OK, I am open to your argument. What "dated" or "not good history" is Carlin pushing?
Its quite funny that you passively criticize Jared Diamond and recommend people to read material form the uni that gave him his phd, all in one paragraph.
"If you think this is about semantics then you have completely missed the mark." Im pretty sure I hit the mark. So far you have provided zero substance for your disdain of Carlin, and have done nothing but criticize the words I choose to use------definition of a semantic game. And you failed at that.
So if you want to argue with me about nonsense then I will just leave bro, I dont need another **** in my life. Where is your proof for Carlin giving bad history?
Moderator Action: You are responsible for everything in your post, including what you quote from others. Changed the inappropriate language.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
You don't have to look very far to find his dated views on history. For example in Wrath of the Khans I he first characterizes the spread of "hellenism" and "Roman culture" unequivocally as a Good Thing. Which I don't think has been presented by any credible historian in well over a century. He spends quite a bit of time haranguing "some historians" for praising his so-called "historical arsonists for a good cause". Again I don't know of any serious, credible historian that would present an argument like that. Even the notion of the
Pax Mongolica as a singular and unequivocal good has become rather passé in the last two or three decades. Credible historians don't talk about history like that. He gets too much into this idea of a "clash of cultures" or "clash of civilizations". It's the sort of stuff that pop historians eat up, but it's not really something you'd see a well-read, well-researched post-modern academic historian push or publish.
With Jared Diamond you have to keep in mind that he isn't a historian, nor is he an anthropologist, and nor is he an archaeologist. His training and doctorate come in the field of geology. While possessing a PhD in any field is an achievement and a reflection on the deep intelligence of the individual, Diamond, it must be remembered, is an enthusiast of history and not an academic. His books are coming from the perspective of a geologist giving his thoughts on the academic debate. Predictably his arguments, particularly those dealing with geographic determinism in publications like
Guns, Germs, and Steel come off as dated and out of touch with the current academic debate going on. He doesn't say much that hasn't already been presented and subsequently discarded by academia, and what remains has been presented and explained far more cogently and convincingly by other scholars.
I recommend people read books that are published by Oxford University Press because Oxford University Press, alongside Berkeley University Press are the two best, more current, and most credible sources for basic historical surveys. The editors and the writers they pick for the book almost always represent the top in their respective field, and they give a good mix of factual information based on the historical record and historiographical information about the study of the era. The real reason I would recommend a University Press like Oxford or Berkeley is that the Recommended Reading section is always helpful and, again, represents the most current research in the era. I would never go so far as to suggest substituting one University Press book for all research in a period or topic, but if you're looking for a great starting point for the budding historian, those sorts of books are well-written, well-researched, and most importantly, current.
Also I'd recommend you not to use the c-word. It reflects poorly on your character.
Althought I may be a little biased because I am Greek. 
