Even for someone who enjoys "real" and substantial history books, as opposed to more trendy light reading, this was too boring to finish. The level of detail compares to a Norman Davies level but without the same kind of purpose or cohesion.

I cannot agree with the statements of some that this is "dull" or "booring". I am not aware that a serious reader expects non-fiction, history books to be exciting! I think that says more about the reader than the author and this book.

Professor Lewis has done and excellent job of providing an introduction to the history of this area and setting out a foundational explanation of the genesis of problems that exist today. I found the organization difficult to stay with at times but I am more accustomed to a linear historical format.

One does not have to be a serious student of history to appreciate what this book offers. I would recommend this book highly, especially for an understanding on a very basic level, of why the U.S. has no business invading the area.

Like many of you, I had heard good things about this book, but it turned out to be a disappointing slog. How this or that caliph raised taxes and other equally scintillating topics get hundreds of pages of stuffy prose. The Crusades, the fall of Constantinople, Timur and anything else exciting are lucky to get a few paragraphs. The author's feelings about Islam are also a bit over the top: he describes various aspects of this religion as "pristine" at least four times that I counted. The history of Islam in the middle east (especially the tedious bureaucratic details) is the real topic of this book.

Like many of you, I had heard good things about this book, but it turned out to be a disappointing slog. How this or that caliph raised taxes and other equally scintillating topics get hundreds of pages of stuffy prose. The Crusades, the fall of Constantinople, Timur and anything else exciting are lucky to get a few paragraphs. The author's feelings about Islam are also a bit over the top: he describes various aspects of this religion as "pristine" at least four times that I counted. The history of Islam in the middle east (especially the tedious bureaucratic details) is the real topic of this book.

I first read Lewis's book about five years ago and found it slow going. It made no significant impression on my mind. In the intervening years I've read fifty or more books concerning the history and politics of the Middle East. Fortified with new knowledge I decided to give the renowned Lewis another reading.

My second reading of the colossus of Middle Eastern history was just as unrewarding as the first. Professor Lewis, in this book, comes across as boring, meandering and forgettable. The Amazon reviewer who states "Lewis chronologically traces the political, economical, social, and cultural development of the Middle East" never read this book. There is nothing chronological about it.

Lewis warns us on the first page of the Preface that this book will not concentrate on "political and military events of the Middle East" but on "social, economic, and above all cultural change." But he doesn't warn us that this information will be presented in a confusing hodge-podge of lifeless prose. In an apparent attempt to be "objective" the great historian treats every subject in the same monotone. He is so cautious that every statement is qualified, nuanced, digressed upon and then qualified again until the reader's mind wanders.

The prodigious Professor Lewis was 80 years old when this book came out in 1995. He'd already written twenty major works of Middle Eastern History, starting in 1940. His magnum opus was the 1978 four volume "Cambridge History of Islam." I doubt that this present book was newly written. It reads as though many parts were taken from his previous work, and conflated into a "new book."

There is nothing wrong with writers recycling their previous published material, but Lewis makes no mention of doing so. Yet this is the only explanation that makes sense to me for the unevenness of the book and the confusing way it is presented. At times it reads as though Lewis shuffled parts of his previous work together randomly, like a deck of cards. (Or, maybe it was parts of his memory he was shuffling.)

The last section of the book, Part V of V, "The Challenge of Modernity" is the most interesting and relevant part of the book. But even here Lewis often tends to veer off course and get bogged down in detail and digression.

"The Middle East: A Brief History of The Last 2,000 Years" has polarized Amazon's reviewers more than any book I know. It is either acclaimed or discredited; there's not much middle ground. I give the work three stars because it does contain a mass of historical information. I take two stars off due to Lewis's leaden prose, confusing presentation and lack of illuminating interpretation.

I first read Lewis's book about five years ago and found it slow going. It made no significant impression on my mind. In the intervening years I've read fifty or more books concerning the history and politics of the Middle East. Fortified with new knowledge I decided to give the renowned Lewis another reading.

My second reading of the colossus of Middle Eastern history was just as unrewarding as the first. Professor Lewis, in this book, comes across as boring, meandering and forgettable. The Amazon reviewer who states "Lewis chronologically traces the political, economical, social, and cultural development of the Middle East" never read this book. There is nothing chronological about it.

Lewis warns us on the first page of the Preface that this book will not concentrate on "political and military events of the Middle East" but on "social, economic, and above all cultural change." But he doesn't warn us that this information will be presented in a confusing hodge-podge of lifeless prose. In an apparent attempt to be "objective" the great historian treats every subject in the same monotone. He is so cautious that every statement is qualified, nuanced, digressed upon and then qualified again until the reader's mind wanders.

