What do you think?
Rate this book
Empire: A New History of the World
Eminent historian Paul Strathern opens the story of Empire with the Akkadian civilization, which ruled over a vast expanse of the region of ancient Mesopotamia, then turns to the immense Roman Empire, where we trace back our Western and Eastern roots.
Next the narrative describes how a great deal of Western Classical culture was developed in the Abbasid and Umayyid Caliphates. Then, while Europe was beginning to emerge from a period of cultural stagnation, it almost fell to a whirlwind invasion from the East, at which point we meet the Emperors of the Mongol Empire . . .
Combining breathtaking scope with masterful narrative control, Paul Strathern traces these connections across four millennia and sheds new light on these major civilizations—from the Mongol Empire and the Yuan Dynasty to the Aztec and Ottoman, through to the most recent and biggest empires: the British, Russo-Soviet, and American.
Charting five thousand years of global history in ten lucid chapters, Empire makes comprehensive and inspiring reading to anyone fascinated by the history of the world.
Next the narrative describes how a great deal of Western Classical culture was developed in the Abbasid and Umayyid Caliphates. Then, while Europe was beginning to emerge from a period of cultural stagnation, it almost fell to a whirlwind invasion from the East, at which point we meet the Emperors of the Mongol Empire . . .
Combining breathtaking scope with masterful narrative control, Paul Strathern traces these connections across four millennia and sheds new light on these major civilizations—from the Mongol Empire and the Yuan Dynasty to the Aztec and Ottoman, through to the most recent and biggest empires: the British, Russo-Soviet, and American.
Charting five thousand years of global history in ten lucid chapters, Empire makes comprehensive and inspiring reading to anyone fascinated by the history of the world.
288 pages, Hardcover
Published February 4, 2020
43 people are currently reading
469 people want to read
About the author
Paul Strathern
160 books544 followersPaul Strathern (born 1940) is a English writer and academic. He was born in London, and studied at Trinity College, Dublin, after which he served in the Merchant Navy over a period of two years. He then lived on a Greek island. In 1966 he travelled overland to India and the Himalayas. His novel A Season in Abyssinia won a Somerset Maugham Award in 1972.
Besides five novels, he has also written numerous books on science, philosophy, history, literature, medicine and economics.
Besides five novels, he has also written numerous books on science, philosophy, history, literature, medicine and economics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 61 reviews
July 1, 2020
I really enjoyed this one. Empire gets off to a bit of a slow start, and I was not sure what to expect from it, as the reviews here were a bit mixed...
Thankfully, I was pleasantly surprised; the writing here is very good.
Empire is quite a dense book, the contents of its 288 pages could have easily filled multiple volumes, with 10-100xs the page count.
I do appreciate the brevity, however, as sometimes the overall tone and flow of longer books leaves much to be desired...
Its shorter length makes Empire a great reference book.
Author Paul Strathern covers quite a lot here; the book is a chronological telling of many of the world's largest and/or most successful empires. The book also has a great format; each chapter chronicles a different Empire. The book covers:
1. The Akkadian Empire
2. The Roman Empire
3. The Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates
4. The Mongol Empire
5. The Yuan Dynasty
6. The Aztec Empire
7. The Ottoman Empire
8. The British Empire
9. The Russian Empire
10. The American Empire
Winston Churchill famously described Russia as "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma". Much like a matryoshka doll:
I have read a few complaints about the lack of depth, and the book's short length. I actually preferred this, as there are many books on each of the above chapters that the reader can look further into, should they be interested.
Overall, Empire was a very well-written, research, and formatted big-picture history book.
I would definitely recommend it to anyone interested.
5 stars.
Thankfully, I was pleasantly surprised; the writing here is very good.
Empire is quite a dense book, the contents of its 288 pages could have easily filled multiple volumes, with 10-100xs the page count.
I do appreciate the brevity, however, as sometimes the overall tone and flow of longer books leaves much to be desired...
Its shorter length makes Empire a great reference book.
Author Paul Strathern covers quite a lot here; the book is a chronological telling of many of the world's largest and/or most successful empires. The book also has a great format; each chapter chronicles a different Empire. The book covers:
1. The Akkadian Empire
2. The Roman Empire
3. The Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates
4. The Mongol Empire
5. The Yuan Dynasty
6. The Aztec Empire
7. The Ottoman Empire
8. The British Empire
9. The Russian Empire
10. The American Empire
Winston Churchill famously described Russia as "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma". Much like a matryoshka doll:
I have read a few complaints about the lack of depth, and the book's short length. I actually preferred this, as there are many books on each of the above chapters that the reader can look further into, should they be interested.
Overall, Empire was a very well-written, research, and formatted big-picture history book.
I would definitely recommend it to anyone interested.
5 stars.
October 3, 2022
The author's complete inability to be, at the very least, honest about the British Empire and its role in the world made me question everything else he wrote previously or after that particular chapter. Dude had the audacity to say that the British were a nice empire who never did anything to hurt the people they subjugated! I honestly don't know why I even bothered finishing this book!
