What do you think?
Rate this book
The Outline of History, 2 Vols
The Outline of History, subtitled either "The Whole Story of Man" or "Being A Plain History of Life and Mankind," is a book by H. G. Wells published in 1919. Wells was very dissatisfied with the quality of history textbooks at the end of World War I, and so, between 1918 and 1919, produced a 1,324-page work which was published in serial softcover form in 1919, with the first hardcover edition appearing in 1920. The book met with popular acclaim and massive sales. Nevertheless, its popularity and literary achievements were overshadowed by Wells' works of science fiction, such as The Invisible Man, The Time Machine, The Island of Dr. Moreau, and his most popular work, The War of the Worlds. Because of this, Wells is now known not as a non-fiction writer or a historian, but as a novelist.
1174 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1919
372 people are currently reading
1931 people want to read
About the author
H.G. Wells
5,075 books10.8k followersHerbert George Wells was born to a working class family in Kent, England. Young Wells received a spotty education, interrupted by several illnesses and family difficulties, and became a draper's apprentice as a teenager. The headmaster of Midhurst Grammar School, where he had spent a year, arranged for him to return as an "usher," or student teacher. Wells earned a government scholarship in 1884, to study biology under Thomas Henry Huxley at the Normal School of 카지노싸이트. Wells earned his bachelor of science and doctor of science degrees at the University of London. After marrying his cousin, Isabel, Wells began to supplement his teaching salary with short stories and freelance articles, then books, including The Time Machine (1895), The Island of Dr. Moreau (1896), The Invisible Man (1897), and The War of the Worlds (1898).
Wells created a mild scandal when he divorced his cousin to marry one of his best students, Amy Catherine Robbins. Although his second marriage was lasting and produced two sons, Wells was an unabashed advocate of free (as opposed to "indiscriminate") love. He continued to openly have extra-marital liaisons, most famously with Margaret Sanger, and a ten-year relationship with the author Rebecca West, who had one of his two out-of-wedlock children. A one-time member of the Fabian Society, Wells sought active change. His 100 books included many novels, as well as nonfiction, such as A Modern Utopia (1905), The Outline of History (1920), A Short History of the World (1922), The Shape of Things to Come (1933), and The Work, Wealth and Happiness of Mankind (1932). One of his booklets was Crux Ansata, An Indictment of the Roman Catholic Church. Although Wells toyed briefly with the idea of a "divine will" in his book, God the Invisible King (1917), it was a temporary aberration. Wells used his international fame to promote his favorite causes, including the prevention of war, and was received by government officials around the world. He is best-remembered as an early writer of science fiction and futurism.
He was also an outspoken socialist. Wells and Jules Verne are each sometimes referred to as "The Fathers of 카지노싸이트 Fiction". D. 1946.
More:
Wells created a mild scandal when he divorced his cousin to marry one of his best students, Amy Catherine Robbins. Although his second marriage was lasting and produced two sons, Wells was an unabashed advocate of free (as opposed to "indiscriminate") love. He continued to openly have extra-marital liaisons, most famously with Margaret Sanger, and a ten-year relationship with the author Rebecca West, who had one of his two out-of-wedlock children. A one-time member of the Fabian Society, Wells sought active change. His 100 books included many novels, as well as nonfiction, such as A Modern Utopia (1905), The Outline of History (1920), A Short History of the World (1922), The Shape of Things to Come (1933), and The Work, Wealth and Happiness of Mankind (1932). One of his booklets was Crux Ansata, An Indictment of the Roman Catholic Church. Although Wells toyed briefly with the idea of a "divine will" in his book, God the Invisible King (1917), it was a temporary aberration. Wells used his international fame to promote his favorite causes, including the prevention of war, and was received by government officials around the world. He is best-remembered as an early writer of science fiction and futurism.
He was also an outspoken socialist. Wells and Jules Verne are each sometimes referred to as "The Fathers of 카지노싸이트 Fiction". D. 1946.
More:
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews
December 31, 2020
The book is available on line
December 29, 2015
Having decided WWI was the "War to end all wars", Wells traverses human history from pre-history to the post-WWI era and still decides WWI was so bloody and atrocious that humanity would never again let itself come to global conflict.
Well, leaving off the hopelessly optimistic conclusion penned mere years before WWII, this is still one of my favorite world history works.
Among the wisdow Wells gets right in my opinion: "The natural political map of the world insists upon itself. It heaves and frets beneath the artificial political map like some misfitted giant."
That itself expains much of human history.
Well, leaving off the hopelessly optimistic conclusion penned mere years before WWII, this is still one of my favorite world history works.
Among the wisdow Wells gets right in my opinion: "The natural political map of the world insists upon itself. It heaves and frets beneath the artificial political map like some misfitted giant."
That itself expains much of human history.
November 3, 2019
This is is a popular history of mankind from the state of the planet before the arrival of humans up to WWII. Wells died in 1946 so Raymond Postgate added the updates through the end of the war, thankfully. At nearly 1,300 pages, this is indeed a massive work and one I couldn't stop reading.
Wells gets into the weeds at times and he does give his own perspective on historical events. One reason I love history is being able to read different viewpoints from different authors and Wells tries to hit every main area. But whereas most historians are dry and meticulous, Wells uses his writing style to make each section enjoyable for the reader. He subtitled it, Being A Plain History Of Life And Mankind, and I think that really is a good explanation for why it sits on the top shelf of my history collection. Well, that and it's also very heavy.
Book Season = Year Round (it may take months)
Wells gets into the weeds at times and he does give his own perspective on historical events. One reason I love history is being able to read different viewpoints from different authors and Wells tries to hit every main area. But whereas most historians are dry and meticulous, Wells uses his writing style to make each section enjoyable for the reader. He subtitled it, Being A Plain History Of Life And Mankind, and I think that really is a good explanation for why it sits on the top shelf of my history collection. Well, that and it's also very heavy.
Book Season = Year Round (it may take months)
August 30, 2014
In my humble opinion the greatest and most comprehensive account of world history ever written. A classic.
What great words:
"We are beginning to understand something of what the world might be, something of what our race might become,
Were it not for our still raw humanity. It is barely a matter
of seventy generations between ourselves and Alexander ; and
between ourselves and the savage hunters, our ancestors, who
charred their food in the embers or ate it raw, intervene some
four or five hundred generations. There is not much scope for
the modification of a species in four or five hundred generations. Make men and women only sufficiently jealous or fearful or drunken or angry, and the hot red eyes of the cavemen will glare out at us to-day. We have writing and teaching, science and power ; we have tamed the beasts and schooled the lightning ; but we are still only shambling towards the light. We have tamed and bred the beasts, but we have still to tame
and breed ourselves."
What great words:
"We are beginning to understand something of what the world might be, something of what our race might become,
Were it not for our still raw humanity. It is barely a matter
of seventy generations between ourselves and Alexander ; and
between ourselves and the savage hunters, our ancestors, who
charred their food in the embers or ate it raw, intervene some
four or five hundred generations. There is not much scope for
the modification of a species in four or five hundred generations. Make men and women only sufficiently jealous or fearful or drunken or angry, and the hot red eyes of the cavemen will glare out at us to-day. We have writing and teaching, science and power ; we have tamed the beasts and schooled the lightning ; but we are still only shambling towards the light. We have tamed and bred the beasts, but we have still to tame
and breed ourselves."
November 9, 2013
I came across this two volume series while working my through a list of 100 books recommended by Will Durant for those wanting a broad education.
This series is by all means the best and most comprehensive general history book I have ever read. I usually don't buy books but this one was worth purchasing to add to the library.
This series is by all means the best and most comprehensive general history book I have ever read. I usually don't buy books but this one was worth purchasing to add to the library.
January 17, 2022
An excellent one volume summary of the historical progress, (or lack of such at times), of the human species. Written largely in the early 1920s, as Wells and his generation tried to put in focus the civilization-challenging events of World War I, it was filled out and completed by Raymond Postage, bringing the story up to the late 1950s. While overwhelmingly objective in virtually all contentious political and/or religious issues, Wells nevertheless lets his liberal bias come through time and again. Personally, I found this quite an attractive feature of the work: after all, history is about ideas, and it is in the disagreement between different ideas that true progress occurs. As Wells generalizes,'the real business of history ... [is] the thoughts and lives of individual men'.
Largely colored by his horrific understanding of the slaughters involved with the recent war, his polemic rises in favor of a viable world government, and a severe restriction on military powers, and thus on the powers of military men. He castigates Caesar, Hannibal, Alexander, the Mongols, Cromwell and Washington as either lucky amateurs or relatively mindless barbarians in a page or two characterizing all military minds as 'inferior and unimaginative'. In particular, Haig's refusal in World War I to employ the new tanks is shown to have caused untold numbers of needless deaths. In addition, he wishes to revamp both education and currency systems so as to make it possible for both intellectual and economic development to proceed in a much more democratic, beneficial and equitable manner. He has little faith in capitalism or the 'free market' economy since he sees 'the readiness with which private ownership and enterprise, when put upon the defensive, can degenerate into violence and brigandage'. The fascists were largely supported by large industrialists. Patriotism and nationalism are scornfully characterized as 'the most monstrous of all superstitions at present active in the world'. In a larger sense, he argues that a 'community of obedience' has been struggled against and at times partially replaced by a 'community of will': that is, there is a move against autocracy towards democracy, against top-down leadership to progress based on developments originating in grass roots.
Wells presents some strange ideas, or at least ones I had heretofore not encountered. For instance, he feels that the axis on which the Earth is tilted has changed over time, thus bringing about climatic changes and altering the development of different life forms. Rabbits were not eaten by primitive men since it was thought that their timidity would jeopardize the violent skills hunters needed at that time. The civilization of ancient Sumeria may have lasted more than twice as long as the two millennia of Christianity. He traces the relative slowness of development of Chinese civilization to the difficulty of learning its character-based language, which restricted literacy levels to a mere fraction of the population. Ancient bards were often intentionally blinded. The Grecian Olympic Games, commencing in 776 BC, lasted for more than a thousand years, while Plato's Academy lasted for nine hundred years. The ancient thinkers Asoka, Buddha, Confucius and Lao-Tse were all almost essentially non-religious in stressing tolerance and moral righteousness. Their teachings, like those of Christ, have been largely perverted by their so-called followers into something quite different than what they originally presented. Alexander the Great drank himself to death, while Julius Caesar found he could not resist the temptations of a girl he met in Egypt. The barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire were actually greeted by most of its inhabitants as a liberation. Mohammed taught that 'women can have no power of ownership since they are as a slave or a prisoner'.
In more modern times, 'to this day, the Italian is the finest road-maker in the world', Roger Bacon is a more important figure than his namesake Francis in the development of scientific method; the Cossacks are to Russia as the Scots are to Britain and the 'wild west' to the eastern United States; William Morris (one of my favorite writers) espoused a form as 'aesthetic socialism', the opening day of the battle of the Somme killed more people than the entire French Revolution from start to finish, Napoleon was 'as conservative and narrow minded as he was a megalomaniac and desirous of being another Caesar'; and (this one I found really strange) 'there is a natural and necessary political map of the world ... and a best kind of government for every area'; imperialism, especially as presented in the works of Kipling, whom Wells particularly despised, 'carves up the populations and civilized countries of Asia [and Africa] as though these peoples were no more than raw material for European exploitation'. Walter Scott (another of my favourites, but less so after reading this book), could well have had the same self-analysis that the later Robert Louis Stevenson claimed, that he was a 'mental prostitute', pandering to relatively low-level, sensationalist instincts in his readers. Wilson's Fourteen Points survived the treaties made at the end of World War I 'like a row of ruined and tattered houses in a bombarded village'.
As with most general works like this, I appreciate when the author leans back and generalizes on the parade of facts with a crystallization of an overall idea: Several examples: 'ignorance is the first penalty of pride', 'given the opportunity, all races are artistic', human instinctual violence has not really dissipated with the development of civilization, since 'make men and women only sufficiently jealous or fearful or drunken or angry, and the red hot eyes of the caveman will glare out at us today.' Also, 'the narrowness of patriotism is the ruin of all nations', 'men of reason and knowledge have never had to assurance and courage of the religious fanatic', the Popes of Rome have 'always had too much of the shrewdness of the priest and too little of the power of a prophet', 'most revolutions are precipitated by the excesses of the ruler ... and most revolutions swing by a kind of necessity towards a more extreme conclusion than is warranted by the original quarrel ',
Individuals whose lives, as presented by Wells, make me want to uncover more about them: Alcibiades, Philip of Macedon, Asoka, Yuan Chwang, Frederick II, Sulieman the Magnificent, Akbar, Wycliffe, Jan Huss, Wat Tyler, Charles V, Mirabeau, Marat, Redmond vs. Carson in Ireland and Yuan Shi-Kai.
Let an overall definition of the author conclude: 'The history of mankind ... is a history of more or less blind endeavours to conceive a common purpose in relation to which, all men may live happily, and to create and develop a common consciousness and a common stock of knowledge which may serve and illuminate that purpose.' Rather bland, but logical. I actually prefer his judgment that since 'no man today is more than four hundred generations from the primordial savage,' it is true that 'civilization is so new a thing in history ... that it has still to conquer and assimilate most of our instincts to its needs.' Sad, but true.
Highly recommended.
Largely colored by his horrific understanding of the slaughters involved with the recent war, his polemic rises in favor of a viable world government, and a severe restriction on military powers, and thus on the powers of military men. He castigates Caesar, Hannibal, Alexander, the Mongols, Cromwell and Washington as either lucky amateurs or relatively mindless barbarians in a page or two characterizing all military minds as 'inferior and unimaginative'. In particular, Haig's refusal in World War I to employ the new tanks is shown to have caused untold numbers of needless deaths. In addition, he wishes to revamp both education and currency systems so as to make it possible for both intellectual and economic development to proceed in a much more democratic, beneficial and equitable manner. He has little faith in capitalism or the 'free market' economy since he sees 'the readiness with which private ownership and enterprise, when put upon the defensive, can degenerate into violence and brigandage'. The fascists were largely supported by large industrialists. Patriotism and nationalism are scornfully characterized as 'the most monstrous of all superstitions at present active in the world'. In a larger sense, he argues that a 'community of obedience' has been struggled against and at times partially replaced by a 'community of will': that is, there is a move against autocracy towards democracy, against top-down leadership to progress based on developments originating in grass roots.
Wells presents some strange ideas, or at least ones I had heretofore not encountered. For instance, he feels that the axis on which the Earth is tilted has changed over time, thus bringing about climatic changes and altering the development of different life forms. Rabbits were not eaten by primitive men since it was thought that their timidity would jeopardize the violent skills hunters needed at that time. The civilization of ancient Sumeria may have lasted more than twice as long as the two millennia of Christianity. He traces the relative slowness of development of Chinese civilization to the difficulty of learning its character-based language, which restricted literacy levels to a mere fraction of the population. Ancient bards were often intentionally blinded. The Grecian Olympic Games, commencing in 776 BC, lasted for more than a thousand years, while Plato's Academy lasted for nine hundred years. The ancient thinkers Asoka, Buddha, Confucius and Lao-Tse were all almost essentially non-religious in stressing tolerance and moral righteousness. Their teachings, like those of Christ, have been largely perverted by their so-called followers into something quite different than what they originally presented. Alexander the Great drank himself to death, while Julius Caesar found he could not resist the temptations of a girl he met in Egypt. The barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire were actually greeted by most of its inhabitants as a liberation. Mohammed taught that 'women can have no power of ownership since they are as a slave or a prisoner'.
In more modern times, 'to this day, the Italian is the finest road-maker in the world', Roger Bacon is a more important figure than his namesake Francis in the development of scientific method; the Cossacks are to Russia as the Scots are to Britain and the 'wild west' to the eastern United States; William Morris (one of my favorite writers) espoused a form as 'aesthetic socialism', the opening day of the battle of the Somme killed more people than the entire French Revolution from start to finish, Napoleon was 'as conservative and narrow minded as he was a megalomaniac and desirous of being another Caesar'; and (this one I found really strange) 'there is a natural and necessary political map of the world ... and a best kind of government for every area'; imperialism, especially as presented in the works of Kipling, whom Wells particularly despised, 'carves up the populations and civilized countries of Asia [and Africa] as though these peoples were no more than raw material for European exploitation'. Walter Scott (another of my favourites, but less so after reading this book), could well have had the same self-analysis that the later Robert Louis Stevenson claimed, that he was a 'mental prostitute', pandering to relatively low-level, sensationalist instincts in his readers. Wilson's Fourteen Points survived the treaties made at the end of World War I 'like a row of ruined and tattered houses in a bombarded village'.
As with most general works like this, I appreciate when the author leans back and generalizes on the parade of facts with a crystallization of an overall idea: Several examples: 'ignorance is the first penalty of pride', 'given the opportunity, all races are artistic', human instinctual violence has not really dissipated with the development of civilization, since 'make men and women only sufficiently jealous or fearful or drunken or angry, and the red hot eyes of the caveman will glare out at us today.' Also, 'the narrowness of patriotism is the ruin of all nations', 'men of reason and knowledge have never had to assurance and courage of the religious fanatic', the Popes of Rome have 'always had too much of the shrewdness of the priest and too little of the power of a prophet', 'most revolutions are precipitated by the excesses of the ruler ... and most revolutions swing by a kind of necessity towards a more extreme conclusion than is warranted by the original quarrel ',
Individuals whose lives, as presented by Wells, make me want to uncover more about them: Alcibiades, Philip of Macedon, Asoka, Yuan Chwang, Frederick II, Sulieman the Magnificent, Akbar, Wycliffe, Jan Huss, Wat Tyler, Charles V, Mirabeau, Marat, Redmond vs. Carson in Ireland and Yuan Shi-Kai.
Let an overall definition of the author conclude: 'The history of mankind ... is a history of more or less blind endeavours to conceive a common purpose in relation to which, all men may live happily, and to create and develop a common consciousness and a common stock of knowledge which may serve and illuminate that purpose.' Rather bland, but logical. I actually prefer his judgment that since 'no man today is more than four hundred generations from the primordial savage,' it is true that 'civilization is so new a thing in history ... that it has still to conquer and assimilate most of our instincts to its needs.' Sad, but true.
Highly recommended.
February 22, 2022
H.G. Wells clearly gets it, he knows how to tell a story and understands the purpose of history and why it needs to be told and tells the overall story better than anyone else is capable of doing. He’ll say at one point, it is not that these persons’ stories are interesting, it is that they are part of history and explain how we became who we are and perhaps will help us go to a better place.
About five years ago, I started reading this book and in my naïve arrogance I thought I was better than this book, and I stopped reading it within its beginning. I’m glad I revisited this book, because once I realized the real purpose of what history is about by delving into a hundred or so other history books such as Thucydides, Herodotus, Livy, Gibbons, Durant, Hume (yes, David Hume wrote one of the best histories that you’ll probably never read), Antony Beevor, and a host of other more modern writers, I can now appreciate this book for the masterpiece that it is.
Great history books give you two things, 1) the history they are supposedly telling, and 2) the history the author reveals about his own period of time, the meta-history, if you will. On each count, Wells delivers, I would even venture to say, he delivers better than any other book written within the last hundred years or so that covers history.
History is recursive, all knowledge is recursive, all understanding takes language and understanding is being through language, and human language itself is special because it is recursive, the act of calling a subroutine from a main routine that ends up calling itself is the nature of recursion and our place in the universe is recursively understood by us through our most human of all human capabilities, that of language. Yes, this paragraph is complex, but it does point towards why I like this Wells book so much.
Wells’ race-based history of the Nordic, Celtic, Negroid, Mongoloid, Jewish races and so on is so 1920 that even Oswald Spengler (whose life project I despise) could love the racial superiority implied within those parameters. But, as I said, the beauty about great histories is they tell as much about the time period for when they were written as they do about the history they are telling.
Wells will say that Gibbon’s theme was that barbarians were at the gate, and the civilized person had to be concerned and that Christianity was the problem. Wells sees it differently. For Wells, religion is necessary for survival for the next level of progress, and the real enemy is ignorance and the exploitation the privilege have over us.
Wells will say that knowledge and will need to preempt faith and obedience while he goes on to show the necessity of Wycliffe. Wells is not against religion as such only blind faith, and he highlights Wycliffe because Wycliffe enables the individual to think and become himself beyond the stifling conforming norms of the ruling gatekeepers who don’t always have the best interest of others as their primary considerations.
For Wells contra Gibbons, the real concern should be against the all-powerful elites both within and without who want to crush and deny the soul and will of those who are not as superior as they perceive themselves to be. The Machiavelli power politics that enable power at any cost and even over the good will of the people as a whole is anathema for progresses’ best results.
Wells covered the medieval scholastic thinker succinctly, but skipped Anslem. That’s unfortunate, because he could have highlighted Anslem’s reason for explaining the fallen angels and that for those angels who were following God’s will, had prioritized their own happiness over justice, but were still acting in accordance to divine will. As Anslem states for the angels, Wells states for human kind.
Wells is writing this history in order to give us the foundation for the knowledge we need and the will to prioritize justice over our own individual happiness. There is an eternal struggle we all have within ourselves and between ourselves and Wells wants to give us the forbearance and the direction we should point towards and the first step we need is to understand how we got here through our collective history.
If a student was only allowed to have read one history book, I would recommend this book above all others. Of course, we live in a world where we can read 100s of history books, and even in this world of abundance I would still recommend this book for everyone.
About five years ago, I started reading this book and in my naïve arrogance I thought I was better than this book, and I stopped reading it within its beginning. I’m glad I revisited this book, because once I realized the real purpose of what history is about by delving into a hundred or so other history books such as Thucydides, Herodotus, Livy, Gibbons, Durant, Hume (yes, David Hume wrote one of the best histories that you’ll probably never read), Antony Beevor, and a host of other more modern writers, I can now appreciate this book for the masterpiece that it is.
Great history books give you two things, 1) the history they are supposedly telling, and 2) the history the author reveals about his own period of time, the meta-history, if you will. On each count, Wells delivers, I would even venture to say, he delivers better than any other book written within the last hundred years or so that covers history.
History is recursive, all knowledge is recursive, all understanding takes language and understanding is being through language, and human language itself is special because it is recursive, the act of calling a subroutine from a main routine that ends up calling itself is the nature of recursion and our place in the universe is recursively understood by us through our most human of all human capabilities, that of language. Yes, this paragraph is complex, but it does point towards why I like this Wells book so much.
Wells’ race-based history of the Nordic, Celtic, Negroid, Mongoloid, Jewish races and so on is so 1920 that even Oswald Spengler (whose life project I despise) could love the racial superiority implied within those parameters. But, as I said, the beauty about great histories is they tell as much about the time period for when they were written as they do about the history they are telling.
Wells will say that Gibbon’s theme was that barbarians were at the gate, and the civilized person had to be concerned and that Christianity was the problem. Wells sees it differently. For Wells, religion is necessary for survival for the next level of progress, and the real enemy is ignorance and the exploitation the privilege have over us.
Wells will say that knowledge and will need to preempt faith and obedience while he goes on to show the necessity of Wycliffe. Wells is not against religion as such only blind faith, and he highlights Wycliffe because Wycliffe enables the individual to think and become himself beyond the stifling conforming norms of the ruling gatekeepers who don’t always have the best interest of others as their primary considerations.
For Wells contra Gibbons, the real concern should be against the all-powerful elites both within and without who want to crush and deny the soul and will of those who are not as superior as they perceive themselves to be. The Machiavelli power politics that enable power at any cost and even over the good will of the people as a whole is anathema for progresses’ best results.
Wells covered the medieval scholastic thinker succinctly, but skipped Anslem. That’s unfortunate, because he could have highlighted Anslem’s reason for explaining the fallen angels and that for those angels who were following God’s will, had prioritized their own happiness over justice, but were still acting in accordance to divine will. As Anslem states for the angels, Wells states for human kind.
Wells is writing this history in order to give us the foundation for the knowledge we need and the will to prioritize justice over our own individual happiness. There is an eternal struggle we all have within ourselves and between ourselves and Wells wants to give us the forbearance and the direction we should point towards and the first step we need is to understand how we got here through our collective history.
If a student was only allowed to have read one history book, I would recommend this book above all others. Of course, we live in a world where we can read 100s of history books, and even in this world of abundance I would still recommend this book for everyone.
Want to read
May 11, 2025This is a book that F. Scott Fitzgerald recommended in his College of One, a set of 40 books he considered necessary for an education:
March 12, 2013
Having just given a glowing review of Will and Ariel Durant's eleven volume history of human civilization, some mention of Wells' own, earlier and much shorter (two volumes in the current editions expanded by his son and others) attempt to bring it all together seems appropriate.
While it is very interesting to read anyone who essays such an ambitious project, Wells' work pales in comparison to the Durants'. If you read them, you don't need him for purposes of taking in a synoptic survey. Still, Wells is Wells, generally regarded as a more important writer than the Durants, so some may want to check this out as a nonfictional adjunct to his prognosticative novels. Personally, I think their history is better written and, so, though long, easier going and more pleasureable, balanced and informative.
While it is very interesting to read anyone who essays such an ambitious project, Wells' work pales in comparison to the Durants'. If you read them, you don't need him for purposes of taking in a synoptic survey. Still, Wells is Wells, generally regarded as a more important writer than the Durants, so some may want to check this out as a nonfictional adjunct to his prognosticative novels. Personally, I think their history is better written and, so, though long, easier going and more pleasureable, balanced and informative.
November 25, 2019
A massive review (some 1200 pages long) of world history, full of unfamiliar details and interesting insights. First published in 1920, the book's early chapters have not well stood the test of time. In the account of the 20th century, it becomes careless with the details and unduly polemical, closing with a vision of future world rule by the United Nations implementing ideas not far removed from those of John Lennon's "Imagine"; some of the blame for this may rest with Raymond Postgate who revised the work and brought it up to the end of the Second World War. But the intervening millennia are a gripping read and deserve the five-star rating.
August 6, 2013
A good overview of world history, though necessarily cursory and Euro-centric. I had next to no historical understanding of the world before reading this and now I feel that I understand the basics. I feel like this book and its treatment of history would bore more knowledgeable readers, but as a general ignoramus I found it thoroughly fascinating and very readable. It seems like a good a place to start as any for people who know nothing about history. This book has very much changed my understanding of the world.
I suppose that I'm going to tackle the Durants next. Wish me luck.
I suppose that I'm going to tackle the Durants next. Wish me luck.
August 13, 2020
Mr Wells had strong opinions....and they made there way into whatever he wrote, including his attempt at history.
I read this long ago during a period when I had a lot of time on my hands. The read was interesting, and he covers the basics of history all right, along with his take on them.
I read this long ago during a period when I had a lot of time on my hands. The read was interesting, and he covers the basics of history all right, along with his take on them.
May 4, 2021
H. G. Wells was an evolutionist a follower of Darwin's ideas, a socialist, a prophet and enthusiastic pioneer for the forthcoming sexual revolution, and a prolific writer, truly the definition of a Renaissance man but mostly a very passionate man about humanity and how we got to where we are. In writing The Outline of History he does not write as many dispassionate historians do trying to hold an impartial view he writes with his full blown Wellsian passion. He lets the reader not only know the events of history but how he saw them happening through his eyes.
H. G. Wells believed that history as it was taught in his time as part of the general educational curriculum was too partial and narrow and a broader approach was needed. Wells states that "This outline deals with ages and races and nations, where the ordinary history deals with reigns and pedigrees and campaigns . . ." Wells starts his outline with a quote from Friedrich Ratzel "A philosophy of the history of the human race, worthy of its name, must begin with the heavens and descend to the earth, must be charged with the conviction that all existence is one a single conception sustained from beginning to end upon one identical law" In Chapter I p. 1 THE EARTH IN SPACE AND TIME, Wells writes that "Space is, for the most part, emptiness." When reading this book we must keep in mind that it was written at a time when physics was just starting to make tremendous breakthroughs with Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Even though Wells wrote science fiction about men in the moon and Martians invading Earth, understanding the mysteries of space is still evolving. We now know space is not actually “empty,” it’s filled with quantum fields and dark energy. "The universe appears to be empty, but on the quantum level the empty space is actually filled with things like quark and gluon field fluctuations, dark matter, and dark energy. ()
In chapter VII THE ANCESTRY OF MAN § 4 The Piltdown sub-man p.53 Wells mentions Eoanthropus, the dawn man which was the smashed pieces of a whole skull that turned up in an excavation for road gravel at Piltdown in Sussex. " The §, is called a section symbol. It is a typographical glyph for referencing individually numbered sections of a document or manuscript. In 1912, Charles Dawson {not Darwin} claimed that he had discovered the "missing link" between ape and man. The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological fraud in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilized remains of a previously unknown early human. Although there were doubts about its authenticity virtually from the beginning, the remains were still broadly accepted for many years, and the falsity of the hoax was only definitively demonstrated in 1953. It was found to have consisted of the altered mandible and some teeth of an orangutan deliberately combined with the cranium of a fully developed, though small-brained, modern human. An extensive scientific review in 2016 established that amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson was its likely perpetrator. The Piltdown hoax is prominent for two reasons: the attention it generated around the subject of human evolution, and the length of time, 41 years, that elapsed from its alleged initial discovery to its definitive exposure as a composite forgery." () Gee wiz! even people back in Edwardian times did stupid stuff to get attention. In Chapter IX THE LATER POSTGLACIAL PALEOLITIC MEN, THE FIRST TRUE MEN. (LATER PALEOLITHIC AGE) Section §1 The coming of men like ourselves pp, 67-68, Wells states the belief that "Unlike most savage conquerors, who take the women of the defeated side for their own and interbreed with them, it would would seem that the true men (a term Wells uses for the recently discovered New Paleolithic Cro-Magnon and Grimaldi species) would have nothing to do with the Neanderthal race, women or men. There is no trace of any intermixture beteen the races, in spite of the fact that the newcomers also being flint users, were establishing themselves in the very same spots that their predecessors had occupied. Well as they, say time marches forward and along came the ability to do DNA genome sequencing along with a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology who had pioneered techniques for extracting and analyzing DNA from ancient specimens. In two new studies, genetic researchers have shown that about 20 percent of the Neanderthal genome survives in modern humans of non-African ancestry and identified exactly which areas of the human genome retain segments of Neanderthal DNA. About 30,000 years ago, Homo sapiens migrating out of Africa began encountering Neanderthals, a lineage that had diverged from modern humans hundreds of thousands of years before. Despite their differences, Homo sapiens and Neanderthals mingled, and over time, produced children with genes from both lineages. Today, the biological remnants of that collision between two distinct populations remain alive in the genomes of Europeans and East Asians." () "In early 2014 two groups had used different statistical approaches to identify Neanderthal DNA in modern human genomes, putting to bed any skepticism about the history of hominin group interbreeding. '[It was] the final nail on the coffin that it couldn’t be anything else,' says Janet Kelso, a computational biologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and a collaborator on Reich’s publication." () Well H. G. I guess you can put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Skipping ahead to Chapter XXVII §1 I found this statement comparing the political system of Ancient Rome to Wells's contemporary time of circa 1919. "Our world today is still far from solving the problem of representation and from producing a public assembly which will really summarize, crystallize and express the thought and will of the community; our elections are still largely an ingenious mockery of the common voter who finds himself helpless in the face of party organizations which reduce his free choice of a representative to the less unpalatable of two political hacks . . ." (p. 425). Well even 120+ years past H. G.'s time it still looks like we're still faced with the same problem. In Chapter XXVIII Wells really lets loose how he felt about the Roman Empire and its legacy which Wells proports as more legend and fallacy than reality.
I am in no way trying to diminish this book just put it in perspective, since this book was truly groundbreaking for its time "It sold more than two million copies, was translated into many languages, and had a considerable impact on the teaching of history in institutions of higher education" (Michael Sherborne, H.G. Wells: Another Kind of Life (Peter Owen, 2010), p. 252-53; David C. Smith, H.G. Wells: Desperately Mortal: A Biography (Yale University Press, 1986), pp. 258–60.)
H. G. Wells believed that history as it was taught in his time as part of the general educational curriculum was too partial and narrow and a broader approach was needed. Wells states that "This outline deals with ages and races and nations, where the ordinary history deals with reigns and pedigrees and campaigns . . ." Wells starts his outline with a quote from Friedrich Ratzel "A philosophy of the history of the human race, worthy of its name, must begin with the heavens and descend to the earth, must be charged with the conviction that all existence is one a single conception sustained from beginning to end upon one identical law" In Chapter I p. 1 THE EARTH IN SPACE AND TIME, Wells writes that "Space is, for the most part, emptiness." When reading this book we must keep in mind that it was written at a time when physics was just starting to make tremendous breakthroughs with Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Even though Wells wrote science fiction about men in the moon and Martians invading Earth, understanding the mysteries of space is still evolving. We now know space is not actually “empty,” it’s filled with quantum fields and dark energy. "The universe appears to be empty, but on the quantum level the empty space is actually filled with things like quark and gluon field fluctuations, dark matter, and dark energy. ()
In chapter VII THE ANCESTRY OF MAN § 4 The Piltdown sub-man p.53 Wells mentions Eoanthropus, the dawn man which was the smashed pieces of a whole skull that turned up in an excavation for road gravel at Piltdown in Sussex. " The §, is called a section symbol. It is a typographical glyph for referencing individually numbered sections of a document or manuscript. In 1912, Charles Dawson {not Darwin} claimed that he had discovered the "missing link" between ape and man. The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological fraud in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilized remains of a previously unknown early human. Although there were doubts about its authenticity virtually from the beginning, the remains were still broadly accepted for many years, and the falsity of the hoax was only definitively demonstrated in 1953. It was found to have consisted of the altered mandible and some teeth of an orangutan deliberately combined with the cranium of a fully developed, though small-brained, modern human. An extensive scientific review in 2016 established that amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson was its likely perpetrator. The Piltdown hoax is prominent for two reasons: the attention it generated around the subject of human evolution, and the length of time, 41 years, that elapsed from its alleged initial discovery to its definitive exposure as a composite forgery." () Gee wiz! even people back in Edwardian times did stupid stuff to get attention. In Chapter IX THE LATER POSTGLACIAL PALEOLITIC MEN, THE FIRST TRUE MEN. (LATER PALEOLITHIC AGE) Section §1 The coming of men like ourselves pp, 67-68, Wells states the belief that "Unlike most savage conquerors, who take the women of the defeated side for their own and interbreed with them, it would would seem that the true men (a term Wells uses for the recently discovered New Paleolithic Cro-Magnon and Grimaldi species) would have nothing to do with the Neanderthal race, women or men. There is no trace of any intermixture beteen the races, in spite of the fact that the newcomers also being flint users, were establishing themselves in the very same spots that their predecessors had occupied. Well as they, say time marches forward and along came the ability to do DNA genome sequencing along with a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology who had pioneered techniques for extracting and analyzing DNA from ancient specimens. In two new studies, genetic researchers have shown that about 20 percent of the Neanderthal genome survives in modern humans of non-African ancestry and identified exactly which areas of the human genome retain segments of Neanderthal DNA. About 30,000 years ago, Homo sapiens migrating out of Africa began encountering Neanderthals, a lineage that had diverged from modern humans hundreds of thousands of years before. Despite their differences, Homo sapiens and Neanderthals mingled, and over time, produced children with genes from both lineages. Today, the biological remnants of that collision between two distinct populations remain alive in the genomes of Europeans and East Asians." () "In early 2014 two groups had used different statistical approaches to identify Neanderthal DNA in modern human genomes, putting to bed any skepticism about the history of hominin group interbreeding. '[It was] the final nail on the coffin that it couldn’t be anything else,' says Janet Kelso, a computational biologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology and a collaborator on Reich’s publication." () Well H. G. I guess you can put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Skipping ahead to Chapter XXVII §1 I found this statement comparing the political system of Ancient Rome to Wells's contemporary time of circa 1919. "Our world today is still far from solving the problem of representation and from producing a public assembly which will really summarize, crystallize and express the thought and will of the community; our elections are still largely an ingenious mockery of the common voter who finds himself helpless in the face of party organizations which reduce his free choice of a representative to the less unpalatable of two political hacks . . ." (p. 425). Well even 120+ years past H. G.'s time it still looks like we're still faced with the same problem. In Chapter XXVIII Wells really lets loose how he felt about the Roman Empire and its legacy which Wells proports as more legend and fallacy than reality.