The prodigious Professor Lewis was 80 years old when this book came out in 1995. He'd already written twenty major works of Middle Eastern History, starting in 1940. His magnum opus was the 1978 four volume "Cambridge History of Islam." I doubt that this present book was newly written. It reads as though many parts were taken from his previous work, and conflated into a "new book."

There is nothing wrong with writers recycling their previous published material, but Lewis makes no mention of doing so. Yet this is the only explanation that makes sense to me for the unevenness of the book and the confusing way it is presented. At times it reads as though Lewis shuffled parts of his previous work together randomly, like a deck of cards. (Or, maybe it was parts of his memory he was shuffling.)

The last section of the book, Part V of V, "The Challenge of Modernity" is the most interesting and relevant part of the book. But even here Lewis often tends to veer off course and get bogged down in detail and digression.

"The Middle East: A Brief History of The Last 2,000 Years" has polarized Amazon's reviewers more than any book I know. It is either acclaimed or discredited; there's not much middle ground. I give the work three stars because it does contain a mass of historical information. I take two stars off due to Lewis's leaden prose, confusing presentation and lack of illuminating interpretation.

I first read Lewis's book about five years ago and found it slow going. It made no significant impression on my mind. In the intervening years I've read fifty or more books concerning the history and politics of the Middle East. Fortified with new knowledge I decided to give the renowned Lewis another reading.

My second reading by the colossus of Middle Eastern history was still unrewarding. Professor Lewis, in this book, comes across as boring, meandering and forgettable. The Amazon reviewer who states "Lewis chronologically traces the political, economical, social, and cultural development of the Middle East" never read this book. There is nothing chronological about it.

Lewis warns us on the first page of the Preface that this book will not concentrate on "political and military events of the Middle East" but on "social, economic, and above all cultural change." But he doesn't warn us that this information will be presented in a confusing hodge-podge of lifeless prose. In an apparent attempt to be "objective" the great historian treats every subject in the same monotone. He is so cautious that every statement is qualified over and over again until the reader's mind wanders.

The prodigious Professor Lewis was 80 years old when this book came out in 1995. He'd already written twenty major works of Middle Eastern History, starting in 1940. His magnum opus was the 1978 four volume "Cambridge History of Islam." I doubt that this present book was newly written. It reads as though many parts were taken from his previous work, and conflated into a "new book."

There is nothing wrong with writers recycling their previous written material, but Lewis makes no mention of doing so. Yet this is the only explanation that makes sense to me for the unevenness of the book and the confusing way it is presented. At times it reads as though Lewis shuffled parts of his previous work together randomly, like a deck of cards. (Or, maybe it was his memory he was shuffling through.)

The last section of the book, Part V of V, "The Challenge of Modernity" is the most interesting and relevant part of the book. But even here Lewis often tends to veer off course and get bogged down in detail and digression.

"The Middle East: A Brief History of The Last 2,000 Years" has polarized Amazon's reviewers more than any book I know. It is either acclaimed or disparaged; there's not much middle ground. I give the work three stars because it does contain a mass of historical information. I take two stars off because of Lewis's leaden prose, confusing presentation and lack of illuminating interpretation.

I first read Lewis's book about five years ago and found it slow going. It made no significant impression on my mind. In the intervening years I've read fifty or more books concerning the history and politics of the Middle East. Fortified with new knowledge I decided to give the renowned Lewis another reading.

My second reading by the colossus of Middle Eastern history was even less rewarding. Professor Lewis, in this book, comes across as a boring, meandering and forgettable writer. The Amazon reviewer who states "Lewis chronologically traces the political, economical, social, and cultural development of the Middle East" never read this book. There is nothing chronological about it.

Lewis warns us on the first page of the Preface that this book will not concentrate on "political and military events of the Middle East" but on "social, economic, and above all cultural change." But he doesn't warn us that this information will be presented in a confusing hodge-podge of lifeless prose. In an apparent attempt to be "objective" the great historian treats every subject in the same monotone. He is so cautious that every statement is qualified over and over again.

The prodigious Professor Lewis was 80 years old when this book came out in 1995. He'd already written twenty major works of Middle Eastern History, starting in 1940. His magnum opus was the 1978 four volume "Cambridge History of Islam." I doubt that this present book was newly written. It reads as though many parts were taken from his previous work, and conflated into a "new book."

There is nothing wrong with writers recycling their previous written material, but Lewis makes no mention of doing so. Yet this is the only explanation that makes sense to me for the unevenness of the book and the confusing way it is presented, both as to place and time. At times it reads as though Lewis shuffled parts of his previous work together randomly, like a deck of cards.

The last section of the book, Part V of V, "The Challenge of Modernity" is the most interesting and relevant part of the book. But even here Lewis often tends to veer off course and get bogged down in detail and digression.

"The Middle East: A Brief History of The Last 2,000 Years" has polarized Amazon's reviewers more than any book I know. It is either acclaimed or disparaged and there's not much middle ground. I give the work three stars because it does contain a mass of historical information. I take two stars off because of Lewis's leaden prose, confusing presentation and lack of illuminating interpretation.

I give this book by the renowned colossus of Middle Eastern history three stars. The main reason for this rating is fear that if I gave it one star I would be considered a complete ignoramus. And if only the bulk of information contained were to be considered, it probably should get five stars. It is just a mass of unreadable information.

I read this book about five years ago, and just finished re-reading it for the second time. "Reading" is too weak a word - I "studied" it - both times. Call me an ignoramus but this work is not worth the effort it takes to read (study). Simply too much information is jammed into 387 pages.

"A Brief History of The Last 2,000 Years" of the Middle East? You be the judge of that concept.

Bernard Lewis may know more about the Middle East than any person; past,
present, or future, but he's a dull writer. He is like an academic mortician, expert chiefly at letting the blood out of ideas. Occasionally he will try a transfusion toward the end of a chapter but it's too late, rigor mortis has set in - the pages are already dead.

Professor Lewis was 79 or 80 years old when this book came out in 1995. He'd already written twenty major works of Middle Eastern history, starting in 1940. His magnum opus is probably the 1978 four volume "Cambridge History of Islam". I suspect that this present book was not newly written, but was taken piecemeal from his previous works, and conflated into a "new" book.

There is nothing wrong with a writer using previous material in new editions. But I think this has contributed to the confusing lay-out, lack of linearity, frequent repetitions of information, and the generally unreadable text. For example, a section of text that would be appropriately detailed for a four volume study would be overloaded with detail for a one volume work.

There are a number of reviewers whose names are readily recognizable in these reviews; public intellectuals, professors of history, professional writers. Naturally this book would be easy for them to read because they already know what they are reading. And there is no question that Professor Lewis has a vast store of knowledge about the Middle East. The question is: can he convey that knowledge to a wide readership?

Instead of studying this work, much of which is not critically relevant to the present time, I would recommend David Pryce-Jones "The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs," Efraim Karsh "Islamic Imperialism: A History, and Robert Spencer, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" All three of these highly relevant works can be read (and enjoyed) in half the time it takes to "study" Lewis's tome.

Bernard Lewis' 'The Middle East' makes for an enjoyable read about the history of the Middle East in a non-polemical fashion. Lewis' ability to explain the intricacies of Middle Eastern history in an easy fashion is amazing. Unfortunately this book is divided into three different sections with only the first section being any sort of linear history. The rest is arranged topically. It is interesting material and other than the first section there is no reason the book would need to be read in order. The last chapter of the book was written before Sept. 11th and the Iraq War, so Lewis' prognosis of the future is understandably different. If you are looking for a liesurely read about the history of the Middle East, this book is a good start.

The Middle East, authored by Bernard Lewis, is a welcomoe addition to any library. It is clear, succinct and lucid. The typeface and paper compensate for any drawbacks the book may have.

John Gooch

The crucial chapter in this recommendable overview of Mid East history is the one on Religion and Law. It elaborates clearly, but without making it all too explicit, the main difference between Christian and Muslim understanding of law: law in Islam is revealed, it is there, finished. There is no such concept of law in any Christian society, that's why we have legislations. Islam does not have heresies, any innovation is the equivalent of one. How can the twain meet?
I.e. the Gretchenfrage of Islam is: how do you handle social and scientific progress? It can not be done. Innovation is punishable.
It would appear from this brief encounter that Islam is doomed unless it succeeds to subjugate the rest of the world by violence. That is exactly what they are trying to do right now. If you can not innovate, you must use brute force.
The book by Lewis contains excellent short and concise summaries of the key events in mid East development. It also contains excellent cross sections on subjects like the state, the elites, culture and others.
Lewis' basic attitude is neutrality, fairness, abstinence from polemics. That might be the book's strength, but in my current beligerent mood I see it as a weakness. A bit of a sissy. He dances around Sharia, calling it the greatest intellectual achievement of Islam. Tell me something else please.
But these are just aberrations, they should not keep you away from the book. If you would like to know more about Byzanz and Iran, about Sasanids, Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Seljuks, Ottomans, Safavids, Mamluks, Assassins, Sufis, about the Sunni vs Shia shism, about Caliphs and Imams, all put in historical context, here is your place. Do not forget that these are not all Islamic terms.
Anyway, the main fascination in history for me is not just "what happened", but "how do we know?". Lewis is great on both. Even if you sometimes want to prod him on a little. Like in the culture chapter. He comes up with precious little that Islam has produced in culture, seen in an international comparison. Not nothing, but very little. Of course Lewis, being a correct person, tries to make as much of it as humanly possible. Ok, some nice poems, some good carpets and tiles and architecture. Better than nothing.
Lewis does not even try to explain why the Islamic countries of the Middle East were overwhelmed, almost without real resistance, when the West awoke and began to challenge the status quo, in the process turning it over. I guess the answer ties back to the question of innovation.

The crucial chapter in this recommendable overview of Mid East history is the one on Religion and Law. It elaborates clearly, but without making it all too explicit, the main difference between Christian and Muslim understanding of law: law in Islam is revealed, it is there, finished. There is no such concept of law in any Christian society, that's why we have legislations. Islam does not have heresies, any innovation is the equivalent of one. How can the twain meet?
I.e. the Gretchenfrage of Islam is: how do you handle social and scientific progress? It can not be done. Innovation is punishable.
It would appear from this brief encounter that Islam is doomed unless it succeeds to subjugate the rest of the world by violence. That is exactly what they are trying to do right now. If you can not innovate, you must use brute force.
The book by Lewis contains excellent short and concise summaries of the key events in mid East development. It also contains excellent cross sections on subjects like the state, the elites, culture and others.
Lewis' basic attitude is neutrality, fairness, abstinence from polemics. That might be the book's strength, but in my current beligerent mood I see it as a weakness. A bit of a sissy. He dances around Sharia, calling it the greatest intellectual achievement of Islam. Tell me something else please.
But these are just aberrations, they should not keep you away from the book. If you would like to know more about Byzanz and Iran, about Sasanids, Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Seljuks, Ottomans, Safavids, Mamluks, Assassins, Sufis, about the Sunni vs Shia shism, about Caliphs and Imams, all put in historical context, here is your place. Do not forget that these are not all Islamic terms.
Anyway, the main fascination in history for me is not just "what happened", but "how do we know?". Lewis is great on both. Even if you sometimes want to prod him on a little. Like in the culture chapter. He comes up with precious little that Islam has produced in culture, seen in an international comparison. Not nothing, but very little. Of course Lewis, being a correct person, tries to make as much of it as humanly possible. Ok, some nice poems, some good carpets and tiles and architecture. Better than nothing.

The crucial chapter in this recommendable overview of Mid East history is the one on Religion and Law. It elaborates clearly, but without making it all too explicit, the main difference between Christian and Muslim understanding of law: law in Islam is revealed, it is there, finished. There is no such concept of law in any Christian society, that's why we have legislations. Islam does not have heresies, any innovation is the equivalent of one. How can the twain meet?
I.e. the Gretchenfrage of Islam is: how do you handle social and scientific progress? It can not be done. Innovation is punishable.
It would appear from this brief encounter that Islam is doomed unless it succeeds to subjugate the rest of the world by violence. That is exactly what they are trying to do right now. If you can not innovate, you must use brute force like the brute you are.
The book by Lewis contains excellent short and concise summaries of the key events in mid East development. It also contains excellent cross sections on subjects like the state, the elites, culture and others.
Lewis' basic attitude is neutrality, fairness, abstinence from polemics. That might be the book's strength, but in my current beligerent mood I see it as a weakness. A bit of a sissy. He dances around Sharia, calling it the greatest intellectual achievement of Islam. Tell me something else please.
But these are just aberrations, they should not keep you away from the book. If you would like to know more about Byzanz and Iran, about Sasanids, Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, Seljuks, Ottomans, Safavids, Mamluks, Assassins, Sufis, about the Sunni vs Shia shism, about Caliphs and Imams, all put in historical context, here is your place. Do not forget that these are not all Islamic terms.
Anyway, the main fascination in history for me is not just "what happened", but "how do we know?". Lewis is great on both. Even if you sometimes want to prod him on a little.

I'm an agronomist and I like to read books.I read this book here in Brazil.
This book is good and has many usefull chapters.
Even the author being a jew, this book is pro-islamic.This book is a little biased.In a page, this book claims, that Italy also entered to decadency as Islam.Obvious nonsense.Italy scientific life is, better than in islamic world.Only during WWII, daily life in Italy became worse than in many parts of islamic world.
The author never tells nothing "politically incorrect", against islam.The islamic slavery against white europeans and even more, against black africans hadn't almost no place, in this book.

This is a good book if one buys it to just have something to read, but I had to buy it because it was being used as a textbook in my class. It's very interesting, but not the typical textbook set-up, which I would've preferred. I guess, though, that maybe this book isn't usually used as a textbook. Anyhow, it's very interesting, and I think someone interested in the Middle East would enjoy it. Bernard Lewis is an excellent writer but like others have said, he lacks any kind of humor or colorful writing. It is a little dry and boring in some parts.

Lewis talks about the Golden Age of discovery and cultural achievements, and although I've read from other sources that this was during the reign of the Abbasids, Lewis rarely hints at what part the Abbasid reign played in sponsoring these achievements. This made it very difficult to write a paper for my class on the Golden Age and how the Abbasids contributed to it. It also didn't list many dates for these achievements which was upsetting.

This book was exactly what the author describes in the prologue; a brief overview of a very complex subject. It touches on all the major names and dates involved, but it is more concerned with giving an overall feel for the trends and changes that took place over long periods that result in the situation the middle east is in today. In that regard, it succeeds admirably. You will probably want to pick up several more books on the middle east after reading this one, just to get more info on different events or time periods, but it is an excellent starting point for anyone interested in the subject.

I would give this 3.5 stars if that were available.

For a casual reader or student going through a crash course in Middle Eastern history, I would say that this is a must read. Most will enjoy the style of Lewis; it is apparent that the majority of this book was written off the top of his head. This makes it easy to read, but can also lead to a rambling few pages here and there, which others have complained about with most of Lewis's work.

Aside from that, Lewis is a great contrast to many of the titles I read in college and for myself on the subject, often written by somebody who speaks english as a third or fourth language and usually in a subsequently robotic style. Most works on the subject (and other history books, period; the Middle East especially in my experience) have a tendency to feel choppy-as if you can see where the writer had to go back to their notes to put a fact in while they were writing. Lewis does not do this for the most part with this this work. In fact I read this book at a pretty frightening pace and did not want to put it down.

He starts from the pre-Roman era and follows to the present, and where the book particularly shines late antiquity-medieval period, as well as the descriptions of pretty obscure subjects. In the Modern Age however, Lewis gets a little lost (or at the least the book gets less engaging), particularly in the twentieth century, which almost seems like it was written in a hurry. He falls into the trap of simplifying the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (almost offensively, to be quite honest) and his blurb on the 1967 War and after might as well have not been in the book.

Like I said, the few faults aside this book is a must read. It is entertaining and loaded with information. You might have to read it a few times to take most of it in and surprisingly, that won't be hard. The Modern Middle East by Gelvin is a great first read for those interested in the subject, as well as the Turks in World History (can't remember the name of the author)-a phenomenal summary of the Turkish people.

Subtitled "A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years", this over four hundred page book cannot help being a bit like jumbo shrimp.

The author himself admits as much, writing in the Preface, "Any attempt to present two thousand years of the history of a rich, varied and vibrant region within the compass of a single volume must necessarily omit much that is of importance. Every student of the region will make his or her choice. I have made mine, and it is inevitably personal".

And so it is.

As a result there are, for example, only a few short paragraphs on the whole vast subject of the Crusades. At the same time we learn in detail about the keen observations of the French traveler Jean de Thevenot, who visited Egypt in 1655.

Or as another example, a number of pages are devoted to a detailed discussion of the revolutionary movement of the Young Turks in the early 20th century. On the other hand, notwithstanding the fact that The Middle East takes us essentially to the present day, there is no mention of the Muslim Brotherhood and the origins in the 1950's of the thinking that has evolved into the radical Islamist doctrine that today confronts the world.

The author is undoubtedly a great and learned scholar. But as a result of the compromises required of "A Brief History of the Last 2000 Years", this book is neither here nor there.

Having studied the Middle East while getting my degree in political science, I was looking for a refreshing tale of the areas fascinating history. Mr. Lewis' book is NOT it!

I tried to read this book -- twice. I wanted to like it. But both times, I got almost half way through, and couldn't force myself to read another word.

