This work puts forth a model of the rise and fall of hyperpowers, i.e. empires encompassing much of the world. The idea is that such huge states rise on the strength of a tolerant and inclusive policy, that permits diverse races, languages, and religions to exist and even prosper, as more or less equal participants and members of the empire. A corollary that the author seems to suggest as inevitable, is that as the empire reaches its maximum size, the degrees of tolerance start going down, hubris takes over, and the empire starts falling. Examples given are of the great empires built by the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, Tang China, the Mongols, and the contrasting experiences of the Spanish, and British (and other European) powers. Inter alia, the book also touches on three eastern empires (the Ottoman, Mingy and Mughal), that never reached world dominance, but nevertheless demonstrate the central thesis that a policy of tolerance and inclusion encouraged their rise, whereas their decline and fall started when they became less tolerant. A great feature of this book is its easy flow and clear expression, which makes it very easy to read and follow. Another plus is the lucid way in which the basic facts and arguments are presented, so that the reader is not left in any doubt as to what the author intends to say. In the case of the Mughals, for instance, she is quite clear that the relatively less tolerant and more aggressive policy of Aurangazeb signaled the beginning of the decline. On the whole, the book scores for the wide range of world history tht it covers, the wealth of detail, the clarity and simplicity of expression, and the useful lessons it draws for world leaders today. A minor quibble may be that the book side-steps certain examples of dominant polities that have gained power by force, but then the argument is that if they do not adopt tolerant policies, they will sooner or later fall. ( )

Despite some weaknesses, this is quite an interesting read. Chua's approach is simple: there only have been a handful of real hyperpowers in human history: the Persian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Chinese Tang Empire, the British Empire and now the American Empire. These hyperpowers were very divergent in character, but they had 1 thing in common: their rise was caused by a form of strategic tolerance for the people they dominated, and their decline was due to giving up this tolerance and instead focusing on maintaining their 'purity'. Chua illustrates this with the above-mentioned examples, quite detailed and in general well argumented. And fortunately, she also nuances her approach and expressly mentions at the beginning and the end of each chapter that besides the tolerance issue many other factors were involved in the rise and fall of an empire.
But nevertheless, there are a few issues with this approach. To start with, she supports the story of the rise of various empires with quotations from primary sources in which the generosity of the rulers is highlighted; that is questionable, because it is a classic ingredient of primary sources, especially chronicles, to emphasize both the cruelty and the generosity of the rulers. Secondly, there are some minor historical errors. For example, Chua highlights the ultra-cosmopolitanism of the Mongolian empire, while recent literature agrees that this was a romantic exaggeration. Occasionally there is also clear 'bias': her negativity about the Spanish empire in the 16-17th century is very pronounced, but it is based on one-sided sources, and it is inversely proportional to her positivity about the Dutch Republic (for example: as one of the reasons for the Dutch uprising she mentions the linguistic ignorance of the Spanish leadership, but also the leader of the breakaway Holland-coalition, William of Orange, hardly spoke a word of Dutch!).
There’s also extravagant attention for the share of the Jews in the rise of the different empires: wherever possible, she puts this in the spotlight. Of course, the fate of the Jewish community certainly is pre-eminently indicator for the degree of tolerance in a certain empire, but the excess of detail is striking in comparison with other foreign populations. Indirectly Chua feeds (undoubtedly against her will) classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that saw the hand of the Jews everywhere.
My main objection to her theory is a form of tunnel vision that she introduces. It can be refreshing to view history from a certain angle, as in this case the concept of tolerance. But Chua makes a direct causal connection between tolerance and the greater prosperity and domination of empires. she always presents it as a one-way-connection; and that’s strange. It could well be that tolerance is not so much a cause but a consequence of the prosperous growth of a state, as a luxury that can be afforded because of the military-political-economic strength. Conversely, the loss of tolerance may be the result of the loss of strength and power in those other areas. Something tells me that this relationship is much more complex than Chua proposes.
On the plus side I have to mention again that I can appreciate Chua's approach: to study the past in order to draw lessons for the present is a courageous thask, if it’s carefully done. ( )

This was pretty much just another history book. Not a compelling read. It seems that superpowers rise and maintain that status by being tolerant of religions, etc. As soon as they become intolerant, they fall like meteors from the sky. The author gave examples of this happening throughout history. ( )

Excellent book. It provides true insight in a field where so much has already been said. The book is well written, and truly informative/useful. ( )

Because of the lawyerly tone, it was a little hard to get used to. But it turned out to be a good review of empires. Specifically: Persian (which she continually refers to as "Achaemenid Persia"), Alexandrian, Roman, Chinese (Tang), Islamic, Mongol, Ottoman, Spanish, Dutch, British, and American. Her main theme was that tolerance for foreigners breeds great empires, and subsequent intolerance destroys them. ( )