Some of the problems are to do with the structuring of your argument; some are to do with English grammar and word selection; and some are to do with not giving your reader sufficient background information to understand what you are discussing (eg introducing the names of places without explaining where these places are and why they are relevant).
In the past I would have been very reluctant to recommend Wikipaedia as an example of academic writing, but I think in this case it may be useful for you to look at the entry for Benghazi, specifically the history of Benghazi.
You will notice that the history section is clearly divided into historical periods (Greek, Roman/Cartheginian, Ottoman, Italian, WWII, Contemporary). Within the discussion of each period, particular aspects of that period are discussed sequentially (history, geography, culture, trade, etc (whatever the key aspects of the period were)). Notice how each paragraph only refers to one idea and does not mix different ideas/issues together. For example, the following paragraph only discusses the issue of surrounding hostility:
“The city was in hostile territory and was surrounded by inhospitable tribes. The Greek historian Thucydides mentions a siege of the city in 414 BC, by Libyans who were probably the Nasamones: Euesperides was saved by the unexpected arrival of the Spartan general Gylippus and his fleet, who were blown to Libya by contrary winds on their way to Sicily.[17]”
If you follow some simple rules your writing should improve.
1. Organise what you want to say into a system of hierarchical points (for example, first divide the discussion into the historical periods, then subdivide each historical period into key issues).
2. Each paragraph should only discuss one issue/idea.
3. Keep your English simple and direct. Use short sentences. Don’t use a thesaurus as the words usually have the wrong meaning/nuance.