@Fil Albuquerque,
It gave the impression that it is respectable to talk about history in such a grotesquely superficial manner and it isn't. It begged question after question on a gargantuan scale.
Such things, when not slapped down, encourage others to approach history like that and it misleads them when they respond approvingly to the example. It's a history ignoramus addressing other history ignoramuses and emboldens them to remain ignoramuses in order that he can continue in the
genre without anyone noticing how ignorant the spiel was.
It presents no
feel for the rolling becomings of western life since about AD 1000 as the so called Dark Ages foundered with the last rasping gasp of Cervantes.
It's a load of disconnected facts, if they are facts, with no coherence.
One advantage is the ease.
Why, and how, the West was the first to industrialise is an exceedingly complex question. The "why" and "how" of evolution are never discussed by evolutionists for the same reason I give above for history.