I don't know those specific books. I do know the pop-history trend of late that paints European dominance, starting in the 1500s and ending somewhere around WW1

I don't know those specific books. I do know the pop-history trend of late that paints European dominance, starting in the 1500s and ending somewhere around WW1, in a certain way. Meaning Western capitalism, bonus points for including a religious angle, as the absolute superior. And that ignores a number of things: It fails to look at the medival period as different, distinct periods. It also fails to brake those down by region. That can be called cherry picking. It fails to look at all of that im context, especially by ommitting the history of the other side of Western dominance. That history is directly linked, after all Western dominance required a counter part to be dominated. So whatever happened at the other end is crucial to understand the shared history. This can be called ignorant. And last but not least, this view on history is used to drive political narratives. As is the opposite political bias that shows in other books and papers. I do not like neither, historians shoupd at least try (one cannot be fully neutral ever) to be impartial and provide an objective study of history. Late pop-history doesn't do that.