I am in no way trying to diminish this book just put it in perspective, since this book was truly groundbreaking for its time "It sold more than two million copies, was translated into many languages, and had a considerable impact on the teaching of history in institutions of higher education" (Michael Sherborne, H.G. Wells: Another Kind of Life (Peter Owen, 2010), p. 252-53; David C. Smith, H.G. Wells: Desperately Mortal: A Biography (Yale University Press, 1986), pp. 258–60.)
February 16, 2011
This is an interesting read- though not entirely for the reasons Wells intended. After World War 1 he had supported an international body to prevent war but was deeply disillusioned with Wilson’s League of Nations. The Outline of History was published in 1921 partly as a reaction to what Wells saw as the failure of the league and to underscore man's history of aggression and repression. The text itself is quite suspect in places- the discipline of history has advanced exponentially in the last century and the author's bias is on full display. Byzantium, for instance, is dismissed as a 'degenerate continuation of the Hellenic Empire (of Alexander the Great). Its mentality was no longer the mentality of free-minded plain-speaking citizens... it was the mentality of the pedants and of men politically impotent; its philosophy was a pompous evasion of real things and its scientific impulse was dead.”
But if you can get past some of the silly critiques, the book does provide a fascinating glimpse into the mindset of the late 19th/early 20th century. As you might expect, the history is at times obsessed with race- and Aryan strains are responsible for most of the great accomplishments of the different cultures. But it is also surprisingly dismissive of western history. Rome is viewed dimly as being scientifically backward, intellectually dead, without any serious literature and producing only derivative, unoriginal art. China and India, by contrast, are given a much more positive spin, presented as intellectually, religiously, and artistically prolific.
Throughout the book there is a very 19th century faith in progress and science- a belief that someday man would be perfected and enlightened enough to do away with war, disease, famine, and crime. World War 1 severely weakened this view and World War 2 would finally destroy it completely in Europe. In Wells we have the last gasp of optimism that was probably outdated when it was published. He personally still clung on to his naive Utopian ideas- 12 years later he published "The Shape of Things To Come" which predicted the eradication of all religion, capitalism, and poverty- but it also gloomily predicted a second world war beginning with a German invasion of Poland. In that at least he was only off by 4 months.
HG Wells was a master at his craft. Unfortunately his historical skills don't measure up to his writing, but I would recommend this book to any who are interested in an entertaining view of the mindset of a time gone by.
But if you can get past some of the silly critiques, the book does provide a fascinating glimpse into the mindset of the late 19th/early 20th century. As you might expect, the history is at times obsessed with race- and Aryan strains are responsible for most of the great accomplishments of the different cultures. But it is also surprisingly dismissive of western history. Rome is viewed dimly as being scientifically backward, intellectually dead, without any serious literature and producing only derivative, unoriginal art. China and India, by contrast, are given a much more positive spin, presented as intellectually, religiously, and artistically prolific.
Throughout the book there is a very 19th century faith in progress and science- a belief that someday man would be perfected and enlightened enough to do away with war, disease, famine, and crime. World War 1 severely weakened this view and World War 2 would finally destroy it completely in Europe. In Wells we have the last gasp of optimism that was probably outdated when it was published. He personally still clung on to his naive Utopian ideas- 12 years later he published "The Shape of Things To Come" which predicted the eradication of all religion, capitalism, and poverty- but it also gloomily predicted a second world war beginning with a German invasion of Poland. In that at least he was only off by 4 months.
HG Wells was a master at his craft. Unfortunately his historical skills don't measure up to his writing, but I would recommend this book to any who are interested in an entertaining view of the mindset of a time gone by.
July 19, 2021
It's a classic. I acquired an inexpensive 2-volume edition through family inheritance. It's been very useful to me, though I believe more recent research probably suggests many small revisions, and probably some major ones here & there. It's lengthy, and I've drawn on the text as a reference, selecting portions here & there as interest or need arose.
May 29, 2018
I grew up reading the science fiction works of HG Wells and Jules Verne in childhood and I was not aware of this book on history that Wells wrote in the aftermath of the First World War. A number of things stood out as I listened to the audio version of the book, the beginning being the most fascinating one because Wells opens the book not with the early man, but the origins of the universe and then the formation of the sun and the earth, placing our history in the long chain of events that preceded mankind.
The other fascinating aspect of the work is the very antiquated style of expounding on the subject- most of it is about great men and great events- usually wars though the latter is understandable since the book was written in the aftermath of what was then called The Great War. (A short digression, but The Great War always brings a smile on me because it reminds me of the great anti- war novel The Good Soldier Schweik by Jaroslav Hašek).
There are a lot of chapters that were of little interest for me, like the detailed history of early Rome and Greece, though these too were peppered with interesting nuggets of information. I did not know, for example, that the words Czar and Kaisar derive from Caesar.
The perspective of the author is firmly Western, though Wells does cast a look at China and India. Some of his views are very perceptive - for example his comment that India is likely to absorb a lot more of western knowledge through English (consider the role of India in the knowledge economy, almost a century later) and how much China can achieve if it can simplify its language (I do not know a great deal about it, but I wonder if China's recent growth is also linked to the emergence of simplified Chinese that was introduced after the Chinese Revolution in 1949).
The other fascinating aspect of the work is the very antiquated style of expounding on the subject- most of it is about great men and great events- usually wars though the latter is understandable since the book was written in the aftermath of what was then called The Great War. (A short digression, but The Great War always brings a smile on me because it reminds me of the great anti- war novel The Good Soldier Schweik by Jaroslav Hašek).
There are a lot of chapters that were of little interest for me, like the detailed history of early Rome and Greece, though these too were peppered with interesting nuggets of information. I did not know, for example, that the words Czar and Kaisar derive from Caesar.
The perspective of the author is firmly Western, though Wells does cast a look at China and India. Some of his views are very perceptive - for example his comment that India is likely to absorb a lot more of western knowledge through English (consider the role of India in the knowledge economy, almost a century later) and how much China can achieve if it can simplify its language (I do not know a great deal about it, but I wonder if China's recent growth is also linked to the emergence of simplified Chinese that was introduced after the Chinese Revolution in 1949).
April 26, 2018
Almost a century ago, H.G. Wells, famed writer of some of the greatest science fiction of all time, came home from the tragedies of WWI and devoted himself to this Outline of History in an effort to educate subsequent generations to form a greater world union in which all humanity could prosper with security and dignity. The outline was revised repeatedly, and the edition I read was updated by Raymond Postgate to include a brief section on WWII as well. The story I get from this Outline is one of recurring opportunities for a social order that benefits all which is forever scuttled in favor of entrenched privilege and hierarchy. Often as I read this over the past two months I would be struck by how apt Wells' commentary felt for the politics in my lifetime, and I was born well after his death. For example, Wells writes, "And here we come upon one of the chief problems of our lives at the present time, the problem of the deflection of the profits of progress. For two hundred years there has been...a steady improvement in the methods of production of almost everything that humanity requires. If our sense of community and our social science were equal to the tasks required of them...this great increment in production would have benefited the whole community...but though the common standard of living has risen, the rise has been on a scale disproportionately small...There has been much sheer waste. Vast accumulations of material and energy have gone into warlike preparations and warfare." That's from a chapter on the 18th century. It is just as current and true today as it was when Wells wrote it a hundred years ago.
June 6, 2016
تاریخ را یا تاریخ دانان به خشکی روایت کرده اند و یا داستان نویسان آمیخته با تخیل و به نفع داستانشان
حالا ما در این کتاب با روایتی مواجهیم که یک داستان نویس متن تاریخی می نویسد ، هم روح نویسندگی در آن حضور دارد و هم ارجاعات به واقعیات تاریخی
شاید برای هر کس لازم و واجب باشد که کتابی در این حد و کیفیت در زندگی اش بخواند تا بفهمد سرشت آدمی از کجا آمده و به کجا رفته ، به دور از اینکه وارد جزئیات پر دست انداز و محل مناقشه ی تاریخی شود
و مطمئنن بعد از خواندن چنین کتابی نگاهش به زندگی و آدمی و حکومت تغییر خواهد کرد
حالا ما در این کتاب با روایتی مواجهیم که یک داستان نویس متن تاریخی می نویسد ، هم روح نویسندگی در آن حضور دارد و هم ارجاعات به واقعیات تاریخی
شاید برای هر کس لازم و واجب باشد که کتابی در این حد و کیفیت در زندگی اش بخواند تا بفهمد سرشت آدمی از کجا آمده و به کجا رفته ، به دور از اینکه وارد جزئیات پر دست انداز و محل مناقشه ی تاریخی شود
و مطمئنن بعد از خواندن چنین کتابی نگاهش به زندگی و آدمی و حکومت تغییر خواهد کرد
August 30, 2007
Will read more of when I get a good copy to own. Wells would write that sentence better.
Read
January 6, 2025Jackie
July 23, 2024
Как для книги по истории - очень скучно. Некоторые главы скипал, некоторые по диагонали читал
January 15, 2019
Don’t bother wasting your time. This is a camouflaged Socialist screed.
H.G. Wells may have been the first Globalist. This work overflows with unsubstantiated asides as to motivation of historical figures and even whole populations as though the author were omniscient. He promotes the destruction of such antiquated concepts as borders and nations. He was a popular writer but not a historian. No historian excises large portions of articles from encyclopedias as authority, nor copies considerable passages from titled British authors as weight. This is a survey with many skewed perceptions. Example: the brilliance of ancient Greece would have continued if only they had the printing press and if they had used their glass manufactories to grind lenses for microscopes and telescopes. He saw little worth in Alexander and Julius Caesar but withholds condemning Nero. Rome too would have been better had they a Press and universal education. Wealth he eschews (he was a Socialist after all) and he never seems to understand economics – to him, the rise of money meant the degradation of humanity. He asserts a purity of intent to report on early Christianity yet denigrates the sources of the faith and the “unintelligently” devout. His stupefying ignorance of the beginnings of the faith is apparent. As is his strange support for early Islam. And he claims the Vikings were simply reactionaries to the encroachments of Christianity encouraged by Charlemagne! It becomes apparent as one reads Wells, that he holds all powerful men in contempt as being somehow responsible for mankind’s inability to soar but admires the hordes of barbarians long condemned as blighting civilization. The Mongol hordes? “Their effect in diffusing and broadening men’s ideas and stimulating their imaginations was enormous. For a time, all Asia and Western Europe enjoyed an open intercourse; all the roads were temporarily open…” Huh? I suppose this opening is attributable to their wholesale massacre and obliteration – Baghdad and Kiev come readily to mind – that created enormous voids.
The Middle Ages produced Roger Bacon who, Wells asserts, had more significance to mankind than any monarch of his time though the contemporary world knew nothing of him. It’s these off-hand remarks that undermines Wells work throughout. As geo-political forms solidified around territories of homogeneous people to produce nations, he ridicules that concept and promotes the Socialist’s idea of the world-state while admitting men refuse to recognize this innate desire. Voltaire and Gibbon are his kindred spirits, but these, like him, were mere observers rather than actors on the world stage. Instead of realizing the gradual improvement of mankind caused by the Industrial Revolution (raising living standards, the availability of more and cheaper products for consumers) he condemns it because the entrepreneur became wealthy while the worker suffered. He also ridiculed the American Constitution without understanding that fixed rules for national government ensures the people’s freedom (here the beginning of the claim of a living document, perhaps?). He has no understanding of the fundamental economic law of supply and demand that determine glut and scarcity and price. His bizarre theories of currency, finance and limited product availability due to greed restricting natural resources conveniently fails to account for any consumer. And the French Revolution wasn’t really so bad. The suffering of a few thousand well-connected people can’t compare with what was occurring in the prisons of the world at that time! Wells appears to be a class-baiter. The unknown masses, whether barbarian, Islamic or Mongol invader, Parisian mob or proletariat class represent the best virtues of mankind! He admired Lenin! Enough said.
H.G. Wells may have been the first Globalist. This work overflows with unsubstantiated asides as to motivation of historical figures and even whole populations as though the author were omniscient. He promotes the destruction of such antiquated concepts as borders and nations. He was a popular writer but not a historian. No historian excises large portions of articles from encyclopedias as authority, nor copies considerable passages from titled British authors as weight. This is a survey with many skewed perceptions. Example: the brilliance of ancient Greece would have continued if only they had the printing press and if they had used their glass manufactories to grind lenses for microscopes and telescopes. He saw little worth in Alexander and Julius Caesar but withholds condemning Nero. Rome too would have been better had they a Press and universal education. Wealth he eschews (he was a Socialist after all) and he never seems to understand economics – to him, the rise of money meant the degradation of humanity. He asserts a purity of intent to report on early Christianity yet denigrates the sources of the faith and the “unintelligently” devout. His stupefying ignorance of the beginnings of the faith is apparent. As is his strange support for early Islam. And he claims the Vikings were simply reactionaries to the encroachments of Christianity encouraged by Charlemagne! It becomes apparent as one reads Wells, that he holds all powerful men in contempt as being somehow responsible for mankind’s inability to soar but admires the hordes of barbarians long condemned as blighting civilization. The Mongol hordes? “Their effect in diffusing and broadening men’s ideas and stimulating their imaginations was enormous. For a time, all Asia and Western Europe enjoyed an open intercourse; all the roads were temporarily open…” Huh? I suppose this opening is attributable to their wholesale massacre and obliteration – Baghdad and Kiev come readily to mind – that created enormous voids.
The Middle Ages produced Roger Bacon who, Wells asserts, had more significance to mankind than any monarch of his time though the contemporary world knew nothing of him. It’s these off-hand remarks that undermines Wells work throughout. As geo-political forms solidified around territories of homogeneous people to produce nations, he ridicules that concept and promotes the Socialist’s idea of the world-state while admitting men refuse to recognize this innate desire. Voltaire and Gibbon are his kindred spirits, but these, like him, were mere observers rather than actors on the world stage. Instead of realizing the gradual improvement of mankind caused by the Industrial Revolution (raising living standards, the availability of more and cheaper products for consumers) he condemns it because the entrepreneur became wealthy while the worker suffered. He also ridiculed the American Constitution without understanding that fixed rules for national government ensures the people’s freedom (here the beginning of the claim of a living document, perhaps?). He has no understanding of the fundamental economic law of supply and demand that determine glut and scarcity and price. His bizarre theories of currency, finance and limited product availability due to greed restricting natural resources conveniently fails to account for any consumer. And the French Revolution wasn’t really so bad. The suffering of a few thousand well-connected people can’t compare with what was occurring in the prisons of the world at that time! Wells appears to be a class-baiter. The unknown masses, whether barbarian, Islamic or Mongol invader, Parisian mob or proletariat class represent the best virtues of mankind! He admired Lenin! Enough said.
October 29, 2018
I love everything else I've read by Wells so far, and I loved the first 200 or so pages of this book. Reading his take on the beginnings of humanity, including the formation of the universe and life's beginnings as swamp slime was fascinating to me.
His take on prehistoric humanity also kept me looking forward to my next chance to pick the book up. It was right at book IV when there was a sharp shift in readability. The chronology started to jump around, Wells became more opinionated, and the narrative was ever more reliant on maps that were nearly illegible and missing locations described in the text.
He also very often will say "we do not have time to go into this here" even though he has time to say that so repetitively and insert his own interpretations of events (there were pages dedicated to the negative influence Alexander the Great's mother had on him).
The history is very Eurocentric, and right when I was wondering how much of the rest of the globe would be covered in the ~500 BC period, it mentioned that there is plenty of information on India's history in existence, but it needs to be made more accessible to Western audiences.
I skipped around a bit looking for a few specifics. No Japanese history to speak of, no mention of Shaka Zulu, No pre-Columbian America, India remains a mystery.
As a history book of the world, I would say it hasn't aged well. There just has to be better out there. Reading it just for his take on what there is of history would have been interesting enough to keep me going, but it was too plagued with "there's no time in such a modest outline for this" (I mean, why bring it up then?) and illegible maps.
I gave it 3 stars just for how much I did enjoy the first three books. I wish they existed as their own volume.
His take on prehistoric humanity also kept me looking forward to my next chance to pick the book up. It was right at book IV when there was a sharp shift in readability. The chronology started to jump around, Wells became more opinionated, and the narrative was ever more reliant on maps that were nearly illegible and missing locations described in the text.
He also very often will say "we do not have time to go into this here" even though he has time to say that so repetitively and insert his own interpretations of events (there were pages dedicated to the negative influence Alexander the Great's mother had on him).
The history is very Eurocentric, and right when I was wondering how much of the rest of the globe would be covered in the ~500 BC period, it mentioned that there is plenty of information on India's history in existence, but it needs to be made more accessible to Western audiences.
I skipped around a bit looking for a few specifics. No Japanese history to speak of, no mention of Shaka Zulu, No pre-Columbian America, India remains a mystery.
As a history book of the world, I would say it hasn't aged well. There just has to be better out there. Reading it just for his take on what there is of history would have been interesting enough to keep me going, but it was too plagued with "there's no time in such a modest outline for this" (I mean, why bring it up then?) and illegible maps.
I gave it 3 stars just for how much I did enjoy the first three books. I wish they existed as their own volume.
October 21, 2015
A fantastic but sometimes overwhelming work. I actually read the second (Roman through Renaissance) section first, then found a complete edition and read sections one and three.
H.G. Wells beautifully crafts his prose. Some unique points of this work are his nomads vs. city dwellers thesis (originally ibn Khaldun's, but Wells applies it globally), his attempt to focus on, or at least mention the status of common working class people at various points in history, and the attention he gives to India, China, and the Muslim world as civilizations. (Not bad for the 20s). Those familiar with the Morloks and Eloi will see echoes of that parable in Wells discussion of class conflicts and the development of socialism.
His final chapters, rising from the ashes of the "World to End All Wars" are a great read for their optimism about humanity, and a hope for world peace. It is a bit uneasy to read them, knowing that this book was published in the "interwar years."
All in all, this book is a project, but the beauty of the language and universalist message are quite rewarding to read it through to the end. I'd recommend breaking it up into thirds.
H.G. Wells beautifully crafts his prose. Some unique points of this work are his nomads vs. city dwellers thesis (originally ibn Khaldun's, but Wells applies it globally), his attempt to focus on, or at least mention the status of common working class people at various points in history, and the attention he gives to India, China, and the Muslim world as civilizations. (Not bad for the 20s). Those familiar with the Morloks and Eloi will see echoes of that parable in Wells discussion of class conflicts and the development of socialism.
His final chapters, rising from the ashes of the "World to End All Wars" are a great read for their optimism about humanity, and a hope for world peace. It is a bit uneasy to read them, knowing that this book was published in the "interwar years."
All in all, this book is a project, but the beauty of the language and universalist message are quite rewarding to read it through to the end. I'd recommend breaking it up into thirds.
January 8, 2018
I haven't read the whole book, only the first several chapters, and the last one. Here is some information I found to be useful:
- "language is the instrument of thought as book-keeping is the instrument of business."
- "Men paid in liberty for safety, shelter, and regular meals."
- "Education is the preparation of the individual for the community"
- "There will be little drudgery in this better-ordered world. Natural power harnessed in machines will be the general drudge. What drudgery is inevitable will be done as a service and duty for a few years or months out of each life; it will not consume nor degrade the whole life of anyone."
- "language is the instrument of thought as book-keeping is the instrument of business."
- "Men paid in liberty for safety, shelter, and regular meals."
- "Education is the preparation of the individual for the community"
- "There will be little drudgery in this better-ordered world. Natural power harnessed in machines will be the general drudge. What drudgery is inevitable will be done as a service and duty for a few years or months out of each life; it will not consume nor degrade the whole life of anyone."
December 29, 2018
As a lover of history I was thrilled to find a chronological history of humankind, at least the recorded parts anyway. It's a long journey that is compounded into really a very small space. Well written in a method that elaborates enough to give context but usually not over the top. As with any history it was hard to read at times, perhaps mostly from my own disinterest in that particular time and place but on the other hand there were more than a few times I needed delved into further with additional reading material.
My major disappointment was that the Indigenous people to America were not even touched upon.
My major disappointment was that the Indigenous people to America were not even touched upon.
November 16, 2013
Not much to think, since it was probably plagiarized from an unknown writer named Florence Deeks. "The New Yorker" or some such publication had a fairly convincing article about it. Book plagiarism was apparently quite common back then. Steinbeck allegedly filched "The Grapes of Wrath" from an unknown newspaper stringer. Then there was the notorious Henri Gauthier-Villiers, who kept Colette locked in a room and chained to a desk, writing books for which Gauthier-Villiers took full credit.
February 17, 2021
Despite its age, I found this condensed history a delightful read. Wells has a refined prose which is never dry or pedantic (with the only slow sections being the first few chapters on primordial history). His general observations are judicious, and while I don't always agree with his conclusions, he arrives at them from sound reason. I look forward to reading Chesterton's response to the work in The Everlasting Man.
November 17, 2011
huh.... what a book......
I think H G Wells has created two time machines......
One is his famous novel n another is this book......it really makes you travel through catalogues of time.......real good .....sheer awesome....
I think H G Wells has created two time machines......
One is his famous novel n another is this book......it really makes you travel through catalogues of time.......real good .....sheer awesome....
August 17, 2018
Personally, this was a very enjoyable read. However, I love History so for anyone else this might feel like reading a textbook.
Amazing detail for a brief outline of world History.
Very accurate but will have own personal interpretations on events.
Amazing detail for a brief outline of world History.
Very accurate but will have own personal interpretations on events.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.