Once upon a time, I was in Heathrow before a flight home, and my Kindle had died. I needed to have something to read on the plane.

I found a history book whose introduction appealed to me. The author – an academic holding a position at one of the Oxbridge Universities, an expert in their chosen field – had decided to write a book that would be accessible to all and not just history buffs interested in that area. It sounded great.

It was turgid. The writer repeatedly displayed an amazing depth of detailed (far-too detailed) knowledge about the subject. But the writing was plodding, slow, and lacked even a hint of humor or meaningful analysis. The writer could not tell a story. Sad.

A History of the World in 47 Borders, by Jonn Elledge, is the polar opposite: it’s well written, entertaining, and has a decent dose of humor throughout. It’s also packed with glorious nuggets, like noting the connection between Catherine the Great and the Polish King, Stanislaw II August, and what happened to the first (unsuccessful) Black Hand assassin who tried to kill Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

Every chapter delivers something interesting, even when covering well-treaded territory.

I do have one quibble. The (inevitable) chapter about Israel (The Uncertain Borders Between Israel and Palestine) includes this:

…in October 2023, just as this book was going to press, the Hamas terrorists who control the Gaza strip launched the largest attack on Israel in the country’s history, and the Israeli government responded with one of the most vicious attacks in Palestine’s history in response.

I offer the following observations:

1. So the attack from Gaza’s distinguishing feature is that it was the largest? It was the worst single day loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust. Describing it as ‘the largest’ is, to put it mildly, disappointing.
2. So Israel’s response was vicious? There are many wars and conflicts mentioned in the book. So far as I can recall, the only one that apparently merited a nasty adjective was Israel’s answer to October 7. Perhaps the author would have preferred if we had invited Hamas round for tea and crumpets first?
3. It appears to me that this nugget has not been well edited. The sentence features both ‘responded’ and ‘response’ and one is redundant. The sentence could have stopped after ‘history’ with no loss of meaning. I’m going to go into amateur psychologist mode here and suggest the editor (not the author) was so happy at seeing Israel being criticized, they quickly moved onto the next sentence.
4. There’s a hint in the author’s background (he’s a New Statesman columnist) that he’s unlikely to be pro-Israel. The sources quoted for this part include – of course! – Haaretz articles.
5. To be fair, the rest of the chapter was a reasonable and fair overview of the situation (though, to be comprehensive, it should have also dealt with the creation of Jordan), even if I didn’t agree with it all. And, to give credit where it’s due, check out the following quote from early in the chapter.

I’m going to confess something at this point:I’ve been dreading this bit. More than any of the chapters about European colonialism messing up the world, more than any of the other chapters at all.

It’s probably my own bias and perspective, but I cannot reconcile that quote, suggesting care and consideration, with a casually dropped insult about Israel’s response to October 7.

My minor irritation should not put you off buying the book. I highly recommend it. Even if history is not usually of any interest, anyone with the slightest curiosity about how the world got to be the way it is today, will find many answers here. Beg, borrow, or steal a copy. You won’t be sorry.