Surprisingly, the Library of Congress has classified Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order as "history," which it assuredly is not, either in scope or in method. Rather, Huntington's book belongs in the realm of political science speculation, gussied up with what the author believes to be "history"--or at least numerous references to "history tells us" or "throughout history," to prove his points. So why is The Clash of Civilizations being reviewed here? Because Huntington makes a big claim about history, and especially about historical continuity--a claim that world historians should be made aware of.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robert B. Marks (2000) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: