد استعراض تاريخي ساذج ومنتقي إلى أن قيام الحضارة الغربية كان بسبب المسيحية وليس على الرغم منها وينتهي إلى تفوق المسيحية وتفوق المجتمع الأوروبي والأمريكي في ذاته وإلى اتصال تطوره حتى خلال عصور الظلام. يصل إلى ذلك بتهميش الحضارات الأخرى وبالذات الإسلامية والصينية وبالطبع يقابل كون أن المسيحية لم تكن عائقاً أن الإسلام كان عائقاً أمام تطور شعوبه. يكتب المؤلف بمنطق المشجع الرياضي الذي لا يرى غضاضة في أن يقلل من أي فريق آخر لذلك انا اعتبر الطرح عنصري وغير جاد. مثل هذا الفكر كان سائداً بين كتاب التاريخ الفرنسيين والأوربيين في منتصف القرن العشرين وماقبله، ثم كانت هناك نظرة اكثر موضوعية في النصف الثاني من القرن العشرين والتي أعتقد أنها تحولت من السبعينات الميلادية إلى وجود يسارية متطرفة شديدة الانتقاد للحضارة الغربية استمرت إلى يومنا وفي وجود هذه الأخيرة يكون مثل هذا الكتاب جريئا في الدفاع عن ماقدمته الحضارة الغربية ولكنه مال كثيراً فأبخس الباقين انجازاتهم حتى أراد أن يقلل من أولوية الصين في صناعة الورق والبارود. لذلك الكتاب لا يعدو كونه ردة فعل غير منصفة لهجوم غير منصف أيضاً.
did-not-finish
March 7, 2021This one turned out less engaging than I had hoped. DNFed after chapter 5 out of 18.
It started out great. I was intrigued with the intro chapters. Then Stark got stuck on Rome. Then it was somewhat interesting again. Then he got stuck in the Crusades.
Stark falls into the same pit as many other nonfiction historical writers: he gets stuck in the irrelevant details. Lost in tangents. Meaningless facts. Names were thrown left and right for no apparent reason at all. He was obsessed with irrelevant trivia and wasn't tying it altogether. Perhaps he eventually gets somewhere and stays there, but there are too many other books out there I want to read for me to stick it out to the end of this one.
I've a feeling I will enjoy The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization more.
It started out great. I was intrigued with the intro chapters. Then Stark got stuck on Rome. Then it was somewhat interesting again. Then he got stuck in the Crusades.
Stark falls into the same pit as many other nonfiction historical writers: he gets stuck in the irrelevant details. Lost in tangents. Meaningless facts. Names were thrown left and right for no apparent reason at all. He was obsessed with irrelevant trivia and wasn't tying it altogether. Perhaps he eventually gets somewhere and stays there, but there are too many other books out there I want to read for me to stick it out to the end of this one.
I've a feeling I will enjoy The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization more.
October 26, 2017
Rodney Stark is an iconoclast. Tired of all the bashing of the Western world, Stark seems determined to single-handedly reform public opinion about the Crusades (they made sense at the time), the Medieval world (decentralization was an improvement over Roman power), and pre-Enlightenment science (plenty of monks were making advances).
The book is difficult to recommend as a stand-alone book. You need to know the Wests's traditional and critical stories before you can sufficiently enjoy Stark's maverick sensibilities. Also: I'd recommend reading this book in tandem with Guns, Germs, and Steel (Jared Diamond) for another telling of the rise of Western Civlization. I think the two — though enemies on paper — might together give a full assessment of why the West developed science, democracy, military power, and economic vitality more quickly than other regions on the planet.
The book is difficult to recommend as a stand-alone book. You need to know the Wests's traditional and critical stories before you can sufficiently enjoy Stark's maverick sensibilities. Also: I'd recommend reading this book in tandem with Guns, Germs, and Steel (Jared Diamond) for another telling of the rise of Western Civlization. I think the two — though enemies on paper — might together give a full assessment of why the West developed science, democracy, military power, and economic vitality more quickly than other regions on the planet.
