Book · 2015
The Silk Roads: A New History of the World
by Peter Frankopan
Peter Frankopan redraws world history from Central Asia outward, arguing the Middle East was the engine of civilization long before Europe noticed.
What does Reddit think of The Silk Roads: A New History of the World?
Eight mentions across two subreddits over seven years — a narrow footprint that still tells you something. Six of those mentions live in r/AskHistorians, where the response is cautiously warm: one commenter calls it "pretty good" and flags its emphasis on Central Asia (↑237), another endorses it as the best book for the topic outright (↑26). r/history adds two mentions, both recommendations — one pairing it with Hopkirk and Kinross, another saying it "really opens your eyes" (↑20). The contested corner comes from r/AskHistorians, naturally. One undergrad commenter asks whether Frankopan is a crank (↑23) — the question lands because the sub is home to specialists who notice when popular history cuts corners. Nobody in the data calls the argument wrong, but the crank question sits there unanswered in the thread. Frankopan's central thesis — that the Middle East and Central Asia are the true root of civilization, not Greece or Rome — attracts the most engagement. The sentiment across all eight comments is effectively neutral in the scored data, which here signals measured recommendation rather than enthusiasm.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · Central Asia as the axis of world history
- · Trade routes as political and religious arteries
- · The Middle East before European dominance
- · Revisionist grand narrative history
- · Connectivity of ancient civilizations
Common praise
- + Shifts the map so completely that European-centric history feels like a regional footnote afterward.
- + r/AskHistorians commenters at ↑237 and ↑26 both reach for it first when asked for Central Asia starting points.
- + Frankopan's argument about religion and trade routes routes through primary quotes that actually earn the thesis.
- + Works as a gateway into Hopkirk and Kinross territory — r/history readers stack it with those titles unselfconsciously.
Common criticism
- − The crank question (↑23, r/AskHistorians) never gets a clean answer in the data — specialists notice.
- − Eight total mentions across seven years suggests the book lands better as a gift (one commenter bought it birthday-wrapped) than as a recurring reference.
- − The scope is enormous enough that Central Asia experts in r/AskHistorians will catch shortcuts the generalist reader misses.
- − Popular history framing means it gets recommended broadly but cited sparingly — no one is footnoting Frankopan in their AskHistorians answers.
Who it's for
If your mental map of world history still runs Athens-Rome-London, this book will break something loose. Readers who've finished Hopkirk's Great Game and want the longer arc before the nineteenth century will find it slots in neatly — r/history commenters reach for both titles in the same breath. Historians in the making should treat the crank question (↑23) as a prompt: read it alongside a specialist source and decide for yourself. Not for someone who wants a tightly argued academic monograph; the r/AskHistorians crowd likes it but they don't cite it.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for The Silk Roads: A New History of the World?
Top-upvoted quotes across the subreddits where this book is mentioned. Click through to read the full thread.
““The silk roads” by Peter Frankopan is pretty good. Emphasizes the importance of central asia.
“After seeing "Silk Roads with Peter Frankopan" on television back in January, my husband mentioned that he'd like to read the book so I bought a copy of "The Silk Roads: A New History Of The World" for his birthday in August. It's wrapped in plain brown paper and sitting on a shelf with some of my c…
“Just books mostly. "The Great Game Struggle for Empire in Central Asia" by Peter Hopkirk. The second half of "The Ottoman Centuries" by Lord Kinross. "Silk Roads" by Peter Frankopan. These are some good starts. "Kim" by Rudyard Kipling is a nice dive into it as well.
“*I wonder where you might have encountered such comments...* There is no single way to approach the problematic issue of the 'Silk Road', but Scott C. Levi, in his recent book *The Bukharan Crisis* (2…
“The best book for this must be *The Silk Roads* by Peter Frankopan. His argument is that the Middle East/Central Asia is the real root of civilization: >"This region is where the world’s great religions burst into life, where Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism jostled with each ot…
“I enjoyed Silk Roads by Frankopan and didn't see anything egregiously wrong with it but I'm an undergrad and by no means a Central Asia expert, is Frankopan a crank or is there otherwise some reason why he shouldn't be cited?
“I have an earlier answer I wrote on book recommendations for more modern Central Asian history I'll copy a bit from, but to take a bigger perspective, here we go. Rene Grousset's *Empire of the Steppes* is probably…
“And for a broader book on the general connectedness of the ancient world, read Peter Frankopan's 'Silk Roads'. Really opens your eyes.
Convinced? Pick up The Silk Roads: A New History of the World
What else does r/AskHistorians read?
Other books mentioned in the same sub, ranked. Shared-sub overlap with this title breaks ties.
Guns, Germs, and Steel
Jared Diamond
A Pulitzer-winning argument that geography, not race, drove civilizational dominance — and the book historians most love to demolish.
1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
Charles C. Mann
Charles Mann reconstructs the Americas before Columbus — bigger populations, denser cities, and more deliberate landscapes than most history classes ever admitted.
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
Edward Gibbon
An 18th-century historian spends six volumes arguing that Christianity and barbarians killed Rome, and three centuries of scholars haven't stopped arguing back.
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era
James M. McPherson
James McPherson's one-volume Civil War history that r/AskHistorians recommends by name when someone asks where to start.
The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy
Adam Tooze
Adam Tooze's account of how Nazi Germany's economic desperation drove the war machine — and why it was always running out of time.
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
William L. Shirer
William Shirer's 1200-page eyewitness account of Nazi Germany, written by the CBS correspondent who watched it happen from inside Berlin.
The Silk Roads: A New History of the World — frequently asked
What does r/AskHistorians think of The Silk Roads?+
Broadly favorable but with reservations. Six of the book's eight total Reddit mentions come from r/AskHistorians. The highest-upvoted comment (↑237) calls it "pretty good" and notes its Central Asia emphasis. One commenter names it the best book for the topic (↑26). The contested note: a separate commenter (↑23) asked directly whether Frankopan is a crank — that thread never fully resolves the question.
Is The Silk Roads a reliable history or popular oversimplification?+
Depends on who you ask. r/history readers recommend it cleanly alongside Hopkirk and Kinross (↑39, ↑20). r/AskHistorians is more cautious — specialists there enjoy it but an undergrad post explicitly asks whether Frankopan should be cited at all (↑23). The data doesn't record anyone calling the argument wrong, just a wariness about its scope.
What is The Silk Roads actually arguing?+
That Central Asia and the Middle East — not Greece or Rome — are the real engine of civilization. An r/AskHistorians commenter (↑26) quotes Frankopan directly: "This region is where the world's great religions burst into life." The thesis is revisionist on purpose and broad enough that it draws both enthusiastic endorsement and the specialist side-eye that shows up in the crank question.
Should I read The Silk Roads before or after Peter Hopkirk's Great Game?+
After, probably. An r/history commenter (↑39) lists Hopkirk first, then drops Frankopan's Silk Roads as context for the broader connectedness of the ancient world. Frankopan covers the long arc from antiquity; Hopkirk gets specific about the nineteenth-century rivalry. Frankopan first risks making Hopkirk feel like a footnote to a thesis you've already absorbed.