Empire

Sep 21, 2012 Paul rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

An interesting outcome at the end of this book which goes someway to say that working in America has turned him into a bit of a right-wing nut job, he was just a right - wing historian when he lived in the UK. His argument that the British Empire was not all bad, as we left civilising things such as democracy (Burma, Singapore, Hong Kong), cricket and a general force for good. While he is right about the cricket he is nuts if he thinks empire was a force for good, it has made Britain a few enemi...more

5 likes · like · see review

Aug 01, 2012 Palmyrah rated it 4 of 5 stars

Earlier this year, I read (and reviewed on this site) a nasty piece of work called The Decline and Fall of the British Empire by Piers Brendon. Like the present volume, it was a history of the British empire. Unlike the present volume, it was a determined hatchet job, in which all the crimes, follies and failures of British imperialism were noted at great length, while its achievements were ignored or decried. Jonathan Rashid, whose review of Empire appears just below mine on this page, would pr...more

6 likes · like · see review

Jan-Maat I don't think that the British Empire has been evaluated enough for a nuanced history to be written.

A work that concludes that the world would have b...more
Aug 02, 2012 03:41am

Palmyrah 'As a British Citizen seeing how we drew the lines on the maps creating state boundaries, creating systems of ethnic differentiation, structures for t...more
updated Aug 03, 2012 05:38am

Jan-Maat I wouldn't say a bad thing, but definitely complex and problematic. I mean it is rather unsurprising that Hong Kong was a magnet for migrants given th...more
Aug 03, 2012 05:52am

Sep 23, 2007 Jonathan rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: personal-collection

I wrote a paper on my initial reaction to the book, and after finishing it, I think my intuition was right. Here it is (I think I'm pretty harsh in this review--I don't think the book is "one-star bad" though):

"A brief Google search of Niall Ferguson provides an ocean of information on him and his political leanings. Without a doubt, the most controversial is his defense of British Imperialism. After reading the introduction and first chapter of his book, “Empire,” it becomes clear why he is a t...more I wrote a paper on my initial reaction to the book, and after finishing it, I think my intuition was right. Here it is (I think I'm pretty harsh in this review--I don't think the book is "one-star bad" though):

"A brief Google search of Niall Ferguson provides an ocean of information on him and his political leanings. Without a doubt, the most controversial is his defense of British Imperialism. After reading the introduction and first chapter of his book, “Empire,” it becomes clear why he is a target for so much criticism. Although one cannot form elaborate and sophisticated argumentation regarding Ferguson’s pro-British principles, my initial knee-jerk reactions are not too pleasant.
Ferguson ends the introduction saying, 'The question is not whether British imperialism was without blemish. It was not. The question is whether there could have been a less bloody path to modernity.' This loaded statement reveals a lot about Ferguson. First, it shows that he’s particularly interested in marginalizing and dismissing the harm that the British Empire caused to millions of people. Secondly, it shows that he wants to emphasize the good that the Empire caused—even if it is unjustified. And finally, it shows that he has a preoccuption with modernity as the West defines it.
This concern with modernity is shown further in the opening chapter to the book. Ferguson views history, and in this case British history, from a liberal or a modernist perspective. He’s certainly not a political economist. He tells the story with the major, wealthy players in mind (the British, the Dutch, and the French) and rarely discusses the colonized, so to speak. He’s very concerned with talking about the ‘metropole’ and not the ‘periphery.’ He does not question the actions of the British when they were pirates, monopolists, or conquerors. He tells the story as if Britain was some disadvantaged underdog in international affairs and they pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and then rained grace upon the chaotic and anarchic Indian people. The imagery he uses makes it seem like, in a sense, Britain was a victim of the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the French.
When there is a nation being colonized and taken advantage of (in this case, India), the least he could do is devote more than a couple paragraphs to the people of that nation and their struggle. Without a doubt, Ferguson knows British history well. But when one reads his version of the story and contrasts it with an alternative history book, the difference between a modernist and a political economist becomes very clear. And it also becomes clear that the world may not need another modernist historian like Niall Ferguson."(less)

14 likes · like · see review

Aug 25, 2007 Robert DePriest rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: history buffs

Shelves: history, foreignaffairs

Niall Ferguson, author of other non-fiction hits as "Pity of War", "The Cash Nexus" and 2006's "War of the World" offers a modern analysis of one of the most influential empires in history. An Englishman, Ferguson tackles the history of the British Empire in this layman's volume of 370 pages, rich with illustrations, maps, and photos stretching from empire's reluctant beginnings in the 17th century to the final collapse following WWII. Niall has two great qualities for a history writer that ende...more Niall Ferguson, author of other non-fiction hits as "Pity of War", "The Cash Nexus" and 2006's "War of the World" offers a modern analysis of one of the most influential empires in history. An Englishman, Ferguson tackles the history of the British Empire in this layman's volume of 370 pages, rich with illustrations, maps, and photos stretching from empire's reluctant beginnings in the 17th century to the final collapse following WWII. Niall has two great qualities for a history writer that endears him to this layperson - the ability to write history in a witty, conversational fashion, and a penchant for promoting alternative conclusions for historical events. For example, he rates the British leadership over India as an overall positive thing, without which India would not have quickly risen to the heights it has obtained today, in fact, it may have easily fallen victim to the Japanese empire of WWII.