June 5, 2023
I do not like to rate books. A one-through-five star system is unjustly simple-- able to boil down complex texts, full of themes and ideas that need considerable explication to grasp when discussing the work with others, to mere numerical qualification--and it feeds into a system of "rating" and "ranking" that is, not only liable to misuse in the form of review bombing by trolls, but subjects books (good books!) to the fickle and anti-intellectual whims of the online demos. Collen Hoover's It Ends with Us has a 4.3 rating while the Iliad gets, yes this is true, a 3.9. Even Homer cannot match the literary heights of Hoover, let alone crack a 4 star average!
But some books are so bad I have to forego good judgement and give it a low score, hoping to drive down the rating so that other potential readers of history can avoid this dreck. Paul Strathern's Empire: A New History of the World fails as being history, a new history, a new history about the world, and being a new history about the world with concept of "empire" as the thematic emphasis. I study empire, imperialism, colonialism, the whole shebang of globalizing domination[1]. Thus, I felt a sense of scholarly imperative to finish this work, to get a sense of what regular folks (and, most likely, high school world history teachers, for whom this book is probably great fun with its macrohistorical digressions and pointless rhetorical questions) read when they read about empire. When Strathern begins his book by mentioning, with ambivalent but not totally disapproving tone, the work of alternative (read "anti-") historian Gavin Menzies, I should I closed the cover right away and threw the book in the garbage can (library copy be damned!). But, no, I kept on trudging through Empire with each chapter worse, more poorly written, more littered with pseudo-facts than the last. The overarching structure of "empire" in this book is a ruse. There is no structure here, no coherent chronology or readable narrative (the very point of reading popular history as opposed to dense academic argumentation), Strathern always seems bored with his subjects (the Romans, the Yuan Dynasty, the Russians, etc.) after a few pages of writing, thus filling the rest of these measly chapters with asides, tangents, inane ponderings on the meaning of history. Our author gives no answers, believing that merely asking a banal question to be a sign of working intelligence. Possibly the most egregious element of the work is the bibliography: Strathern decides to only provide exact citation for his quotes from the first two chapters! (Don't worry, he cites Menzies). Not only have I never seen such a strange admission, but it makes not a lick of sense! Was Strathern lazy and did not wish to exactly cite the rest of his sources? Did the publisher want to keep the book to under 300 pages? Maybe, just like with his chapters, where he does not provide us a concise historical treatment of, say, the Aztecs and instead riffs on early hominid art, Strathern just became bored writing a correct bibliography!
[1] Here is Strathern's definition of an empire, or rather the creation of one: "the sense of adventure, the administration involved, as well as the dogged pursuit and exercise of sheer power... The multiplicity of synchronised organisations that goes into the creation and function of great empire is certainly humanity's most complex achievement, responsible for much of our historical evolution." (8)
But some books are so bad I have to forego good judgement and give it a low score, hoping to drive down the rating so that other potential readers of history can avoid this dreck. Paul Strathern's Empire: A New History of the World fails as being history, a new history, a new history about the world, and being a new history about the world with concept of "empire" as the thematic emphasis. I study empire, imperialism, colonialism, the whole shebang of globalizing domination[1]. Thus, I felt a sense of scholarly imperative to finish this work, to get a sense of what regular folks (and, most likely, high school world history teachers, for whom this book is probably great fun with its macrohistorical digressions and pointless rhetorical questions) read when they read about empire. When Strathern begins his book by mentioning, with ambivalent but not totally disapproving tone, the work of alternative (read "anti-") historian Gavin Menzies, I should I closed the cover right away and threw the book in the garbage can (library copy be damned!). But, no, I kept on trudging through Empire with each chapter worse, more poorly written, more littered with pseudo-facts than the last. The overarching structure of "empire" in this book is a ruse. There is no structure here, no coherent chronology or readable narrative (the very point of reading popular history as opposed to dense academic argumentation), Strathern always seems bored with his subjects (the Romans, the Yuan Dynasty, the Russians, etc.) after a few pages of writing, thus filling the rest of these measly chapters with asides, tangents, inane ponderings on the meaning of history. Our author gives no answers, believing that merely asking a banal question to be a sign of working intelligence. Possibly the most egregious element of the work is the bibliography: Strathern decides to only provide exact citation for his quotes from the first two chapters! (Don't worry, he cites Menzies). Not only have I never seen such a strange admission, but it makes not a lick of sense! Was Strathern lazy and did not wish to exactly cite the rest of his sources? Did the publisher want to keep the book to under 300 pages? Maybe, just like with his chapters, where he does not provide us a concise historical treatment of, say, the Aztecs and instead riffs on early hominid art, Strathern just became bored writing a correct bibliography!
[1] Here is Strathern's definition of an empire, or rather the creation of one: "the sense of adventure, the administration involved, as well as the dogged pursuit and exercise of sheer power... The multiplicity of synchronised organisations that goes into the creation and function of great empire is certainly humanity's most complex achievement, responsible for much of our historical evolution." (8)
November 24, 2020
Superficial, mediocre survey of various empires over the ages. A few interesting, new insights (at least for me) early on but even those are called into question by glaring factual errors and omissions that emerge later in the text.
Three examples:
NO mention of Spanish American War in the discussion of the emergence of the American Empire.