This book presents it's facts as dryly as the Arabian desert. No doubt Mr. Lewis is extremely knowledgeable. But he's an awfully tedious writer. He makes the fascinating history of the Middle East, about as enjoyable to read as financial data from an Excel spreadheet.

After reading `What Went Wrong? : The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East', I was impressed with Mr. Lewis' level of detail and clarity of writing on topics such as religion and modernity. Now, after completing `The Middle East', I'm reminded yet again of his talent to construct detailed historical account of the political, religious and socio-economic aspects of life in that region. In this latest book, Mr. Lewis examines the major factors leading to the complexity of issues plaguing the Middle East today.

Beginning with the rise of Islam in the 6th century and it subsequent spread to all neighboring kingdoms, the author examines the impact of a religion on the core structure of society, its influence over culture, art, the rationale behind the rivalry of Eastern states (then Persian now Iran) and the West (Syria, Egypt, then Anatolia- now Turkey), military conquests and the resulted political reforms. Readers will learn about the causes behind the low economic growth of the entire region (despite its rich oil reserves), about the 8-year war between Iran and Iraq, about the formation of the Jewish state and subsequently the country of Israel, about the numerous military conflicts in the region since 1949 and a host of other historical facts.

This book is complex in nature and requires a complex reader with deeper interests and even an advanced set of thought. It's great for history enthusiasts, students of the Middle Eastern societies, diplomats and/or businessmen planning to live and work in that part of the world.

- by Simon Cleveland

This highly academic treatment of the Middle East provides more detail than most readers, or at least this reader, can easily digest. Lewis is more organized than is evident from the text, the table of contents, or any other clear signal, but the he leaves the reader more burdened than most authors to discover this organization. On casual reading, much of the text appears to be a stream-of-consciousness string of comments with no underlying organization. I suspect this is largely true, but an attentive reader can find themes within the text (slavery, development of the law, the institution of church vs. religion, etc.). Unfortunately, these do not correspond to chapter or subchapter titles, are not entirely contiguous (several topics are reintroduced several times), and, if there is any overall framework to their organization, it has escaped me. Nevertheless, the discussion appears accurate, balanced, and insightful. In particular, the discussion is both respectful of the customs of the Middle East while appropriately honest and critical in its presentation. As an academic discussion, it succeeds. However, the text lacks any sense of story telling, anticipation, or humor that help maintain a reader's interest. It will be a difficult read for those who look to the text for motivation, but for those externally motivated to learn of the Middle East and looking for a good reference, it is an excellent place to start.

Bernard Lewis is perhaps the world's foremost scholar on the Middle East and has written a slew of outstanding books on the region. So it's no suprise that this book is also terriffic. However, it is a factually based overview and doesn't really provide the same degree of scholarly insight that a book like Lewis' "What Went Wrong? (Western Impact And Middle Eastern Response)" provides. But, for what it is trying to accomplish, this book definitely succeeds.

The reader should keep in mind that, while this book does cover the history of the Middle East for the past 2,000 years (and a little earlier as well), the vast majority of its pages are focused on the Islamic era. Obviously, this makes sense as Islam has dominated the region from its advent until the present day. But, as someone who has already done a substanital amount of reading on Islamic history, I was hoping for a bit more inquiry into the pre-Islamic era. Still the earlier history that Lewis does cover is quite interesting. For example, he explains how the Persian conquests of Cyrus the Great, in the 500's BC, brought the Zoroasterian concept of dualism, that being the belief in a grand cosmic struggle between God and Satan, to the Jews. This dualistic theology was, of course, also later adapted by both Christianity and Islam.

In summary, while I can't say this is my all time favorite Bernard Lewis book, it is still an excellent choice for any reader seeking to learn more about the history of the Middle East.

"The Middle East" provides the reader with a well written, fairly easy to follow history of the region over the last two thousand years. I found that it helped draw together diverse facts which I had heard over time. The stories of Byantines and Ottomans, Crusaders and Saracens, Persians, Arabs and Israelis are skillfully interwoven. The history is approached from many perspectives, including religious, political, economic, literary, artistic and others. The story flowed from era to era with hardly a ripple.

I was surprised at the emphasis placed on various themes in the history. For all the controversy over the Crusades, they seemed to be mentioned almost in passing.

One test of a book is whether it helps the reader understand the world of today. This one passes! From the explanation of the evolution of Islamic government over time I obtained a better understanding of the allure for some of a unified Muslim World. "The Middle East" is a valuable read for one searching for an understanding of this perplexing part of our world.

