Just from browsing through it briefly, it looks like an excellent thought-provoking book. Though readers may not necessarily agree with some of his theories (which are very many).

An interesting “theory” from page 151:

Perhaps an old “brewers’ tale” – I doubt that has any basis in fact whatsoever. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true, since hops acts more like a preservative.

A key aspect that seems to be missing from Friedel’s book is the inclusion of economics and profit as a significant driving force (many would argue the overriding driving force) for technological innovation. For instance, in the case of beer, German brewers were experimenting with money-saving shortcuts (and drawing the attention of legal authorities) 500 years ago. Laws were passed in the name of protecting consumers that basically hampered innovation and productivity, a trend that continues up to the present day with issues such as GMO food. But that’s not part of the author’s narrative.

The book covers such a very wide variety of material. Sometimes the author seems to delve more into Hollywood tropes than historically accuracy, as this on page 370:

” In the Napoleonic wars, for example, the procedures for firing a gun were largely those that had been followed for centuries, and these defined the form and pace of battle more than anything else. The typical infantry weapon was a muzzle-loading smooth- bore musket. To fire it, a long sequence of steps was required: the infantryman would take from his pouch a paper packet containing powder and ball. After biting o¤ one end, he would typically put the ball in his mouth, sprinkle a little of the powder into the firing pan of his gun, raise the gun vertically and rest the butt on the ground while he poured the rest of the powder into the barrel. He then spit the ball down after the powder, and followed this with the wadded up paper. …

… It is small wonder, then, that to Napoleon and his rivals the bayonet charge was still thought of as the most effective of all infantry maneuvers.”

It would seem that the presence of those bayonets would make the act of positioning one’s mouth and spitting the bullet down the end of a barrel a rather difficult feat, compared to simply dropping it in by hand. (That’s because the widespread “spitting bullet” myth was apparently based on the incorrect assumption that the muskets/rifles of that era did not use bayonets) But that paradox apparently went unnoticed by the author.

Not to nitpick; writing such a long, wide-ranging, and theory-spewing book is no wasy task, so the author can hardly be expected to be a master on all subjects covered. And these days, even school textbooks get published with a huge number of factual errors.