US Civil War death toll of "700,000" not "exceeded" until the Vietnam War (pg. 227). Last I checked Vietnam's toll was a bit north of 50,000.
Emma Lazarus Statute of Liberty greeting quoted as "yearning to BE free."
Seriously?
Three examples:
NO mention of Spanish American War in the discussion of the emergence of the American Empire.
US Civil War death toll of "700,000" not "exceeded" until the Vietnam War (pg. 227). Last I checked Vietnam's toll was a bit north of 50,000.
Emma Lazarus Statute of Liberty greeting quoted as "yearning to BE free."
Seriously?
August 13, 2020
Amazing information density. The author managed to condense a multi volume topic into a very short book. Probably not the perfect book if you're completely ignorant of the subject but a valuable recap to organise your knowledge and some interesting observations.
November 24, 2020
Facts twisted to fit a progressive/globalist agenda. If you have embraced the Cultural Marxist ideology you will find much to enjoy here, otherwise, it's safe to give this book a miss. Not a horrific reading of imperial history but a 'highly' contextualized one.
Rating: 2 out of 5 Stars.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Rating: 2 out of 5 Stars.
Move along, nothing to see here.
April 17, 2025
On the second page, the author quotes approvingly of Gavin Menzies, an author most famous for promoting his view that Atlantis really existed. This gives you an idea of Strathern's credentials to be a historian: ie, exactly none. He also doesn't seem to understand how commas work, either.
Absolutely terrible, complete rubbish.
Absolutely terrible, complete rubbish.
September 16, 2020
Talks about the most important empires in human history and conveniently decides not to have a chapter on the Spanish Empire, which shaped modern Europe, or the Persian Empire. Both are mentioned only as a side-notes in other chapters.
October 31, 2022
“Empire: A New History of the World” by Paul Strathern is an ambitious and panoramic overview of multiple major empires that interweave and overlap one another to span the majority of recorded human history. In under 300 pages, Strathern takes the reader on a literary blitzkrieg through 5,000 years of human history, analyzing the historical trends and structures of civilization as reflected in the ten empires that form the book’s 10 chapters. Clearly, this is impossible to achieve in anything even remotely resembling a thoroughly comprehensive manner in less than 300 pages - but that would be missing the point of the book, I think. This book is not meant to be an exhaustive, meticulous, year-by-year analysis of the ebbs and flows of all of the world’s major empires; instead, it is constructed as a preliminary introduction to the framework of studying human history through the lens of imperial dynamics. This book does not cover all the major empires of history (it leaves out the Inca, Persian, and Qing empires, for example), and the 10 empires that it does cover are examined at the broadest possible level of analysis (Akkadian, Roman, Umayyad & Abbasid, Mongol, Yuan, Aztec, Ottoman, British, Russian, and American empires). This approach is great for serving as an enticing appetizer for those interested in history but unfamiliar with specific details and concepts regarding the outlines of these major empires. Indeed, if one judges this book by its intended purpose and goal, it is clearly a fantastic success.
Using highly approachable and enjoyable prose, Strathern guides the reader through the most salient, influential, and distinguishing contours of each of the ten empires, analyzing connections and influential interactions between the different empires, and exploring each empire’s relevance to the grander global context of its time. By taking this 30,000-foot overview of imperial development across history, it becomes easy to see the vast multiplicity of synchronous human organization that is required to form and maintain a true empire, as well as the astounding levels of orderly governance and social stability that were achieved by the ancients. As the author takes the reader through the many different diagnostic attributes and developmental trajectories of these empires, you do learn quite a lot about the formation, rise, and eventual collapse of the empires, but instead of getting bogged down in hundreds of pages worth of facts and figures, you begin to see large-scale structures and patterns emerge; the typical flat, linear view of civilizational development begins to morph into a 3-dimensional globe of diverse, contemporaneous, and highly sophisticated human organization across multiple continents. You also begin to notice themes repeating themselves across the ages – certain imperial echoes that reverberate through the annals of the millenia – such as the crucial catalyzing effects of adventurism, administrative capacity, and sheer military power, and how these features of a society fueled the engines of imperial creation. You can also begin to appreciate how the empires of the past have bequeathed to us a number of truly difficult philosophical considerations:
What is “true” social progress and what is its aim? Were we in some way fated to become what we are now by some intrinsic aspect of human sociality, or could history have developed differently? What does a dispersed and widely-distributed humanity preserve in common with itself? Is imperial expansion ever justifiable and does it even need to be justified in the eyes of the empire? What fundamental aspects of human nature are inclined towards the building of empires?
And much, much more. Overall, I greatly appreciated the expansive scope of this book’s approach, as it facilitated a far more profound exploration of the concept of empires as an aspect of human development and possibly even human nature.
This book also provides some insightful and intriguing vignettes of many truly enigmatic leaders at the helms of these empires, from Sargon the Great to Sultan Mehmed II to Genghis Khan and beyond. It is astounding to see how the idiosyncrasies and personal temperaments of particular individuals shaped the history of the world and its empires. Furthermore, as the book meanders into the modern era via the Ottoman, British, Russian, and American empires, it’s also interesting to see how the fundamental premises and objectives of imperial ambitions have evolved over time, from outright military conquest, horrific butchery, and subsequent oppressive occupation, towards modern trade-based economic hegemony (which is not entirely peaceful or harmless, but is nonetheless undeniably different than imperial expansion of the past). As the current world order appears to be eschewing the imperial nature of our collective history, yet still grappling with it in places like Eastern Europe and Central Asia, this brings us to another set of vitally important philosophical considerations regarding nation-states in the modern era as well as their imperial roots:
Is there such a thing as a moral dimension to imperial enterprise? Does the flow of “civilization” and “economic development” justify foreign interference in distant parts of the world? How should the world react to imperial conflicts that arise due to clashes of cultures, histories, and worldviews? When is a nation obligated to forego the interests of its own citizens in favor of the interests of another nation’s citizens? Should the world accept the existence of empires, or seek to snuff them out?
The ethics of imperial dynamics is extraordinarily interesting, and approaching the topic in a knowledgeable and realistic manner is critical to the future stability and success of the current liberal world order. Understanding the great empires that form the foundational context of the present, and the ways in which conflicting spheres of influence and power have interacted in the past, is the gateway to being a more informed and empowered citizen, particularly in today’s interconnected and globalized civilization. This book provides a crash course in understanding the dynamics of empires and their imperialistic attitudes, making it a valuable read for anybody interested in history, world politics or geopolitical conflict; and so I definitely recommend reading this book. It is not perfect, it is not exhaustive, but it is undeniably worthwhile.
Using highly approachable and enjoyable prose, Strathern guides the reader through the most salient, influential, and distinguishing contours of each of the ten empires, analyzing connections and influential interactions between the different empires, and exploring each empire’s relevance to the grander global context of its time. By taking this 30,000-foot overview of imperial development across history, it becomes easy to see the vast multiplicity of synchronous human organization that is required to form and maintain a true empire, as well as the astounding levels of orderly governance and social stability that were achieved by the ancients. As the author takes the reader through the many different diagnostic attributes and developmental trajectories of these empires, you do learn quite a lot about the formation, rise, and eventual collapse of the empires, but instead of getting bogged down in hundreds of pages worth of facts and figures, you begin to see large-scale structures and patterns emerge; the typical flat, linear view of civilizational development begins to morph into a 3-dimensional globe of diverse, contemporaneous, and highly sophisticated human organization across multiple continents. You also begin to notice themes repeating themselves across the ages – certain imperial echoes that reverberate through the annals of the millenia – such as the crucial catalyzing effects of adventurism, administrative capacity, and sheer military power, and how these features of a society fueled the engines of imperial creation. You can also begin to appreciate how the empires of the past have bequeathed to us a number of truly difficult philosophical considerations:
What is “true” social progress and what is its aim? Were we in some way fated to become what we are now by some intrinsic aspect of human sociality, or could history have developed differently? What does a dispersed and widely-distributed humanity preserve in common with itself? Is imperial expansion ever justifiable and does it even need to be justified in the eyes of the empire? What fundamental aspects of human nature are inclined towards the building of empires?
And much, much more. Overall, I greatly appreciated the expansive scope of this book’s approach, as it facilitated a far more profound exploration of the concept of empires as an aspect of human development and possibly even human nature.
This book also provides some insightful and intriguing vignettes of many truly enigmatic leaders at the helms of these empires, from Sargon the Great to Sultan Mehmed II to Genghis Khan and beyond. It is astounding to see how the idiosyncrasies and personal temperaments of particular individuals shaped the history of the world and its empires. Furthermore, as the book meanders into the modern era via the Ottoman, British, Russian, and American empires, it’s also interesting to see how the fundamental premises and objectives of imperial ambitions have evolved over time, from outright military conquest, horrific butchery, and subsequent oppressive occupation, towards modern trade-based economic hegemony (which is not entirely peaceful or harmless, but is nonetheless undeniably different than imperial expansion of the past). As the current world order appears to be eschewing the imperial nature of our collective history, yet still grappling with it in places like Eastern Europe and Central Asia, this brings us to another set of vitally important philosophical considerations regarding nation-states in the modern era as well as their imperial roots:
Is there such a thing as a moral dimension to imperial enterprise? Does the flow of “civilization” and “economic development” justify foreign interference in distant parts of the world? How should the world react to imperial conflicts that arise due to clashes of cultures, histories, and worldviews? When is a nation obligated to forego the interests of its own citizens in favor of the interests of another nation’s citizens? Should the world accept the existence of empires, or seek to snuff them out?
The ethics of imperial dynamics is extraordinarily interesting, and approaching the topic in a knowledgeable and realistic manner is critical to the future stability and success of the current liberal world order. Understanding the great empires that form the foundational context of the present, and the ways in which conflicting spheres of influence and power have interacted in the past, is the gateway to being a more informed and empowered citizen, particularly in today’s interconnected and globalized civilization. This book provides a crash course in understanding the dynamics of empires and their imperialistic attitudes, making it a valuable read for anybody interested in history, world politics or geopolitical conflict; and so I definitely recommend reading this book. It is not perfect, it is not exhaustive, but it is undeniably worthwhile.
May 12, 2021
The book is akin to an anthology of different historical accounts, each relating to a different empire. Despite its length and font size, it was difficult to push through for some reason. Certain sections were written well; the others: not so much.
March 19, 2025
A fascinating read! Strategen wrote in an energetic and engaging way. My only critique is that the timelines were difficult to follow. Perhaps some added graphs and maps would be beneficial for the novice reader.
November 14, 2021
I am reading this 2020 b0ok not as a veteran historian with two graduate degrees in history, but for my general enjoyment of history, as much of old and older times than of the current. In 239 pages by this prolific British academic of short introductory books, the general reader will find it interesting, moderately light, of necessity selective, sparsely illustrated yet including a good useful index. Each of ten Empires is given twenty pages of outstanding condensed authoritative history.
It is very engaging due to its inclusion of details, of colorful elusive facts, such as that the British Empire once included the tiny island of Run, now part of Indonesia, and "this obscure archipelago was at the time the world's sole source of nutmeg and mace, two spices which were so highly prized in Europe that they were worth more than their weight in gold... and nutmeg also valued for its alleged medicinal properties...."
Because of my regional interests, I found the coverage of the overlapping three or four Mexican empires of particular interest. The difficulty of native inscribed languages pose difficulties, as do the places and forms of remaining written records, and the fact that field research in this region is nowhere near as advanced as in Europe, parts of Asia, and in Egypt. Strathern had problems giving these empires the story quality of several other parts of the world.
Strathern ends this bit of history with (new to me) the fact that after Britain signed the 1667 peace treaty with the Dutch at Breda, in Holland, Britain relinquished its claim to Run in exchange for a slightly larger island held by the Dutch in the Americas, namely Manhattan Island, whereupon the local settlement of New Amsterdam (population 2,500) was renamed New York."
After weeks away from this book, I now in November read the last chapter about the America Empire. Strikes me as brilliantly written, clear and detailed enough with great historical insight. Worth 5 stars!
It is very engaging due to its inclusion of details, of colorful elusive facts, such as that the British Empire once included the tiny island of Run, now part of Indonesia, and "this obscure archipelago was at the time the world's sole source of nutmeg and mace, two spices which were so highly prized in Europe that they were worth more than their weight in gold... and nutmeg also valued for its alleged medicinal properties...."
Because of my regional interests, I found the coverage of the overlapping three or four Mexican empires of particular interest. The difficulty of native inscribed languages pose difficulties, as do the places and forms of remaining written records, and the fact that field research in this region is nowhere near as advanced as in Europe, parts of Asia, and in Egypt. Strathern had problems giving these empires the story quality of several other parts of the world.
Strathern ends this bit of history with (new to me) the fact that after Britain signed the 1667 peace treaty with the Dutch at Breda, in Holland, Britain relinquished its claim to Run in exchange for a slightly larger island held by the Dutch in the Americas, namely Manhattan Island, whereupon the local settlement of New Amsterdam (population 2,500) was renamed New York."
After weeks away from this book, I now in November read the last chapter about the America Empire. Strikes me as brilliantly written, clear and detailed enough with great historical insight. Worth 5 stars!
April 17, 2021
What an accomplishment, a history of the world in less than 250 pages! In a brief history like this, much detail is obviously left out, but having more details was not, I think, the author's intention. By dedicating each chapter to an empire, an enjoyable and informative approach that maintained my interest, the author showed how empires rose and fell, how they are connected, and their impact on their era and future time; in essence, how history evolves. One idea the author put in better perspective for me is "sideways" history; which is, "various stages of history running in parallel."
Particularly informative to me were the three chapters covering the Umayyad & Abbaside Caliphates, the Mongol Empire, and the Yuan Dynasty.
I found the author's narrative highly readable. Other readers should too.
Particularly informative to me were the three chapters covering the Umayyad & Abbaside Caliphates, the Mongol Empire, and the Yuan Dynasty.
I found the author's narrative highly readable. Other readers should too.
November 2, 2022
This is a brief survey of several empires throughout history. There were a few historical errors that I noticed (one example is that Julius Caesar was supposedly hosting the first mock naval battle in 42 BC, two years after he was assassinated - pages 49-50), and there really isn't much (if any) new information here. It rather felt like reading several Wikipedia articles.
June 23, 2023
Superficial at times but still very enjoyable. From the Aztec to the American “empire”, the book covers a large portion of the biggest and greatest empires ever existed. It’s hard to talk about 10 empires in couple more the 350 pages but the author does a decent job.
It’s more like an introduction than anything else.
It’s more like an introduction than anything else.
August 20, 2023
It is like sitting through office hours with a history professor while he nonchalantly rambles on about topics he knows in no particular fashion or reason. Then midway through, you realize he's not even a historian and his understanding of the subjects that he speaks of is really elementary. His subject matter is a massive undertaking and Strathern should have left it to the real heavyweights.
May 21, 2020
I listened to the audiobook courtesy of Libro.fm.
It's a surprisingly quick listen, coming in at 6 hours and 12 minutes at regular speed. It's also a pretty quick overview and packed with a lot of information.