Touching briefly in the antiquity of middle eastern culture, the book focuses much of its text on the period after the advent of Islam. As an overview, I thought the book provided alot of good information to those like myself whose knowledge of middle eastern history and culture was not very deep.

For those who are curious about middle eastern culture and history but don't have a good foundational knowledge, I highly recommend this book. For those who already have that knowledge, they probably should look elsewhere. However for those this book was written for, it has alot to offer.

Don't get me wrong - I am came to this book as a true fan of Bernard Lewis. His book 'Crisis of Islam' was one of the more thought-provoking books I read last year. However, this book is quite different than 'Crisis'. It's scope is massive, and it is a history book rather than a work of examination and informed conjecture.

Lewis addresses these shortcomings in his introduction and admits that it will be a difficult undertaking to do it well. He acknowledges that whatever format he chooses to cover this history, it will be unsatisfying for some. I give him credit for doing it well, but not as great as the other books and articles of his that I've read.

The book is broken up into three general sections. The first is a general overview of the Middle East over the last 2,000 years. It is a bit overwhelming and frustrating. Overwhelming because the empires, dynasties and civilizations rise and fall so quickly that I felt like I was watching a time-elapsed movie. It was frustrating because there were some new areas (for me) that I really wished he would explore, such as the link between the Persians and the Jews of the Roman Era. I was also intrigued by the Coptic Christians, but learned little more than I already knew. Lewis is fairly skimpy with the life of Mohammed and the early spread of Islam as well. I give this section 3 stars.

The second section is called 'Cross sections' and it deals with specific topics throughout the 2,000 years of history, such as the military or agriculture. I give this section 4 stars.

The last section goes into the struggles the Middle East has experienced since Europe and the West have become such a vital part of the world since the European Renaissance. This is Lewis' strongest area and by far the most interesting to read. I give this section 5 stars.

So, the average of the 3 sections is 4 stars - my final score for this book.

This is Bernard Lewis overview of Middle Eastern History, and not necessarily the only one that could have been constructed. He begins with the pre-Christian Middle East divided into regions dominated by the Roman and the Persian Empires. He traces the coming of Islam and devotes one whole section to a description and celebration of its golden age in political and cultural development. This chapter alone should silence critics of Lewis who maintain he is essentially antagonistic to the region. In the final section of the work Lewish describes how the region has failed to meet the challenges of Modernity, and he attributes much of this to the backwardness of its leaders. In the third section of the work he presents overall assessments of the Cultural Religious Economic and Intellectual developments in the region. Surely this ' territory' could have been covered in other ways( More strictly chronological fashion) but Lewis provides a tremendous amount of information and explanation to the reader.
It is interesting that the work was written before 9/11 because its final chapter does in some way suggest that a region so problematic will be problematic for the rest of the world.
Lewis vast learning gives the reader a clear sense of the great complexity of the region, and of the major transformations it has gone through in time. My suspicion is that many people believe the Middle East has been 'Arab only' a mistaken idea no one who reads this work, and learns of the variety of cultures, religions and peoples who have played important parts in the region is likely to have again.
This book does not set out to solve the problems of the region but it does put many of them in their historical perspective. A highly valuable work which will provide the reader a much richer understanding of the region.

This book is inconsistent in its analysis of 2,000 years of the history of the Middle East. Bernard Lewis, who is undisputeably one of the formost experts on the subject, makes a big deal in the opening pages of how this is a history of the Middle East that extends beyond the beginning of Islam. This makes it all the more disappointing that he disposes of the first 1,000 years of history in less than 100 pages.

The problem fundamentally is that much of this book is not a chronology of events or an analysis of the major personalities in Middle Eastern history. Instead, the vast majority of the work could easily have been entitles 'Bernard Lewis Explains it All.' This is not to say that Lewis is not someone with interesting theories on the subject; indeed, he may be uniquely qalified to do so. But because of the massive scope and small size of the text, a lot gets left out. For example, he attributes the fall of the Ottoman Empire in no small part to declining population, but doesn't explain why the population was falling (emigration? plague? war?).

However, much of what is analyzed in this book is not what is most important for understanding the contemporary Middle East. Lewis has an excellent chapter on the basic tenets of Islamic theology, but the rise of militant Islamic thought is all but ignored. There are some vague comments on Wahabbism in Saudi Arabia, but nothing on ibn al-Qutub or the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, both of which are key stories in the rise of Islamist terror in the late 20th and early 21st century.

