Every person and their dog was telling me to read this and I unfortunately listened to them. The book tries to connect random historical events to the modern world as a device to explain the political economy of the world today. This is almost always unconvincing, with the two events almost always either being tangentially or not actually connected. As an example, “What do Charlemagne and King Goodwill Zwelithini have in common”, Fourie asks. Apparently they both presided over feudal systems. Putting aside whether they are truly equitable - ya probably not - there is nothing unique about Charlemagne and Zwelithini’s connection. Any number of monarchs could be used, perhaps there are better monarchs to compare. Fourie probably doesn’t care about this, choosing these two it seems purely because they seem so disconnected (because they are) as opposed to truly connected. The economic views he bases his analysis on - the Washington Consensus is good and other neo-liberal drek, as an eg - is also truly dubious but I couldn’t really even take this seriously, as I was distracted by all the attempted random dot connecting.