Empires of the Weak

The Real Story of European Expansion and the Creation of the New World

De: J. C. Sharman

Narrado por: John Lee

What accounts for the rise of the state, the creation of the first global system, and the dominance of the West? The conventional answer asserts that superior technology, tactics, and institutions forged by Darwinian military competition gave Europeans a decisive advantage in war over other civilizations from 1500 onward. In contrast, Empires of the Weak argues that Europeans actually had no general military superiority in the early modern era. J. C. Sharman shows instead that European expansion is better explained by deference to strong Asian and African polities, disease in the Americas, and maritime supremacy earned by default because local land-oriented polities were largely indifferent to war and trade at sea.

Europeans were overawed by the mighty Eastern empires of the day, which pioneered key military innovations and were the greatest early modern conquerors. Against the view that the Europeans won for all time, Sharman contends that the imperialism of the late19th and early 20th centuries was a relatively transient and anomalous development in world politics that concluded with Western losses in various insurgencies. If the 21st century is to be dominated by non-Western powers like China, this represents a return to the norm for the modern era.

©2019 Princeton University Press (P)2019 Tantor

A reassessment of European and western world expansion

I very much liked the non-traditional interpretations of Western versus Eastern cultures conflicts and outcomes. The viewpoint that Western culture and military technology is the reason for dominance is shown to be doubtful as Western colonial dominance has been in retreat since end of the 19th century.

An interesting revisionist take on colonialism and empire.

This is sure to stir some debate, but it supports the thesis that early colonization of the Americas, Asia and Africa wasn’t based on technological superiority or military tactics, which has been the long held assumption.

I may have to get the physical book. This was interesting and worth a second going over.

a great read

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. While I disagree with some of the author's thesis, the argument presented is well-structured and the information is presented succinctly. The author's writing style is excellent and the narration is engaging. Overall, a great read.

Excellent, and super clear

I rarely listen to non-fiction since I find it harder to follow and remember 1000 details often unrelated by a plot. However, this book was different, no diubt aided my the lovely-voiced John Lee. Sharman’s brilliant thesis is proven very persuasively. I am very knowledgeable about China so that was my touchstone and his scholarship there was impeccable! Highly rec’d

Dull Revisionism

This book, seemingly crafted as a barrister's brief, suffers from a premise that borders on the nonsensical. The author’s overarching goal appears to be to paint Europeans in an entirely negative light, often at the expense of logical consistency. In the process of trying to depict Europeans as inherently terrible, the author frequently loses track of his own argument, leading to multiple contradictions throughout the text.

For example, the author seems almost gleeful when recounting tales of Chilean tribes depopulating areas and consuming the hearts of colonists. Yet, in the very next sentence, he decries the actions of "genocidal conquistadors." This inconsistent approach undermines the credibility of the argument and creates confusion about the author's true stance.

Perhaps most critically, the book is simply dull. It reads like a piece of standard revisionist, third-worldist rhetoric, offering little in the way of fresh insight or engaging narrative. The writing fails to captivate, leaving the reader to slog through a repetitive and predictable account. Ultimately, this work adds little to the discourse it seeks to engage in, falling short both in terms of entertainment and scholarly contribution.