April 7, 2014
My Amazon review -
http://www.amazon.com/review/R29AZJSX...
http://www.amazon.com/review/R29AZJSX...
April 9, 2014
Some of the same flaws as Stark's other work--special pleading for Catholicism over Protestantism and against Max Weber's thesis. But better, and with a broader scope.
July 20, 2020
boomer cringe
July 27, 2021
How the West won
The book is a polemic rather than just a history. The good is that there are interesting facts that are brought up, some quite peripheral to his case, but fun to know. I did not know, for example, that “Arabic” numerals actually originated in India. However, the author clearly has a religious bias, not just that Christianity supported science but that Catholicism specifically is a superior Version of Christianity. Additionally he occasionally throws up strawman arguments against the secular or atheism.
“ there now exists a militant group of atheists,…Who attack religion as superstitious nonsense and claim that science refutes the existence of God and the possibility of miracles “.
His apologia of the Galileo incident is nothing short of nauseating.
Further The author’s conservative bias also appears, frequently decrying “ left-wing historians”, intellectuals who are unfamiliar with hard labor.
Another problem is that the author will portray events to make it seem like western superiority. A couple of examples:
He mentions the six Galleasses (larger more heavily gunned) in the battle of Lepanto. Reading his brief summary one would think that this superior technology won the day. But their effect on the bottle was minimal. There were over 200 ships on each side and most of the battle was fought between the crews with the ships engaged side-by-side. Further the wind changed to coming from the west and blew the heavier galleasses through the enemy and effectively out of the battle. Oddly A better detail supporting the author’s viewpoint was the discovery of a large cache of gold aboard one ship revealing the weakness of a confiscatory government.
A second example was his mention of the battle of Tours. Although the troops under Charles Martel were quite good both in equipment and discipline, it was superior generalship that set up the victory. The Muslims under Umayyad caliphate had had several easy victories in the prior weeks, so had both frittered away a time advantage (Martel got to choose an excellent site) as well as becoming overconfident.
In each of these battles it was superior generalship as well as the fortunes of war ( especially at Lepanto) that gave the west the victory, not inherent superiority.
A third point and this is the most unfortunate. His broad portrayal of certain other cultures such as China fails on specifics. As other reviewer‘s have pointed out, he dismisses the Chinese failure to develop and make serious use of gun powder. This is an old trope, and a historian should know better.
The author is on stronger ground with two main points. One is that a confiscatory Government will undermine free enterprise and invention. He gives two examples again in China for this. One was the destruction of all ocean going vessels after the Zheng He voyages and the confiscation and destruction of the privately held iron smelting.
The second (and possibly more controversial) is the assertion that Christianity sets a philosophical background that supports investigation and research. He purports that it is derived and evolved from rational Greek philosophy and that God expects us to further discover his nature by investigating the world. He contrasts this superficially with other eastern religions as well as Islam, who he says fail to encourage investigation.
Overall I would caution the reader. This is a polemic. The “facts” aren’t aren’t always accurate or are portrayed in a misleading manner. Further The work is interspersed with what can only be termed unbridled support of Christianity and more specifically the Catholic Church.
The book is a polemic rather than just a history. The good is that there are interesting facts that are brought up, some quite peripheral to his case, but fun to know. I did not know, for example, that “Arabic” numerals actually originated in India. However, the author clearly has a religious bias, not just that Christianity supported science but that Catholicism specifically is a superior Version of Christianity. Additionally he occasionally throws up strawman arguments against the secular or atheism.
“ there now exists a militant group of atheists,…Who attack religion as superstitious nonsense and claim that science refutes the existence of God and the possibility of miracles “.
His apologia of the Galileo incident is nothing short of nauseating.
Further The author’s conservative bias also appears, frequently decrying “ left-wing historians”, intellectuals who are unfamiliar with hard labor.
