ITT times you dropped a book because of some glaringly inaccurate historical statement

>ITT times you dropped a book because of some glaringly inaccurate historical statement.

Pic related. In the introduction the author says something to the effect of how prior to the Mongols, people in the far east had no idea Europe existed and vice versa. Suppose that's what I get for picking up a pop history novel.

idk the average person probably didnt

Is that a fucking Ottoman on a cover of a book about Genghis Khan?

Same shit bruh

Wait, wasn't this book used a citation in WIkipedia? kek

That is accurate. Western Europeans had no idea about East Asia.

To be fair, Cathay was a like a mythical land to most Western Europeans before Memeo Polo's account he may not have written

Looks like it.

Stop

...

I shit on marxist historiography all the time, but the manifesto really isn't a particularly serious offender.

Not a historic statement, but for me it's Michael Haralambos's sociology textbook (Sociology: Themes and Perspectives) for the first year of university. It fucking goes and starts claiming that people are purely cultural beings instead of being partly instinctual. Even though recognizing bad smells, bad tastes, threathening stances and so on is purely instinctual, preprogrammed rather than being learned. It's actually an amazing book and I'd recommend it, but that fucking triggered me.

Europeans and the Chinese had been aware of each other since at least Roman times.

The Imjin War by Hawley. After a while I wondered why all diplomatic actions were done so retarded and then found an article which explained that he just filled Korean chronicles with palace gossip. It's a good overview work about the work, but the period between the two invasion is just bullshit.

>Maria Theresa lost the province of Silesia in the war of the Austrian Succession but regained it in the seven year's war.
>she had proved her mettle with the male kings of Europe and was not found wanting
It annoyed me. I memorised all the major wars of the 17th and 18th century and the territorial changes when I was 17 so it adds that extra little something 9 years later.

When Genghis Khan was born, there were Mongols named George.

Please be bait

There were also Mongols who were Nestorian Christians.

Yes, it was the same people who were named George and were Nestorian, I think

This right here.

I could put up with his constantly applying modern political concepts and ideologies to ancient Romans. But when I realized that his confusing patrician/plebeian with optimate/popularis was not just a slip, but something he would do repeatedly throughout the book, I couolbn't keep reading.

His premise was silly as well, but if he'd shown he knew the history, I can always hang with a silly premise.

NB4 Guns, Germs and Steel.

That is a glaringly inaccurate book though. The hypothesis is up there with Marxism for it's generalisations.

Are there any other good Imjin war books?

Just because the Romans were aware of the Chinese does not mean that Europe after the fall of the Roman empire was.

No knowledge was lost from the fall of Rome.

...

>States that the Americans designed the T-34.
I know that an American designed the Christie suspension which the Soviets adopted, but saying that the Americans designed the tank is a little much.