What is the "A Brief History of Time" of History?

by flydales

"A Brief History of Time" is a book by Stephen Hawking that aims to give non-specialized readers a general view of fundamental scientific theories, how they were developed and how did they affect the course of science and technology throughout the years. By reading it you won't exactly be able to workout all the equations that rule the Universe, but you will at least have a general perception of how science has evolved, and how we think the Universe evolved from the Big Bang to present day.

I was unfortunately not very interested in History in my school days but today I feel like I'm lacking at least a general perception of how humans came to be civilized, where, when, how did we evolve in different scenarios, how did we reach other continents, why did civilizations collapse, etc.

I'm not aiming to learn what were the warfare strategies in the Battle of Waterloo, but I would like to have a general idea of the politics that led to that and other conflicts, starting from when we first became sedentary.

Just like Hawking's Brief History, Jacob Bronowski has the documentary "The Ascent of Man" which is a personal view of how human society developed through the understanding of science.

I'd really like to find something similar for History, that gives more emphasis to politics and social behavior as ways to understand how we've gotten here.

Maybe a long question/request and I'm sorry if it's not according to the sub rules, but after I read them I thought this didn't seem to violate any of them.

Thanks!

EDIT: Also, of course I tried to look for this myself before asking, I've tried to watch "Civilisation" by Kenneth Clarke but couldn't get through it, it puts way too much emphasis on Arts and doesn't really follow a chronological order, the whole back and forth jumping on the timeline didn't really help me. I also found a book called "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond but haven't gotten it since I've never heard about it before, but I'm very inclined to read that (although some feedback on this is appreciated).

CommodoreCoCo

Not to discourage further discussion, but Guns, Germs, and Steel has been heavily panned by historians for its uninformed use of sources, ignorance of counter arguments, and overly simplistic models. You can see what members of this sub think of it on our FAQ.