Another problem is that the author will portray events to make it seem like western superiority. A couple of examples:
He mentions the six Galleasses (larger more heavily gunned) in the battle of Lepanto. Reading his brief summary one would think that this superior technology won the day. But their effect on the bottle was minimal. There were over 200 ships on each side and most of the battle was fought between the crews with the ships engaged side-by-side. Further the wind changed to coming from the west and blew the heavier galleasses through the enemy and effectively out of the battle. Oddly A better detail supporting the author’s viewpoint was the discovery of a large cache of gold aboard one ship revealing the weakness of a confiscatory government.
A second example was his mention of the battle of Tours. Although the troops under Charles Martel were quite good both in equipment and discipline, it was superior generalship that set up the victory. The Muslims under Umayyad caliphate had had several easy victories in the prior weeks, so had both frittered away a time advantage (Martel got to choose an excellent site) as well as becoming overconfident.
In each of these battles it was superior generalship as well as the fortunes of war ( especially at Lepanto) that gave the west the victory, not inherent superiority.
A third point and this is the most unfortunate. His broad portrayal of certain other cultures such as China fails on specifics. As other reviewer‘s have pointed out, he dismisses the Chinese failure to develop and make serious use of gun powder. This is an old trope, and a historian should know better.
The author is on stronger ground with two main points. One is that a confiscatory Government will undermine free enterprise and invention. He gives two examples again in China for this. One was the destruction of all ocean going vessels after the Zheng He voyages and the confiscation and destruction of the privately held iron smelting.
The second (and possibly more controversial) is the assertion that Christianity sets a philosophical background that supports investigation and research. He purports that it is derived and evolved from rational Greek philosophy and that God expects us to further discover his nature by investigating the world. He contrasts this superficially with other eastern religions as well as Islam, who he says fail to encourage investigation.
Overall I would caution the reader. This is a polemic. The “facts” aren’t aren’t always accurate or are portrayed in a misleading manner. Further The work is interspersed with what can only be termed unbridled support of Christianity and more specifically the Catholic Church.
April 11, 2020
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies would like us to think that Western civilization flourishing was simply the result of being lucky. While many of the points laid out in that book hold true, Rodney Stark does a good job of arguing that luck alone wasn't sufficient to account for the rise of west and the leading role it played in shaping the world.
Freedoms gradually arose as a result of the belief in the equality of all human beings before God. Learning, science, and technology developed as a result of the belief in the rational creator who empowered human beings to work and transform the world. Education and books were valued because of the importance of teaching people to follow God.
Without the foundations of faith that moved people, the luck wouldn't have been enough, as evidenced by the examples of innovations and luck not helping other cultures that discovered them first or were in a position of power to succeed.
Freedoms gradually arose as a result of the belief in the equality of all human beings before God. Learning, science, and technology developed as a result of the belief in the rational creator who empowered human beings to work and transform the world. Education and books were valued because of the importance of teaching people to follow God.
Without the foundations of faith that moved people, the luck wouldn't have been enough, as evidenced by the examples of innovations and luck not helping other cultures that discovered them first or were in a position of power to succeed.
July 13, 2018
Why did most scientific advances come from the West? Were the Dark Ages really Dark? What effect did the Jewish religion have on progress? Was Catholicism anti science? Did the Protestant Reformation bring on the Age of Reason? Why didn't China make more effective use of such inventions as fireworks? Does a society have to be free for there to be progress? Why did Islam stagnate in the sciences after the 12th century? Did the West ultimately benefit from the Fall of Rome? Did native peoples ultimately benefit from the West's colonial activities? Why were the 52 scientific stars of the 15th and 16th centuries evenly divided between Catholics and Protestants? The author has iconoclastic answers to these questions. Perhaps his arguments tend toward propaganda but they are thought provoking if politically incorrect.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 1, 2022
This quote from the publisher's blurb about says it all for me, "...the primacy of uniquely Western ideas-among them the belief in free will, the commitment to the pursuit of knowledge, the notion that the universe functions according to rational rules that can be discovered, and the emphasis on human freedom and secure property rights." But perhaps at least as important is the notion that none of this was possible without the West's Christian tradition - even if you may not like the Christ who made it all possible and likely.
