I did choke a bit at a number of points in the "democracy" one. It relies on a very... selective interpretation of what democracy is, apart from anything else. Quite apart from being massively oversimplified, I was surprised to see the Republic of Rome (a classic oligarchy) listed as the first democratic empire, and Magna Carta was only a democratic charter by the wildest stretch of the imagination.
And that's even before it gets completely ridiculous.
The Middle Eastern one isn't so bad, but it's flawed and incomplete. I'd have thought that Sumer, Akkad and Elam would have merited a mention, for starters, and the period from the Caliphate to the Mongols was rather oversimplified. No real indication of the Mamelukes, or the distinction between Fatimid Egypt and Abbasid Syria, or Khwarezm, and so on. It seemed to focus somewhat unduly on Israel, too.
The main flaw, though, is that it didn't display empires simultaneously, which made it appear as if each empire succeeded another, rather than coexisting for long periods of time, gradually losing or recovering land.
