What do you think?
Rate this book
Empire Of Fortune: Crowns, Colonies & Tribes in the Seven Years War in America
“ Empire of Fortune is vintage Jennings. He writes with as much flair and involvement as his predecessors, while challenging their assumptions and research at every turn. No one has done more to demystify the early American ‘wilderness’ or worked harder to dynamite the anglocentric folktales of colonial history.” ―Peter H. Wood, Duke University The third volume of the "Covenant Chain" trilogy, this work restores the Indians to the history of colonial America as human beings and shatters the myth of their savagery. It also revises the popular images of Wolfe and Montcalm.
548 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1988
1 person is currently reading
146 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
September 19, 2019
Phew. Interesting to say the least. I have had an increasing fascination with the French and Indian Wars (Jennings refuses to call it that, and with some good reasons) over the years as I slowly recognized its crucial importance as perhaps the main causative factor for the American Revolution. Not a ground-breaking realization for historians maybe but for the average person more so. Anyway, I read the reviled (in this book) Francis Parkman's 'Montcalm and Wolfe' just a few years back and gave it 5-stars on Amazon and Fred Anderson's superb 'Crucible of War' fairly recently (easily 5-star). Jennings work is cited by Anderson in several places and it is clear that he has done some amazing work here. Apparently, this is the 3rd in a series on the clash of civilizations that occurred when white people landed in North America. There is so much excellent material here! I liked the chronologies at the start of each chapter and the sub-chapter heading made the complex events more digestible. This is however, very much a new look at old 'facts' and Jennings is not reluctant to attempt to rewrite the 'police report' of history (as another reviewer cleverly put it). Yet it is rare, perhaps unprecedented in my reading of history books (which is significant but hardly exhaustive) to find a professional historian calling a previous writer a 'liar'. Not that so and so got it wrong or misinterpreted events but a flat-out liar. So it is with Jennings and his analysis of especially of Parkman but also Henry Lawrence Gipson and others. In fact, he cites scholarly articles on the subject of Parkman's lack of veracity. Perhaps it so, Parkman wrote in the late 1800s, a different era, but his writing style was highly appealing to me. As to the quality of his research, I have no real idea. He is known to have done a lot of research and many others are not as dismissive. I do know that Jennings presents a very different viewpoint of the events and especially the main players of the period; Montcalm and Wolfe as the 'heroes' of Parkman are excoriated repeatedly. Both are incompetent and basically evil in the mind of Jennings. Many others of lesser and even greater rank (Cumberland, Amherst, Loudon, George Washington, even Benjamin Franklin, the latter labeled an 'imperialist' incessantly) are taken to the woodshed as well. Perhaps it is all true, the book is deeply researched and footnoted on almost every page (something I greatly prefer to having them at the back). He writes with great passion and conviction, especially when he can demonstrate racist or malign intent. Except of course the Indians, yes they committed some atrocities but nearly always that is the fault of their evil overlords. Jennings would no doubt be very popular in any University faculty today. He does present a great deal on the Indians and the incredible complexity of their political/military interactions among themselves and with the two main contenders (actually more because the individual colonies often had separate agendas). Overall, Jennings provided a needed counterweight to some existing versions of this pivotal period, but at times it is done with excess rancor. It was all a lot more complicated than maybe 'we' were told once upon a time, but then again everything is once you delve into it.
November 14, 2016
Although adequate on military matters, Jennings’ poorly organized and rather argumentative book is more about politics and the wars’ European context. Much of it is devoted to his criticisms of other books on the subject, which is mostly interesting but at times feels overdone and ill-founded, and is written in an oddly cranky tone. The book doesn't offer much new on the period, and for some reason he treats the Iroquois as a single entity, despite the disputes between the Mohawk and the other tribes (something Jennings even acknowledges).
Still, Jennings’ criticism of other historians becomes excessive and at times even humorous: Parkman is dubbed “stupidly vicious” and a “liar,” and he slams others for writing “slanted trash.” Parkman is called “a liar. He fabricated documents, misquoted others, relied almost entirely on a small set of nastily biased secondary works, and did it all to support an ideology of divisiveness and hate based on racism, bigotry, misogyny, authoritarianism, chauvinism, and upper-class arrogance.”
The narrative itself is rather enjoyable, but again there are problems, Jennings blames Braddock’s “arrogance and disastrous candor” with the Delaware chiefs for alienating the Indians. However, Braddock had been advised by Pownall to frame his expedition as an effort to protect Indian land rights, and Braddock authorized diplomatic messages that said this. The king explicitly ordered Braddock to cultivate good relations with the Indian chiefs. Warfare between the Iroquois and the Cherokee, rivalry between Christopher Gist and Richard Pearis, and the lukewarm attitude of Governor Glen all played a role. Still, Jennings insists that “the disaster was Braddock’s fault from the beginning to the end...there is absolutely no valid reason to condone this stupid brute of a man whose prime qualification for command was the the political favor of the party of royal prerogative.”
Jennings also writes that the British government only desired a standing army in North America for the sole purpose of enforcing royal power. Of course, there was also Indian “problems” in Canada, the West and Florida, and pacifying and securing these frontiers would require troops. The Board of Trade also felt that a British army could keep the peace between colonists and Indians. And, of course, in the next few years, the army would be used to collect customs duties and control American society. But these beliefs, in 1763, did not exist in clear, articulated form. He also writes that the idea that the American Revolution was the product of misunderstanding on both sides “dead wrong,” without much elaboration. He writes that the sole reason for British victory was the ascent of Pitt. And he uses a little too much slang.
An interesting work, and recommended for the enthusiast, but not without its problems.
Still, Jennings’ criticism of other historians becomes excessive and at times even humorous: Parkman is dubbed “stupidly vicious” and a “liar,” and he slams others for writing “slanted trash.” Parkman is called “a liar. He fabricated documents, misquoted others, relied almost entirely on a small set of nastily biased secondary works, and did it all to support an ideology of divisiveness and hate based on racism, bigotry, misogyny, authoritarianism, chauvinism, and upper-class arrogance.”
The narrative itself is rather enjoyable, but again there are problems, Jennings blames Braddock’s “arrogance and disastrous candor” with the Delaware chiefs for alienating the Indians. However, Braddock had been advised by Pownall to frame his expedition as an effort to protect Indian land rights, and Braddock authorized diplomatic messages that said this. The king explicitly ordered Braddock to cultivate good relations with the Indian chiefs. Warfare between the Iroquois and the Cherokee, rivalry between Christopher Gist and Richard Pearis, and the lukewarm attitude of Governor Glen all played a role. Still, Jennings insists that “the disaster was Braddock’s fault from the beginning to the end...there is absolutely no valid reason to condone this stupid brute of a man whose prime qualification for command was the the political favor of the party of royal prerogative.”
Jennings also writes that the British government only desired a standing army in North America for the sole purpose of enforcing royal power. Of course, there was also Indian “problems” in Canada, the West and Florida, and pacifying and securing these frontiers would require troops. The Board of Trade also felt that a British army could keep the peace between colonists and Indians. And, of course, in the next few years, the army would be used to collect customs duties and control American society. But these beliefs, in 1763, did not exist in clear, articulated form. He also writes that the idea that the American Revolution was the product of misunderstanding on both sides “dead wrong,” without much elaboration. He writes that the sole reason for British victory was the ascent of Pitt. And he uses a little too much slang.
An interesting work, and recommended for the enthusiast, but not without its problems.
August 8, 2023
Historian and author Francis Jennings leads the reader on a journey across the years before and shortly after the series of conflicts in North America that engaged the French, the English, the Native Americans, and the French and English colonists in a series of wars that intertwined with those in Europe between these and other powers. Into the 520 pages of my paperpack copy, he has packed 484 pages of main text with extensive footnotes, a 23 page bibliography, a dozen maps, and a few illustrations. There is far more detail in this volume about the role played by the Native Americans and their internal contests and struggles amongst themselves as they struggled to put off the inevitable loss of their lands to the colonists and the powers of Europe. Since 1493 they had learned one key lesson about this unequal contest, whenever they surrendered an inch to the advancing wave of settlement they inevitably lost a mile or more. But the other key story told here is that of the struggle between colonists in the New World trying to retain the control they have earned over their own affairs while England dealt with the various Stuarts, the Puritan Commonwealth, the 'Glorious Revolution', and other challenges that distracted them putting those troublesome colonies across the Atlantic into some sort of order that would benefit England. Frankly, if you pick up any book on this era published after 1990, and do not find this book in the bibliography, put it back on the shelf.
August 12, 2017
This book reveals the crucial importance of the Indians as allies to both European empires during the seven Years’ War. Jennings argues that the Indian participation on British side was a crucial factor for the final victory. He refutes the term ‘French and Indian War’, because it implies that Indians fought only as French Allies. “If that had been true,” argues Jennings, “France would have won.” (p. XV).
October 27, 2014
Skimmed.Comprehensive beyond my needs.
Independent conclusions are very interesting.
Opinionated.
Does not like Francis Parkman.
Was Washington a land-grabber?
Exquisite detail of native American roles and motivations expected from director of Newberry Library Center for the History of the American Indian.
Chapter 8. Acadia / Nova Scotia succinct.
Chapter 9 The backwoods and Chapter 10. Ignorant armies -- both enlightening.
Independent conclusions are very interesting.
Opinionated.
Does not like Francis Parkman.
Was Washington a land-grabber?
Exquisite detail of native American roles and motivations expected from director of Newberry Library Center for the History of the American Indian.
Chapter 8. Acadia / Nova Scotia succinct.
Chapter 9 The backwoods and Chapter 10. Ignorant armies -- both enlightening.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews