You'll be interested in my comment here. In short, academic critiques of popular literature like Sapiens will only ever be so relevant. The book was not written to educate details, but to provide a broad narrative. This would be a solid defense of the book, if the broad narrative it did provide weren't so fundamentally flawed. In a world full of World History classes that are just "History of European Civilization" classes in disguise, Sapiens is just another "History of European Civilization" class in disguise.

I would also point out this comment that shows how disgustingly loose Harari plays with his summaries of major historical events.

More can always be said on the matter, so if anyone would like to present further critique of Harari's work, please, go ahead and do so!

For the meantime, since his work pops up every so often on the sub, we do have some previous material to refer to. I commend to your attention the appropriate section of the FAQ, as well as u/CommodoreCoCo's assessment of Sapiens itself, which also links to other previous threads on the matter. That thread also links to r/AskAnthropology's take on Harari, which may be useful to you.