Moreover, with the odd exception of the First World War, this is essentially not a blow-by-blow account of major historical events or personalities. As a result, in many cases Lewis refers to things (like the various attributes of architecure of palaces in Turkey) with which someone who studies Middle Eastern affairs will be familiar but a novice to the region will find confusing.

That said, for those with a good foundation in Middle Eastern history will find Lewis' analysis insightful and interesting, even if it is limited more to academic debates than understanding the Middle East as we now find it. The chapter on Islamic belief should be required reading for anyone with an interest in the subject, regardless of their prior exposure to Islamic theology. One is simply left to wonder how this book (first copyrighted in 1995) would have been written differently a decade later.

"The Middle East" by Bernard Lewis. published by Scribner. He is
the formost expert on matters relating to the Middle East and it isnt as detailed as some of his other more subject specific but is very informative about the culture and how history has shaped the Arab people and vice versa. It deals with different
themes instead of just straight time periods. It goes into some surface detail like commerce, war, religion, colonialism. I have a specialty in the Middle East and this book was used at the Master's level at the American University in Cairo, Egypt as an introduction though I dont feel that I personally would use it as a teaching tool. Otherwise the book is a good read but be attentive when reading.

This book by Bernard Lewis is the most complete book on this subject around. Todays problems in the Middle-East cannot be understood without (basic) knowledge of this regions political, cultural and social history. This book is what i call a 'must read'. Highly recommended.

I can't imagine a newbie to Middle East History picking this book up fresh and grasping the depths of its contents. This is NOT an introduction. Concepts and words are introduced, loosely defined, and left to the reader to research. If I recall, he doesn't even address the Five Pillars of Islam, and he skips the development of Christianity, and narry a mention of Constantine and his indirect impact on the Mideast (Constantinople, the Concil of Nicea that led to the isolation of Rome from Mid-east Christianity...although Lewis obviously addresses the Byzantine empire). To a college freshmen, this book would go over his head. That's not to say it shouldn't be read, eventually, it should--but go elsewhere first and then let Lewis put it all together for you. His emphasis seems to be the crest of Islamic history, from its humble beginnings to its artistic and cultural achievements during the Baghdad era to its economic/scientific stagnation and cultural battle w/ the West today. Also, it's over ten years old, ends w/ the Jordan-Israeli peace agreement, and sorely needs an update considering what has happened since Rabin's assassination.

The opening chapters are the most strongest, and Lewis brings insights into the development of Islam that even the most seasoned layman historian has overlooked. His analysis of pre-Islam Arabia, its economy and imperial conflict, is first rate. The cross sections in the middle of the book about Ottoman Gov't and the Ulemma are for the more serious students. The modern-history chapters are weaker only because they move by so quickly and so much gets left out. This is a book everyone should eventually read, but don't burden yourself w/ it until you have a mastery of the basics.

I picked up this book because it was the only one at Borders that seemed to be "history" on a larger perspective than the past hundred years or history since the dawn of Islam. Unfortunately, I had very little prior knowledge of the area and the people, so a lot of things he talks about that many would take for granted and maybe get something out of - left me clueless (computer teacher: pick up your mouse - nubee student: what's a mouse?) Going back now and looking at it after having acquainted myself through some other books (War without End by La Guardia is nice, and is rather unbiased - it seems rather pro-Israeli at first, but if you keep reading, you find a gem of a book) (not that I'm anti-Israeli - I just mean to imply it's an unbiased look at the Israeli-Palestinian question, which, eventually, evelopes a whole study of southwest Asia). As far as this authors particular bias, and especially in regards to this book, I don't know enough to detect a lot of it in the ideas of earlier time, because I haven't read enough to compare it, and I haven't gotten to the end, so I don't know how he views the modern shape of things. And they wouldn't be very modern - this book came out in 1995, the year in which a majority of the events in Baer's See no Evil take place. Matter of fact, read that one first - it reads quickly and gives an introduction to things - keep Dilip Hiro's "Essential Middle East" by your side for referrence. Then come back to Amazon and look up the titles you see at your book store, and see who likes it, who doesn't, and what gets recommended instead. 2 stars for this book - it's hard to get through if your new, and I recommended three other books in this review.

For people not well versed in the history of the Middle East (and there are many of us in the West), this book is an outstanding introduction to the topic. Bernard Lewis gives readers an overview of the region from the days before Islam up to the end of the 20th century. He presents excellent details without resulting in an excessively long book. Perhaps best of all, the book is completely free of any ideological bias. It is simply a recitation of history as pure fact, with appropriate analysis where helpful. It is difficult to imagine that there is a better book out there on this subject.