It's a surprisingly quick listen, coming in at 6 hours and 12 minutes at regular speed. It's also a pretty quick overview and packed with a lot of information.
June 7, 2020
Just read Wikipedia. There’s not much depth here
September 14, 2024
I (unfortunately) had high hopes for this, but it really is just a mediocre survey of empires (with some problematic language and opinions that are never addressed).
Some of the worst parts were when he simultaneously infantilized AND demonized the Aztec empire (with no sort of nuance or objectivity in analyzing their cultural and religious practices, namely human sacrifices). Like, I understand that he thinks Europe was so insanely “advanced” when compared to the Aztec empire (or other, briefly mentioned, Mesoamerican empires) because wheels! But wheels surely cannot be the defining feature of what makes an empire an “empire” or he wouldn’t write about the Aztec empire at all…right? There’s just such a rich and interesting history he doesn’t even TRY to write about, and I really can’t give you a reason why.
His discussion surrounding the Mongol empire felt racist (or, if not racist, then prejudiced at the very LEAST). If the Aztec empire is presented as being “savage,” then the Mongolian people are presented as subhuman, animalistic. Actually, both empires and peoples are presented as amoral and “savage” for reasons that don’t make sense, especially considering the inhumanity and evil of the British empire and the American empire from the seventeenth century until now. What makes them different? The fact that the author is British…which he never fails to let us forget?
Speaking of which, he blatantly refuses to address many (or really any) of the atrocities of the British empire which others have written about in their reviews. For me, though, it was his analysis (or really lack of) of the American empire made me particularly uncomfortable /: this might be the only time I recommend Judith Butler because her prose is so inaccessible outside of academic settings BUT her Frames of War or Precarious Lives do a much better job at addressing (and analyzing) such atrocities, particularly by the American empire, if anyone is interested.
Some of the worst parts were when he simultaneously infantilized AND demonized the Aztec empire (with no sort of nuance or objectivity in analyzing their cultural and religious practices, namely human sacrifices). Like, I understand that he thinks Europe was so insanely “advanced” when compared to the Aztec empire (or other, briefly mentioned, Mesoamerican empires) because wheels! But wheels surely cannot be the defining feature of what makes an empire an “empire” or he wouldn’t write about the Aztec empire at all…right? There’s just such a rich and interesting history he doesn’t even TRY to write about, and I really can’t give you a reason why.
His discussion surrounding the Mongol empire felt racist (or, if not racist, then prejudiced at the very LEAST). If the Aztec empire is presented as being “savage,” then the Mongolian people are presented as subhuman, animalistic. Actually, both empires and peoples are presented as amoral and “savage” for reasons that don’t make sense, especially considering the inhumanity and evil of the British empire and the American empire from the seventeenth century until now. What makes them different? The fact that the author is British…which he never fails to let us forget?
Speaking of which, he blatantly refuses to address many (or really any) of the atrocities of the British empire which others have written about in their reviews. For me, though, it was his analysis (or really lack of) of the American empire made me particularly uncomfortable /: this might be the only time I recommend Judith Butler because her prose is so inaccessible outside of academic settings BUT her Frames of War or Precarious Lives do a much better job at addressing (and analyzing) such atrocities, particularly by the American empire, if anyone is interested.
November 24, 2025
As much as I want to give this book à high score for having two mongol empires as part of its 10 there is just so much wrong with it. Between the editor and the author they chose not to have any references of any kind, making the wild claims some of the book makes completely unverifiable. Many apocryphal stories about the mongols for instance indicate that the author was doing this throughout.
Despite a seeming attempt to move away from eurocentrism, the book fails at this, comparing good Christian religion to the dark beliefs of native people in South America, specifically highlighting a mongol ruler killing his brother a thousand miles from Europe, as if it wasn’t just as vicious, or saying the ottomans defeat the ‘more advanced’ civilisation of Europe. Similarly western powers are given leeway that others are not: the Russian empire’s massacres and created famines are highlighted, while the bengal famine Isn’t present at all and the Irish famine made to be some sort of terrible accident. Deaths in Russian construction are mentioned but none for America’s building the Panama Canal. The terminology of technological advancement often comes across as cultural superiority.
I have never held much truck with the mongol conquest of Russia causing it to turn away from Europe. Was it particularly connected to Europe before? How did this happen? And without back projection of Marxist thought, why would closer contacts with the far richer and more powerful civilisations to the east be a bad thing in the 13th century?? Europe was no powerhouse and would not be so for another 400 years.
Perhaps the most bizarre single statement was that JFK being a sex addict meant that it was a good thing he was shot. Like… what!?
Despite a seeming attempt to move away from eurocentrism, the book fails at this, comparing good Christian religion to the dark beliefs of native people in South America, specifically highlighting a mongol ruler killing his brother a thousand miles from Europe, as if it wasn’t just as vicious, or saying the ottomans defeat the ‘more advanced’ civilisation of Europe. Similarly western powers are given leeway that others are not: the Russian empire’s massacres and created famines are highlighted, while the bengal famine Isn’t present at all and the Irish famine made to be some sort of terrible accident. Deaths in Russian construction are mentioned but none for America’s building the Panama Canal. The terminology of technological advancement often comes across as cultural superiority.
I have never held much truck with the mongol conquest of Russia causing it to turn away from Europe. Was it particularly connected to Europe before? How did this happen? And without back projection of Marxist thought, why would closer contacts with the far richer and more powerful civilisations to the east be a bad thing in the 13th century?? Europe was no powerhouse and would not be so for another 400 years.
Perhaps the most bizarre single statement was that JFK being a sex addict meant that it was a good thing he was shot. Like… what!?
June 2, 2024
Paul Strathern has become one of my favorite history writers. His works generally read like fiction, and Strathern has an eye for interesting details most of us never learn in history classes. Empire: A New History of the World is my latest read.
In this very compact history, Strathern examines 10 empires, moving through the history of the world. He begins with Akkadians and ends with Americans. Of course he delves into the Roman Empire and the British Empire. He writes about empires most of aren't all that familiar with, but should be: the Ottomans and the Russians. Then there are the empires most of us in the Western World don't think about: the Umayyad, the Mongol, the Yuan, the Aztecs.
For me, the most interesting chapter was the one on the Russian Empire. Strathern argues that Russia still remains an empire with a czar. Today, that czar is Putin. He rules with the same force as Peter the Great or Ivan the Terrible. Strathern's view is a good way to see Russia--politically, it really hasn't changed in over 1000 years.
All of the empires are flawed, including the American one. Strathern's point of view is realistic rather than idealistic. As he sums up, Strathern looks at the prospects for today's American empire and the world in general. He references Orwell's Oceania, Eurasia, and East Asia--did Orwell foresee today's spheres of influence?
Empire is not a book for those wanting a deep dive into history--it's an overview of the greatest empires humans have built. If you want a deep dive, you're going to have to read a much larger book.
In this very compact history, Strathern examines 10 empires, moving through the history of the world. He begins with Akkadians and ends with Americans. Of course he delves into the Roman Empire and the British Empire. He writes about empires most of aren't all that familiar with, but should be: the Ottomans and the Russians. Then there are the empires most of us in the Western World don't think about: the Umayyad, the Mongol, the Yuan, the Aztecs.
For me, the most interesting chapter was the one on the Russian Empire. Strathern argues that Russia still remains an empire with a czar. Today, that czar is Putin. He rules with the same force as Peter the Great or Ivan the Terrible. Strathern's view is a good way to see Russia--politically, it really hasn't changed in over 1000 years.
All of the empires are flawed, including the American one. Strathern's point of view is realistic rather than idealistic. As he sums up, Strathern looks at the prospects for today's American empire and the world in general. He references Orwell's Oceania, Eurasia, and East Asia--did Orwell foresee today's spheres of influence?
Empire is not a book for those wanting a deep dive into history--it's an overview of the greatest empires humans have built. If you want a deep dive, you're going to have to read a much larger book.
December 29, 2020
This is a lightweight, breezy overview of historical empires, from the Akkadian Empire nearly 4500 years ago through the American Empire of the 20th Century. A number of major empires are not included—for example, the Persian Empire and the Inca Empire—so the book is a long way from being comprehensive. There are also some annoying inaccuracies, such as twice dating the Treaty of Westphalia that ended the Thirty Years War to 1668 instead of 1648.
The author does have an eye for some interesting perspectives and anecdotes, so Empire is still an enjoyable read if you don’t expect too much from it. For example, Strathern recounts a gruesome story (hopefully just apocryphal) involving the work of the Venetian artist Gentile Bellini, who had become a hostage and friend of the Sultan Mehmet II. When Bellini presented a painting of the head of John the Baptist on the platter of Salome, the Sultan objected that it was anatomically inaccurate and had a slave beheaded to prove the point. (This was apparently a time when art critics took their work very seriously.)
Anyway, a fun read and not a bad introduction to world history of you take it with a grain of salt.
The author does have an eye for some interesting perspectives and anecdotes, so Empire is still an enjoyable read if you don’t expect too much from it. For example, Strathern recounts a gruesome story (hopefully just apocryphal) involving the work of the Venetian artist Gentile Bellini, who had become a hostage and friend of the Sultan Mehmet II. When Bellini presented a painting of the head of John the Baptist on the platter of Salome, the Sultan objected that it was anatomically inaccurate and had a slave beheaded to prove the point. (This was apparently a time when art critics took their work very seriously.)
Anyway, a fun read and not a bad introduction to world history of you take it with a grain of salt.
February 26, 2021
At 239 pages, this is no tome. Instead, the author quickly offers up big servings of world history in (mostly) digestible bits. It’s history for people in a hurry. As with being rushed when eating a meal, the cramming-it-in effect can often lead to not appreciating the varied ingredients.
Strathern often amuses—with his fast-moving, at times clipped recounting. To quibble, I wouldn’t say this history (or retelling) is “new”, only that it attempts to simply outline the main characteristics of empire.
By definition, the word empire means: a group of states under a supreme ruler. Throughout much of history, those supreme rulers often ride herd on their populations (Genghis Khan comes to mind), and democracy is only hinted at, if at all. Over recorded human history, democracy is a recent arrival on the scene.
Toward the end of the book, Strathern looks at our American version of empire—which includes some democratic elements--and how this feature of our society shares some characteristics with classic empires.
Strathern often amuses—with his fast-moving, at times clipped recounting. To quibble, I wouldn’t say this history (or retelling) is “new”, only that it attempts to simply outline the main characteristics of empire.
By definition, the word empire means: a group of states under a supreme ruler. Throughout much of history, those supreme rulers often ride herd on their populations (Genghis Khan comes to mind), and democracy is only hinted at, if at all. Over recorded human history, democracy is a recent arrival on the scene.
Toward the end of the book, Strathern looks at our American version of empire—which includes some democratic elements--and how this feature of our society shares some characteristics with classic empires.
September 1, 2020
Empire: A New History of the World from Paul Strathern is an okay overview, which is all it was likely meant to be at this length. I listened to the audiobook and the reader was quite good but that wasn't enough to raise the rating for me.
There is some questionable information, not necessarily wrong but also not something a reader should place too much confidence in. While some sources are good, Strathern also uses some sources that are shaky at best, so while the facts, such as they are, may well be correct the spin is as likely to be off than on.
If one just wants a quick overview and doesn't put too much stock in the details, this is a nice accessible book. Not academic, not particularly nuanced, just a light history book for the general public.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via LibraryThing Early Reviewers.
There is some questionable information, not necessarily wrong but also not something a reader should place too much confidence in. While some sources are good, Strathern also uses some sources that are shaky at best, so while the facts, such as they are, may well be correct the spin is as likely to be off than on.
If one just wants a quick overview and doesn't put too much stock in the details, this is a nice accessible book. Not academic, not particularly nuanced, just a light history book for the general public.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via LibraryThing Early Reviewers.
February 22, 2020
This is an entertaining, easily readable history of ten major world empires that dominated human history. The book ranges from the Akkadian empire dating from around 2300 BC, initially ruled by the great leader Sargon, to the more contemporary empires of Britain, Russia, and America. The author, Paul Strathern, weaves an interesting tale of birth and decline of empire after empire. He is good at pointing out both the good and bad points of each empire as it emerged and spread it's influence across the know world. Some empires incorporated and built on the wisdom and learning of previous empires, while others tried to wipe all vestiges of previous empires from the earth. There are lessons we should all learn written in the dust of the past.
September 29, 2023
Strathern writes both clearly and succinctly, especially for an academic. He doesn't necessarily bring anything knew to World History through this book, but it provides a narration for how history does, in fact, repeat with slight variations.
I particularly enjoyed what he had to say about the Russian and American Empire. He contrasted them well and provided a interesting not-an-empire empire case for America. Those were by far his strongest chapters. His writing on the Mongols was excellent as well. In contrast, the Akkadians and the British chapters lacked in storytelling. The Akkadians provided him an opportunity to clearly define what an empire is. I am not convinced that he did as well as he could have.
All in all, not a must read but a good one.
I particularly enjoyed what he had to say about the Russian and American Empire. He contrasted them well and provided a interesting not-an-empire empire case for America. Those were by far his strongest chapters. His writing on the Mongols was excellent as well. In contrast, the Akkadians and the British chapters lacked in storytelling. The Akkadians provided him an opportunity to clearly define what an empire is. I am not convinced that he did as well as he could have.
All in all, not a must read but a good one.
May 19, 2020
I finished this book after reading A little history of the world. This book is more on the academic side but very accessible. By focusing on 10 of the worlds greatest empires there is much missing but the narrative and connections are somewhat thought provoking but in no way revelatory. I found the occasional digressions and tangents similar time college lectures but felt overall that with a more cohesive explanation of the thesis was needed. The point that he frequently returns to Is “what did (empire) do for us” is very interesting but left me wishing he went further in the explanation. The use of sequence sections to connect empires did provided satisfying transitions.
August 22, 2024
Overall a decent overview of world history, if a bit Euro-centric. Especially when covering more recent history, the author is either unable or unwilling to recognize how his own experience and background color his interpretations of the empires he examines and their legacies. Strathern tends to overstate the influence and virtue of Empires generally considered to be forerunners of western liberal democracy while downplaying their injustices and atrocities; other empires receive the opposite treatment.
October 13, 2024
Several reviewers have noted that there are many factual errors. Here's the one that just caught my eye: page 226 in the paperback edition, "The mainly rural South employed slaves on its cotton plantations, while all the states of the more industrialised North had abolished slavery by 1804."
Not true by a long shot. E.g New York (1827) & Conecticut (1848). Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (1863) only freed slaves in the Confederacy; many Northern slaves weren't freed until the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865.
Not true by a long shot. E.g New York (1827) & Conecticut (1848). Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (1863) only freed slaves in the Confederacy; many Northern slaves weren't freed until the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865.
April 13, 2020
This book slapped, bite sized run-throughs of the rise and fall of ten empires. I listened to the audio book of it and honestly I would highly recommend. It read like the voiceover of a Netflix history documentary in the best way possible. Only criticism: I wish there was more. Strathern did such an excellent job of getting me excited about these empires and their rulers, I want to know more about them.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 61 reviews