A lot of people all over the internet seem to have very strong opinions regarding this book; they either love it or hate it, although i tend to see more of the latter. But why? From what I read, the book summed up in one sentence is "Geography determines destiny" and this makes a lot of sense to me. If you live in a place with the necessary resources to start an civilization, then your good, and those resources change over time, so different civilizations dominated the world at different times. So do historians not agree with this argument? Are they just being stubborn? Am I missing something from the book? I've read a lot of views on the book and I was hoping for just an overall summary of why so many scholars (or so called scholars) seem to hate this book.