Description: A compilation and ranking of the 100 most deadly atrocities in history by Matthew White.
Positives:
Matthew White is a real expert on this subject and is familiar with the literature surrounding the events he quotes. He has a whole website where he compiles numbers from many sources, even obscure ones only available in print and in short supply, to try to get at the truth about the death toll of various events in history. Even if you disagree with his numbers you can see where he’s coming from with his estimates.
He has an easy-to-read writing style which has traces of black humor, and he can make it not only interesting but also entertaining to read through what otherwise would be a macabre catalogue of the worst mankind has to offer.
The book goes into detail about various events in history in length roughly proportional to the logarithm of the death toll. This means you’ll learn about many events in history that you may have never heard of before, and get a new perspective on the scale of events that you may already be familiar with on a qualitative basis.
I’ve found just seeing how people go about estimating death tolls of wars and atrocities in the absence of reliable records to be quite interesting and valuable. White makes many points about this and you’ll pick up more as you go through the book. One lesson I’ve learned is that atrocity statistics from the past are often more reliable than we think they are, while those from the present are less so.
Negatives:
I’ve heard that some people find the format of the book to be repetitive and difficult to read through in a few sittings given its substantial length. I personally didn’t have this problem but I’m bringing it up in case someone here does.
There are a few small mistakes I’ve found in the book, such as White saying the Battle of Trafalgar took place in 1804 and not 1805. While the book is trustworthy when it comes to atrocity statistics, not every historical recounting or detail in it is accurate, though I’ve found the mistakes to be quite rare even here.
Book: The Great Big Book of Horrible Things
Description: A compilation and ranking of the 100 most deadly atrocities in history by Matthew White.
Positives:
Matthew White is a real expert on this subject and is familiar with the literature surrounding the events he quotes. He has a whole website where he compiles numbers from many sources, even obscure ones only available in print and in short supply, to try to get at the truth about the death toll of various events in history. Even if you disagree with his numbers you can see where he’s coming from with his estimates.
He has an easy-to-read writing style which has traces of black humor, and he can make it not only interesting but also entertaining to read through what otherwise would be a macabre catalogue of the worst mankind has to offer.
The book goes into detail about various events in history in length roughly proportional to the logarithm of the death toll. This means you’ll learn about many events in history that you may have never heard of before, and get a new perspective on the scale of events that you may already be familiar with on a qualitative basis.
I’ve found just seeing how people go about estimating death tolls of wars and atrocities in the absence of reliable records to be quite interesting and valuable. White makes many points about this and you’ll pick up more as you go through the book. One lesson I’ve learned is that atrocity statistics from the past are often more reliable than we think they are, while those from the present are less so.
Negatives:
I’ve heard that some people find the format of the book to be repetitive and difficult to read through in a few sittings given its substantial length. I personally didn’t have this problem but I’m bringing it up in case someone here does.
There are a few small mistakes I’ve found in the book, such as White saying the Battle of Trafalgar took place in 1804 and not 1805. While the book is trustworthy when it comes to atrocity statistics, not every historical recounting or detail in it is accurate, though I’ve found the mistakes to be quite rare even here.