Before reading this book, I had scant knowledge of the history of the British Empire, besides the stories of American colonial resistance to British rule, and the dysfunctional relationship of ruler and ruled in Burma detailed by George Orwell in his essay "Shooting an Elephant". I came away from this book with a much more thorough understanding. At its height, it governed about 25% of the world's population and covered about 25% of the world's habitable land. All this was accomplished with a relatively small number of administrators and soldiers. Indeed, the colonial areas supplied large percentages of the Empire's soldiers for small regional conflicts and large wars with other European powers. Niall argues that this was accomplished by the relatively benign rule of the English and an increasingly loosened authoritarian grip, ending in a Commonwealth of states that survives in small form today. Whereas other modern empires, such as Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Reich and Tojo's Japan were ruled by a heavy hand and often brutal tactics, the British were more "hands off", their empire having more of a commercial orientation with occasional digressions into missionary movements and cultural assimilation.

Perhaps the most poignant point of the book was Ferguson's reasoning for the end of the British Empire - after being sapped of money and resources from the first world war, Britain was faced with a stark choice when Hitler began his campaign across Europe - agree to a peace deal with Hitler or lose the empire in a draining fight to the finish. Ferguson argues that Churchill led England on the more noble path of imperial self-sacrifice for the good of the rest of the world.
Britan also failed to benefit substantially from the Marshall Plan and IMF/World Bank loans following the war to the extent that those same Axis powers were able to use to their benefit. Another surprise for me was Niall's argument that Britain continued to lose imperial possessions after the war due to the sometimes predatory policies of the US. While the 20th century relationship between the US and Great Britain is often portrayed as one of friendship, Ferguson paints a picture of a US more interested in containing communist expansion at the expense of the British Empire during the Cold War. Through a series of humbling military blunders and numerous independence movements among the colonies, British colonial administrators often found themselves presiding over poignant transfer-of-power ceremonies, the empire steadily disintegrating after the 1940s to today's Commonwealth of a few scattered islands around the world.

Traditionally, empires are seen as evil accumulations of power, enslaving masses of subjects for the benefit of a ruthless ruling people. Niall argues that in the end the British empire was a positive presence in the world. Ferguson says that without it, the spread of democracy, capitalism, even the predominance of the English language as the world's business lingua franca would not have happened, or to a much smaller degree.
(less)

4 likes · like · see review

Jun 14, 2013 Alex rated it 2 of 5 stars

Westerners have a tendency when they think of the Imperial Era (if they think of it at all) as a thing that happened, but we're not quite sure how or why . Some greedy people somewhere in Europe, probably, and we should feel a bit bad about it. Niall Ferguson, Satan love him, is willing to dog a bit deeper. Which is nice, but for the fact that he largely shares the perspective of the Imperialists. His book has some really fascinating anecdotes or perspectives ("The British Empire was founded on...more

like · see review

Apr 29, 2013 Void lon iXaarii rated it 4 of 5 stars

A very interesting near-history book. I would call this near-history, as we can still see it in many ways, it has a big impact on the last 4 centuries. I must admit at the beginning I was a bit bored as it seemed to me to have too much personal background on the author's encounter with the subject, but then as he detached from it it became more and more interesting. And, to be fair, in a way the author exposes his possible personal biases that way.

I loved that the book seems to take a mostly...more A very interesting near-history book. I would call this near-history, as we can still see it in many ways, it has a big impact on the last 4 centuries. I must admit at the beginning I was a bit bored as it seemed to me to have too much personal background on the author's encounter with the subject, but then as he detached from it it became more and more interesting. And, to be fair, in a way the author exposes his possible personal biases that way.

I loved that the book seems to take a mostly non-biased approach and you can never guess if the next section is going to tell you about some cool thing that the British empire did or some rather evil or cruel thing. It's refreshing to have both sides of the coin. Overall though the book is kinda interesting in the fact that it does dare to go against the politically correct current and express the possibility that the British empire has overall had some quite important positive influences on history (heck, I'm writing this in English, not my native tongue, and to a huge audience across the world, aren't I?). I also liked that it expresses some choices and actions made not just through our tinted lenses of the modern world values, but also tries to catch a more historically correct perspective from the point of view of the peoples of THAT time. (for example it was interesting how it argues that some provinces were maybe lucky to end up under a British influence with it's values of freedom and some measure of respect for it's colonies as opposed to say the Japanese empire's Rape of Nanking ). To be honest, I can't say I fully trust all such perspectives as the English also started out with some looting and ruthlessness, and had some towards the end too (which is a credit to the book, which didn't hide but exposed for me these facts), and of course we can't know truly what would have happened in a situation that didn't happen.