December 1, 2023
This book is full of fun facts about human history, some that may be deemed inconvenient truths based off of modern thinking. I learned quite a bit about a lot of subjects I held a small degree of knowledge in. The author does a good job of acknowledging atrocities of history equally while also celebrating Western Civilization with facts. I do not doubt that an Author with opposing world views could write and alternatively informative book that highlights the parts of human history that support whatever arguments they may have on the overall good(or evil)of Western Civilization.
September 6, 2024
History like this makes me proud of our heritage.
January 10, 2021
(NOTE: I'm stingy with stars. For me 2 stars means a good book or a B. 3 stars means a very good book or a B+. 4 stars means an outstanding book or an A {only about 5% of the books I read merit 4 stars}. 5 stars means an all time favorite or an A+ {Only one of 400 or 500 books rates this!).
The great news is that I can listen to a book a day at work. The bad news is that I can’t keep up with decent reviews. So I’m going to give up for now and just rate them. I hope to come back to some of the most significant things I listen to and read them and then post a review.
Revises the revisionists.
The great news is that I can listen to a book a day at work. The bad news is that I can’t keep up with decent reviews. So I’m going to give up for now and just rate them. I hope to come back to some of the most significant things I listen to and read them and then post a review.
Revises the revisionists.
November 22, 2022
The quote below informs the whole theme of the book. That being said, I learned many facts about the fall the Roman Empire, the technical innovations of the Dark Ages, and the history of warfare, and the industrial revolution. From the reviews here at Goodreads, clearly some readers strongly object to organizing historical facts to support this theme. I am neither a practicing Christian nor a "believer". Nevertheless, even prior to reading this book, I was predisposed to being grateful for the Judeo-Christian heritage of my civilization. I feel even more grateful now.
From page 317:
-------------------------------
...Through the centuries, therefore, many influential Muslim scholars have held that efforts to formulate natural laws are blasphemy because they would seem to deny Allah’s freedom to act. Thus did the Chinese, Greek, and Muslim images of God and the universe deflect scientific efforts.³²
It was only because Europeans believed in God as the Intelligent Designer of a rational universe that they pursued the secrets of creation. Johannes Kepler stated, “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony imposed on it by God and which he revealed to us in the language of mathematics.”³³ In his last will and testament, the great seventeenth-century chemist Robert Boyle wished the members of the Royal Society of London continued success is “their laudable attempts to discover the true Nature of the Works of God.”³⁴
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the rise of science is not that the early scientists searched for natural laws, confident that they existed, but that they found them. It thus could be said that the proposition that the universe had an Intelligent Designer is the most fundamental of all scientific theories and that it has been successfully put to empirical tests again and again. For, as Albert Einstein once remarked, the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible: “A priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way.… That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly being reinforced as our knowledge expands.”³⁵ And that is the “miracle” that testifies to a creation guided by intention and rationality.
From page 317:
-------------------------------
...Through the centuries, therefore, many influential Muslim scholars have held that efforts to formulate natural laws are blasphemy because they would seem to deny Allah’s freedom to act. Thus did the Chinese, Greek, and Muslim images of God and the universe deflect scientific efforts.³²
It was only because Europeans believed in God as the Intelligent Designer of a rational universe that they pursued the secrets of creation. Johannes Kepler stated, “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony imposed on it by God and which he revealed to us in the language of mathematics.”³³ In his last will and testament, the great seventeenth-century chemist Robert Boyle wished the members of the Royal Society of London continued success is “their laudable attempts to discover the true Nature of the Works of God.”³⁴
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the rise of science is not that the early scientists searched for natural laws, confident that they existed, but that they found them. It thus could be said that the proposition that the universe had an Intelligent Designer is the most fundamental of all scientific theories and that it has been successfully put to empirical tests again and again. For, as Albert Einstein once remarked, the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible: “A priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way.… That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly being reinforced as our knowledge expands.”³⁵ And that is the “miracle” that testifies to a creation guided by intention and rationality.
December 28, 2016
I really enjoyed this book at first, but by the end it seemed to drag. Part of this is probably that I find the earlier time periods more interesting in general.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 112 reviews