Personally, as a humble ant in this big world, I am always interested in the factors that lead to the prosperity (and the tragedies) of the normal peoples, so that I can take good choices in life and hopefully see dangers and opportunities hopefully many years before others, and in this aspect too the book had for me many educational aspects. I like to put myself in a certain time period and see the info available at that time, try to guess what I would have chosen and see if I would have succeeded or failed miserably by fast forwarding to the future knowledge and translate the information thus learned to today. For example interesting how many colonies and places in the world were highly promising and turned out very bad (diseases, death...) and others which were supposed to be very bad, like the prison colony Australia which ended up having pretty good principles and later success. Also of things I learned (or actually confirmed) more from the book it seems that again areas of the world where for one reason or another free trade was active got a lot of prosperity and fast growth, while those who locked down and went nationalistic & protectionistic decayed and the people there suffered. So, that's another way to tell decades in advance. Also similarly with the socialistic tendencies, how in a matter of decades the great British empire fell as it turned away from liberal attitudes into socialistic redistributive social state behavior, how as always that lead into eating away at the old wealth by the state/taxes/nonproductivity, and gradually turned surpluses in savings and gold into national debt and the weakening and breaking apart of a a huge empire (I still can't believe it was just a century ago that it wasn't just a lil english island but a large part of the world).

Also for those of us interested in American history the book has some delightful chapters with very spicy details. I found it for example very interesting how unlike today's nationalistic general story about the American independence the author tells how very split the population was on the issue, and how largely it all started out not as Americans thinking of themselves as Americans but as thinking of themselves as true English and only wanting the rights that normal Englishmen had. Also of interest to me was how without the benevolent support of England they also went protectionistic, as it seems all nationalist countries are tempted to do across history, even if it in fact impoverishes their peoples, as the short term near sighted rewards seem more appealing than the long term wealth. Very interesting stuff.

I also liked the story of how one could see England's fall far ahead of history if one only looked at the free flow of capital, how it slowly moved away as England lost it's principles and went into socialistic bureaucratic & war debt. It was the creditor productive nation of that time, America, that came to England's help, and helped her in her old age (I shall call it that as it seems all great civilizations after a while get lazy and go socialistic and erode their health in that way). But this is where I must slightly disagree with the author: in the last section of the book he goes more contemporary, and even hazards some thoughts about the present/future, and the possibility of the American empire taking England's way. However from what I read the American empire is already long indebted and going socialistic, and I wouldn't be that surprised if it's best years are behind it already unless it returns to the productive principles that once helped it rise (which seems improbable in a democracy where everybody votes for the biggest promiser of money). Plus I think many countries, ranging from China & Rusia to Germany/Eu have had many chances already to learn from the empire policies of the English speaking countries and "steal" some of their tricks, even as they're themselves losing the principles that once made them big. Indeed the book actually starts with the stories how England in it's early years tried to pick up the bits and pieces of previous Empires, some in resources, but most successfully in competitive improvements on the things that worked for them.

What I am however not really seeing today and what is slightly worrying is I'm not really aware of any lands which have a particularly free flow of savings and human resources as there used to be in centuries past. It seems today governments are very tight leashed on their people (tracking, passports, registrations) and on their moneys (manipulation of the monetary system, taxing, inflating away of savings...), and it seems to me from history if a nation wants to be the great next empire it has to at least in part recreate those conditions for growth and prosperity. Maybe there are countries that do it in ways I'm not aware for their citizens?

Very interesting stuff to think of, with IMHO great implications for our lives. A big conclusion that comes to my mind at this moment from this book and others on similar topics is that a civilization can't just expect to conquer and survive: it must offer something in return if it's people/colonies are to not make their annexation prohibitively expensive in resources and human lives due to constant uprisings. I think the British empire had that, as though it had it's dark spots and atrocities like all humans with weapons, it was relatively to it's neighbors on a higher practical and moral ground, it encouraged the freedom and initiative of it's peoples, it rewarded action and creativity/entrepreneurship/science, and it (sometimes at it's cost) promoted principles of human values, human rights, and rights of choice, and, at least in it's better years, as opposed to other competitors, seemed to go more in the direction of small, limited and well behaved predictable government. My observation from history: as that becomes slowly untrue with the aging of a civilization, as it goes more socialistic (or it's fascistic war twin, which are more alike than different IMHO), spending more and more, raising taxes and growing it's bureaucratic machine it is destined to go down. And of course for me it's all about my highest moral value: freedom. I believe and observe in history that not only is it the people's preferred state, but they and all they do is more efficient as it's less government controlled and with more individual freedom. It just makes sense that each man works better when he has the opportunity to reap the fruits of his own labor... something England had in it's early years, resulting in great growth.

Quite interesting book!(less)

like · see review

Jan 28, 2013 Henry rated it 5 of 5 stars

Let's get something straight from the start: this is one of the best books I have ever read. In a tie-in to a TV series (not that you need to know this to enjoy the book), Ferguson squares up to the imposing subject of the rise and fall of the British Empire with this question -- was the Empire a Bad Thing? The current mood of political correctness suggests that it was, having left a litany of ruined peoples, slavery, lingering conflicts and whatnot. Ferguson counters this view by saying that a...more Let's get something straight from the start: this is one of the best books I have ever read. In a tie-in to a TV series (not that you need to know this to enjoy the book), Ferguson squares up to the imposing subject of the rise and fall of the British Empire with this question -- was the Empire a Bad Thing? The current mood of political correctness suggests that it was, having left a litany of ruined peoples, slavery, lingering conflicts and whatnot. Ferguson counters this view by saying that a world in which the British Empire never happened is impossible to imagine except that it would be very much worse. The evidence of our own eyes since the Empire's rapid decline after World War II should be enough, of a world beset by political fragmentation in which the (relatively) liberal and humane mores of the Imperium have been in headlong retreat.

Within this theme, Ferguson makes the immense compass of his tale hugely readable by bringing in human stories wherever possible, gleefully relating the doings of pirates and planters, explorers and bureaucrats, warriors and wastrels, with deftness and wit. The single most remarkable fact I took away from this book was this: that even at its height, British India, with its vast area and population of hundreds of millions, was governed by no more than a thousand people -- fewer than it takes these days to run a local hospital. And yet British India was run far more efficiently than your local NHS Trust. In discussing this, Ferguson goes into the rigors of the Indian Civil Service entrance exam, which demanded excellence in Latin, Greek and Metaphysics as well as Indian languages. Even to pass this exam demanded the knowledge of a superman. Faced with such exploits we can only marvel, as the Saxons did to the might of the vanished Romans, of elda enta geweorc -- at the works of giants. Who can say that modern, lesser commentators (and the politically correct are the last and least) are worthy to pass judgement?

In the end, the book left me in a mood of profound and bittersweet nostalgia. The British Empire was very far from a universal blessing -- but it was a lot better than the excuse for a regime we have nowadays.The tragedy is that the Empire died in a Pyrrhic victory, bankrupting itself so that we should not suffer the depredations of worse empires, namely the hideous brutality of Japan or the horrors of the Third Reich. But where is the Empire of today? The obvious candidate is America, itself a product of the British Empire -- except that America has a different approach to the world, which some might say is less enlightened.(less)

like · see review

Feb 17, 2012 Mary Ronan Drew rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: library-book

Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and Lessons for Global Power by Niall Ferguson.

I thought it was brilliant. Here's what Library Journal had to say:

First published in England last year (with the shorter subtitle How Britain Made the Modern World), this is intended as a cautionary tale for the United States. In this sweeping narrative, British historian Ferguson (economic history, NYU; The Pity of War) eloquently addresses the origin, scope, and nature of the British Empire....more

1 like · like · see review

Oct 17, 2011 Christopher rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: favorites, history, politics

This was an absolutely wonderful read! Niall Ferguson, author of this book's sequel, "Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire," gives his readers a crash-course in British imperial history starting with the English privateering raids on the Spanish empire and ending with the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956. Ferguson's main point is that, all things considered, the British Empire was a good thing for the world. And, it must be said, he makes a very strong case for this using economic, politi...more

3 likes · like · see review

Oct 12, 2011 Michael rated it 3 of 5 stars

Niall takes us on an entertaining tour of the history of the British Empire from the age of the privateers and the first colonies in Ireland to its demise after World War 2. Highlights include the contest between the British and the Dutch East India Company with the outcome of increased cooperation after the "Glorious Revolution" and the appointment of a Dutch monarch with the resulting importation of Dutch banking to England. This resulted in improved financing of British shipyards and the edge...more

1 like · like · see review

Jul 25, 2011 Justin rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The first two or three chapters of "Empire" are rather concise and informative, thoughtfully explaining the nuts-and-bolts of how the British Empire came to be.

Unfortunately, much of the book subsequently devolves into coy and seemingly unintentional comparisons between Britain's empire in practice with, say those of the United States, Russia, Germany, France, and others. Ferguson very dutifully and diligently condemns those excesses of the British Empire, which he tactfully describes as "at its...more The first two or three chapters of "Empire" are rather concise and informative, thoughtfully explaining the nuts-and-bolts of how the British Empire came to be.

Unfortunately, much of the book subsequently devolves into coy and seemingly unintentional comparisons between Britain's empire in practice with, say those of the United States, Russia, Germany, France, and others. Ferguson very dutifully and diligently condemns those excesses of the British Empire, which he tactfully describes as "at its best amoral". Unfortunately, these critiques are almost uniformly followed with unflattering comparisons with England's imperial brethren, as if to say 'The British imperial system wasn't perfect, but could have been worse!'.

For example, English ships, according to Ferguson's estimates, shipped some 3 million Africans across the Atlantic and into slavery--how dreadful--fortunately for the soul of the British Empire, its use of the Royal Navy in intercepting the 19th century slave trade shows that its heart was in the right place. Ditto the English treatment of Australian aborigines: they were treated horrifically, we are told, but at least the English weren't as complete in their extirpation as, say, the Americans in dealing with their own indigenous inhabitants.

The use of "what-ifs" and counter-factuals has a place in historical thought, and Ferguson has made great use of this rhetorical technique in the past. The utility of such a device, it seems to me, loses much (if not all) of its effectiveness when it is deployed jingoistically or chauvinistically, however. If only this or that had happened, then America would be part of the British Commonwealth, or the poor savages of Africa could have been "civilized", and so on and so forth. It all presupposes that a benign, market-driven, free-enterprise approach to empire produced the greatest the world had known to that point. That it produced a "great" empire is undisputed; that its greatness was of intentional benefit to anyone but the English (and a narrow, wealthy minority at that) is less clear.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Jul 23, 2011 David Sarkies rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

This book is brilliant. I first learnt of the author, Professor Niall Ferguson, when I watched the series called 'The Ascent of Money' and then read the book that the series was based upon, so when I saw this book in the bookstore it was an automatic purchase.
Like 'The Ascent of Money' Professor Feguson deals with a complex topic in an easy to read and very engaging way. In fact, the book reads more like a novel than a dry and dull history book, and it goes to demonstrate that history is much,...more This book is brilliant. I first learnt of the author, Professor Niall Ferguson, when I watched the series called 'The Ascent of Money' and then read the book that the series was based upon, so when I saw this book in the bookstore it was an automatic purchase.
Like 'The Ascent of Money' Professor Feguson deals with a complex topic in an easy to read and very engaging way. In fact, the book reads more like a novel than a dry and dull history book, and it goes to demonstrate that history is much, much more than simply a collection of dates and dead people. In fact, when put forward as such, history plays out like a story that not even the greatest writer could create from his head (and I can assert to that, not that I consider myself a great writer).
Anyway, what did I learn from this book, because I do not believe that a book is worth reading unless you learn something from it. First of all, I discovered that Britain ruled the world from the Indian Subcontinent. India was indeed the jewel in the crown of the British Empire, which is why the fought tooth and nail to keep it. I also learnt that because of its empire, Britain was no match for any other budding world power. When you take into account the resources that it was able to draw upon, there was no way that Napoleon or the Kaiser, or even Hitler, had any chance of defeating them. However, it is also true that if, at the turn of the 20th Century, you said that in 50 years the British Empire would be no more, you would have been laughed at (and indeed, that was something that Winston Churchill did say). Yet, it turned out that way. Despite winning World War II, the British Empire did not survive World War II.
Finally, while I am not a fan of imperialism, and indeed not a fan of American Imperialism, we must always consider the alternatives, and this is something that India did in World War II. Britain, as indeed America, are not perfect, but if the alternatives are Nazism, Imperial Japan, or Stalinist Russia, then in the end, the British, and now the American Empires are the much better alternative.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Dec 05, 2010 Jim rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction

I was attracted to this following on from our South African holiday, where the remains of the Dutch and British Empires still have a massive hold on today. Was the British Empire a Good Thing? Ferguson thinks so, but it is difficult to prove on this reading. Every one of his assertions could easily be countered, a fact he often admits. Does slavery provide the trump card in the game? It's difficult to argue that the fabulous thing about slavery, from a British perspective, was that we abolished...more

2 likes · like · see review

Jun 27, 2009 Bubba rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: 19th-20th-century-imperialism, america, africa, britain-and-ireland, europe, middle-east, south-asia, favorites

Ferguson is known as something of an apologist for the British Empire. While frankly aknowledging its many sins, he praises, among other things, the ability it had to provide an almost corruption-free civil administration to nearly 1/4 of the world's land/people; the role it played in creating a globalized-economy (and an incredibly large free-trade zone) which raised living standards, created vital infrastructure and provided opportunities for growth worldwide. In fact, he provides examples of...more Ferguson is known as something of an apologist for the British Empire. While frankly aknowledging its many sins, he praises, among other things, the ability it had to provide an almost corruption-free civil administration to nearly 1/4 of the world's land/people; the role it played in creating a globalized-economy (and an incredibly large free-trade zone) which raised living standards, created vital infrastructure and provided opportunities for growth worldwide. In fact, he provides examples of how even the poorest colonies (mostly in Africa) experienced paralellel economic growth with Great Britain until the end of the empire in the 60s.

He also discusses the United States as the succesor to the Empire--he believes that nationalist movements did not sound the death-knell of the Empire, but rather that it wore itself out in contests with other advancing empires (the Japanese, 2nd and 3rd Reichs)--and that the US is the only contemporary power capable of providing the stability that the British did in their day. In other words, he argues that "empire" has gotten a bad name; that while many instances of British misconduct/crimes exist, that, on the whole, they provided a basically positive administration, much more positive than the Germans, Japanese, Russians/Soviets, Belgians and even the French provided/or would've provided had they been in charge of British territories. This he says was due to the interesting British mixture of free press, elective government, liberal civil society (missionaries and others, "the NGOs of the 19th century"), and public conscience, vs the ruthlessness of the Japanese in Asia, the Belgians in the Congo, etc. he basically throws down the gauntlet and says, "America, you have an informal, economic, sphere-of-influence empire now (just as the British did prior to colonizing several areas), maybe you should formalize it. He couches this in terms of the sorts of regimes that have sprung up in the wake of decolonization (particularly in Africa), and the ever-expanding influence of the Chinese, whose values are a far cry from the liberal sentiments expected in the West. In the end, his argument is, "somebody is going to take control of these weak states, economically if not militarily, why shouldn't it be the US (inheritor of Western liberal govenrment) rather than the Chinese?

I would argue that the US, which formally headed down the road of empire in the Manifest Destiny days/wake of the Spanish-American War, has always/will always see itself as interventionist rather than colonialist, just because of our inherent distrust of empire. But, Ferguson offers some interesting arguments, even if we red-blooded Americans are tempted--and rigthly so--to dismiss them almost without argument. (less)

like · see review

Nov 26, 2012 Andrew Fish rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

Ferguson's books, like his television series are richly detailed, articulate and often run counter to the liberal consensus. This is what makes him a fascinating historian and a necessary counter to the Simon Schamas of this world. His books provide a much needed alternate perspective on why we are where we are.

His failing, however, is that something odd always seems to happen in the last episode or handful of chapters. It's almost as if several pages are missing, because he invariably leaps to...more

like · see review

Aug 12, 2011 Derek Bridge rated it 3 of 5 stars

Niall Ferguson is a béte noire of liberals, having garnered a reputation for conservative, right-wing, even odious views. And so, although his treatment of the British Empire in this book was recommended to me by someone whose opinion I would trust, I approached it with some caution.

Now it may be a sad reflection of my ignorance of the true history, but I did not find this book to be outrageously partisan. It seemed indeed to be reasonably balanced and, for the most part, engagingly written. It...more

2 likes · like · see review

Mar 07, 2012 Mark rated it 4 of 5 stars Recommends it for: imperial meglomaniacs as a warning but with a bit of 'blueprinting' for any good emperors out there

Recommended to Mark by: Well not Napoleon that's for sure

Shelves: history, travelogue

For as long as I can remember I have always been fascinated by the British Empire; this enormous edifice which towered over the world and 'bestrode' enormous amounts of the world's land-mass.
Its fascinhation stems in part, I think, because it is an aspect of the world's history which stirs up so many conflicting emotions.

Ones which sometimes seem diammetrically opposed to each other; shame because of the abuse and oppression which is undoubtedly present in some corners or even whole rooms of t...more For as long as I can remember I have always been fascinated by the British Empire; this enormous edifice which towered over the world and 'bestrode' enormous amounts of the world's land-mass.
Its fascinhation stems in part, I think, because it is an aspect of the world's history which stirs up so many conflicting emotions.

Ones which sometimes seem diammetrically opposed to each other; shame because of the abuse and oppression which is undoubtedly present in some corners or even whole rooms of the aforesaid edifice whilst at the same time recognizing that the heritage, if that is the right word, of its long rule in other parts of the world produced stability and security. Having to face up to the reality of the intolerance and patronizing attitudes which infested the british ruling classes
('Liberty does not descend to a people. A people must raise themselves to liberty. It is a blessing that must be earned before it can be enjoyed'...inscription on the New Delhi Secretariat from the British Consul) whilst also acknowledging that these same men, and it was largely men though not exclusively of course, enabled the development and opening out of huge swathes of the world.

This also brings you up against the uncomfortable truth of the pillaging and stripping of these same swathes of land, the artificial creation of nations which were never truly real, the subjugation of independant tribes and ancient kingdoms and this collides with the British Empire's battle to rid the world of slavery, to encourage free trade and prevent protectionism. I could go on but Ferguson does an admirable job in attempting to shine light on all these aspects and shows, wittily and, it seems to me, fairly justly, the fact that any too simplistic treatment of this complex question so as to result in its dismissal as heinous or elevation to some sort of hagiographical utopia is crass and disingenuous.

Attempting, as he does, to crush four hundred or so years of the world's development into under 400 pages was never going to be an easy ask. His treatment of various passages of history is surprisingly quick and almost dismissive though this may be because so many other volumes deal with these periods but I did find his emphasis intriguing where the construction of the Empire was detailed, in certain areas, microscopically but others were almost footnotes and similarly the collapse of the Empire was whistled through as if an attempt to mirror the rush from responsibility which is sometimes levelled at the UK's swift removal from Africa in the 50's and early 60's.

This book deals with repression and cruelty which is quite shocking in parts, it shows the gradual development of a sensitivity to other nations and races which, with the inevitable embarrassing occasional retreat into bigotry and intolerance, did begin to take the upper hand in the british dealing with the 'outside world' but it also glittered with some real gems of wit and humour and wonderful sarcastic asides towards the hypocrisy and blindness, purposeful or otherwise, of those in power. This however leads into an interesting reflection on the new reality of empire now in our time. In his conclusion Ferguson points out the good and ill that resulted, in his opinion, from the 'largest empire the world had ever known' but he also points out by twisting Dean Acheson's aphorism that Britain had lost an Empire but failed to find a role that

'The Americans have taken on our old role without yet facing the fact that an empire comes with it'

Not everyone will agree with his conclusions, some will say he is too generous to the British Empire, others that he is too harsh; some will see his defence as mealy-mouthed or disingenuous others will see his attack as underhand or deliberately negative; He is too provocative, he is too entrenched, he allows himself to be too historically circumscribed, he is not conscious enough of historical factors....i am sure all of these things might be said by individuals as they read this book but the fact that so much of this might be said would point to the fact that he does, in a small concise way, make a fair stab at encapsulating an enormous sprawling historical one-off.(less)

8 likes · like · see review

Jul 25, 2011 Ian rated it 3 of 5 stars

A somewhat biased view of the British Empire and its effects on shaping the world we live in today. Being an English historian with extensive family history links to the empire, Ferguson defends the legacy of Britain's colonial past and its imprint on the world, espousing the legal systems, free trade and order left behind in the colonized countries. And how the near possible alternatives - German and Japanese empires would've been far worse. I suppose one can't argue with that, but there is als...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 03, 2012 Russell rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: miscellaneous-nonfiction

Empire is an interesting, easy to read popular history of the British Empire--the good, the bad, and the ugly. Ferguson has an excellent writing style that discusses the major themes of each era by examining some of the lives of the people who lived in that era. The book is also impeccably researched. These facts make it appealing to both serious and casual history buffs.

While some say that Niall Ferguson is too "pro-Empire" or an imperialist, the book as a whole is quite objective, at least un...more

like · see review

Feb 24, 2009 Peter Macinnis rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: britain, history, military-war, maritime, travel

Three stars for accuracy, five for entertainment. It did not greatly surprise me to learn at the end that this was a "book of the TV series" work.

An excellent read, it is flawed in the Australian content. In a footnote on page 194, Edward Eyre is described as being "the first white man to walk across the Australian desert from Adelaide to Moorundie."

Eyre did pass through Moorundie earlier, but it is EAST of Adelaide, and his epic desert journey referred to was first north, then south, and then W...more Three stars for accuracy, five for entertainment. It did not greatly surprise me to learn at the end that this was a "book of the TV series" work.

An excellent read, it is flawed in the Australian content. In a footnote on page 194, Edward Eyre is described as being "the first white man to walk across the Australian desert from Adelaide to Moorundie."

Eyre did pass through Moorundie earlier, but it is EAST of Adelaide, and his epic desert journey referred to was first north, then south, and then WEST to King George's Sound, now called Albany.

It makes me wonder about Ferguson's absolute certainty over Eyre's culpability in Jamaica in 1865: there was a massacre, but I am fairly well-informed on this issue, and find it impossible to decide whether Eyre was to blame or taking the blame for officers under his command but beyond his reach. Perhaps Ferguson is right, and Eyre did engage in massacres, but he offers no proof.

If Ferguson makes such an almighty cock-up of Eyre's early history, can he be relied on when he delivers his ringing verdict of guilty? How does he account for the massive discrepancy between such a verdict and Eyre's honourable treatment of Australian Aborigines, especially at Moorundie?

On page 33, he has Cook claiming "Australasia" for Britain in 1770: it would be more correct to say "New South Wales" or "the eastern coast of Australia" -- he did not claim New Zealand then. This error may only indicate that Ferguson is unfamiliar with what the term Australasia is usually taken to mean in Australasia. It is, after all, a rubbery term, but he uses it to mean Australia and New Zealand later.

He mentions a Richard Phillimore on page 104 as having equal status with James Ruse: I had never heard of him, so I looked him up. The chap was mentioned (once) by John Hunter as starting to farm, but that is all I can locate.

On page 109, there is a reference to "cattle-ranchers", but there is no such animal in Australia.

The most hilarious blooper is on page 305, where the Camel Corps is stated to be 3/4 made up of Australian and New Zealanders, but including others, among them "a pearl fisherman from Queensland". For those who are not Australian, Queensland occupies the Australian continent's north-east corner.

These are things a good copy editor should have picked up (or his Australian "fixer", whom he names). He reports that a number of other errors were fixed between the hardback and the paperback, but clearly had no helpful Australian readers. It remains an enjoyable and entertaining read, even if it is flawed. I am uncertain as to how reliably I was informed.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jun 13, 2013 Lorenzo rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: aaa-my-library, british, 2013-readings

I swear I will write a proper review as soon as possible.

Good but extremely partial book.
Ferguson did his homework and reveals a good deal of interesting stuff on the rise and fall of the British Empire.

However, the author does indulge way too much in justifying British colonialism.

Take the episode he describes involving a British officer savagely killing in cold blood an unarmed boy in Calcutta.

According to Ferguson, the difference between British forces and, say, Nazis is that whereas German s...more

like · see review

Jul 20, 2011 John rated it 5 of 5 stars

An epic historical work that does not get bogged down in details, footnotes, obscure illusions and high-handed scholarly drivel. Ferguson writes for everyman and spins a compelling story with nice sets of illustrations and charts. Instead of reading a multi-volume history written by some English Lord pontificating about the glories of empire, you are better served picking up this book. One possible criticism of Ferguson is that he might skim too rapidly over historical events, but I would argue...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 27, 2010 Harpal rated it 4 of 5 stars

This book is very similar stylistically and even structurally to "The Ascent of Money." Ferguson again is masterful at interweaving anecdotes with more meaningful generalizations about the British Empire and does so in an entertaining fashion. This is not a comprehensive survey of the British Empire, but rather an episodic piece that still somehow manages to cobble together a good sense of the entire imperial experience.

This book is best known as a spirited defense of British imperialism, and g...more

1 like · like · see review

Mar 29, 2010 Alex Fabish rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

A whirlwind history of the British Empire rife with broad generalizations and interesting, but poorly supported conclusions. Ferguson takes the angle that although Pax Britannia had its blemishes, its overall impact on the world was a positive one. While I think many of his arguments are legitimate he rarely backs them with anything of substance, moving from one subject to the next without ever stopping to take a breath (Or provide more than one or two short examples). The book could have been t...more

like · see review

Jul 15, 2009 Nicholas rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Niall Ferguson's Empire is the powerful, and much talked about work on the rise and fall of the British Empire. From the introduction of the book and Ferguson's apparently glowing description of the Empire of old, it is easy to tell why controversy surrounded the piece. The British Empire was apparently good to the Ferguson family, which hails from Glasgow, Scotland. With family far flung across the former colonies of the Empire, it is easy to understand why Ferguson may have a positive outlook...more Niall Ferguson's Empire is the powerful, and much talked about work on the rise and fall of the British Empire. From the introduction of the book and Ferguson's apparently glowing description of the Empire of old, it is easy to tell why controversy surrounded the piece. The British Empire was apparently good to the Ferguson family, which hails from Glasgow, Scotland. With family far flung across the former colonies of the Empire, it is easy to understand why Ferguson may have a positive outlook on Great Britain's colonial adventures. Suffice to say, his family certainly isn't the reason.

The balance of the book actually is a straight, economic and at times military history of the Empire. Its rise, its fall and both the good, and the very bad of what happened in between. Ferguson, contrary to what his critics charge (pure and straight love for imperialism) holds no punches in describing the sheer brutality of the British towards their more rebellious subjects. He accurately describes the characters which led to its rise, its prominence and the factors which led to its fall; some good, some terrible and some certainly quirky.

Where the real controversy lies is the conclusion. Despite some of the horrors reigned on territories such as India throughout colonial rule, Ferguson makes an interesting, though completely economic argument that colonialism was, essentially, a good thing and certainly the best alternative to other empires such as the Belgian, French and especially the empires of the Axis Powers. The rule of law, property rights, anti-corruption, efficiency in the colonial bureaucracy and slowly but surely, the inception of democratic institutions are the true hallmarks of British rule in these territories which he cites.

An impressive statistic that a much higher proportion of ex-British colonies are democratic than any other colonizing power. The most interesting argument, however is that under colonial rule, the economic situation was drastically better. The simple reason was that under British rule, foreign direct investment was much greater due to the security of British law. Such security no longer exists. Indeed, this argument lays the ground for his next argument, that the United States should take up Britain's mantle as colonizer to secure the development of the third world and ensure global security. Ferguson also trumpets Britain's ultimate sacrafice: the dissolution of her own empire for the sake of preventing Italy, Japan and most importantly Nazi Germany of gaining theirs as the most compelling argument to the British Empire's mostly benign character.

In the end, Ferguson's book was more of a history of the British Empire with an explosive opinion article as a conclusion. It's implicit that it's up to the reader to decide whether or not the economic and political benefits of Empire outweigh the means which Great Britain used not necessarily to gain it's Empire, but to maintain it. As a student of history and a member of a family with a slightly Imperial tradition, it's hard not to be impressed by the work and his opinions. The greatest lesson that I believed that I've learned is that there are very few things in this world that are completely good or completely bad and through Ferguson's work that the British Empire clearly covers both the good and the bad side of Imperalism. This work proves that through the commemoration and education of the bad that occured, we can also be proud of the positive tradition and history of the British Empire.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Dec 03, 2011 Cate rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Good read for $10 - you've got to love the Penguin Classics Reisssued Series. If only history had been this jauntily written when I was at high school - I might have paid more attention. It's interesting - you kind of grow up with the idea of Commonwealth as the ragged remains of the British Empire. But so much of that is mythology. In Ferguson's view, The Empire was more of an economic construct than a political one. Ultimately it was the cost of defending two World Wars in the first half of th...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 24, 2011 Bozzeed rated it 5 of 5 stars

excellent book. teaches you 500 years of events rarly mentioned when studying the history of the united kingdom. contains a lot of details from each part of the britain empire. the author used plenty of sources from eye witness accounts to the events occurred. the author also made a documentary film of the book released by PBS though i recommend reading the book because due to the a lot of information not all were covered in the documentary. i personaly bought other books from the same author be...more

like · see review

Apr 20, 2010 Jesse Dixon rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: history

This is about the British Empire focusing on the period from about 1500 at the earliest, to the fall of the British Empire soon after the end of World War II. Niall Ferguson describes the period where Britain was colonizing over the world including America, Canada, India, Australia, and Africa. Looking at the successes and failures of these, including some violent uprisings and retaliations.

Earlier it discusses about the competition between Britain, Spain, Portuguese, and France for trade. And a...more

1 like · like · see review

Aug 18, 2012 Catherine rated it 4 of 5 stars

An entertaining, easy-to-read history of the British Empire. It covers about 400 years rapidly and of course, selectively. There's plenty of criticism of colonial exploitation, but also a strong argument for the benefits of the British Empire - a view apparently shared by others more recently and a refreshing change from the uncritical condemnation of the British empire in academic circles until this last decade. One of his arguments is that if the British hadn't built a global Empire, another n...more

1 like · like · see review

May 15, 2012 Cat rated it 4 of 5 stars

I listened to the audible.com version of this book, sold under the name Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order.

The information that is present is informative and well-presented. There were, however, notable omissions: he glossed over the indignities suffered by subjugated races a little too quickly in some places; and from his coverage of the Victorian period onwards, he was very obviously biased in his pro-British viewpoint, to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

All in all, I lea...more

like · see review

title link	preview: Empire: How Britain Made The Modern World
avg rating	preview: Empire: How Britain Made The Modern World Goodreads rating: 3.81 (1656 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/166434.Empire?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348701741l/166434.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/166434.Empire?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Empire: How Britain Made The Modern World by Niall Ferguson[/url]

Empire: How Britain Made The Modern World

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (21)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Niall Ferguson

Books by Niall Ferguson

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Empire: How Brita...

Quotes from Empire: How Britain Ma...