steelcitygator's review
4.0
A remarkably look at the time and place of British overseas (mostly) failures from Yorktown to Thatcher, I commend Piers Brendon for the work. It's funny in a way, my random book picker from my TBR list gave me [book:The History of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Complete and Unabridged|30622234] only a few months before this. Cosmic in a way considering the way Brendon uses it as a through line throughout the work.
Firstly, I must give the author make 800 pages of text so engaging. I often read reference books of various length and have 2 or 3 a year that inch toward 1K+ and I will confidently say that few do such a good job on those points. The one area it seems to bog down a bit is a few chapter stretch near the end focusing on African colonial holdings. It's fully possible the subject matter left him no choice (and considering the quality of the rest of the work I lean this way) but that span felt a bit repetitive to open the last quarter or so of the story of the Empire.
Outside that there's little to complain about. Brendon does as is stated in the title. Describing the horrors and occasional benefits, the pomp and circumstance, the HUGE personalities that occupy the government houses (though the real eccentrics are often more included to be foot men carving paths through desserts, jungles, and mountains). I highly recommend it to anyone that has interest in the subject. My only real question would be why The Troubles didn't get a serious mention in the latter stages considering the importance of Irish independence in the narrative of British colonialism.
Firstly, I must give the author make 800 pages of text so engaging. I often read reference books of various length and have 2 or 3 a year that inch toward 1K+ and I will confidently say that few do such a good job on those points. The one area it seems to bog down a bit is a few chapter stretch near the end focusing on African colonial holdings. It's fully possible the subject matter left him no choice (and considering the quality of the rest of the work I lean this way) but that span felt a bit repetitive to open the last quarter or so of the story of the Empire.
Outside that there's little to complain about. Brendon does as is stated in the title. Describing the horrors and occasional benefits, the pomp and circumstance, the HUGE personalities that occupy the government houses (though the real eccentrics are often more included to be foot men carving paths through desserts, jungles, and mountains). I highly recommend it to anyone that has interest in the subject. My only real question would be why The Troubles didn't get a serious mention in the latter stages considering the importance of Irish independence in the narrative of British colonialism.
thehoserpolice's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
2.75
Comprehensive history of British colonialism. Interesting read, but I often found it to be a bit meandering.
librarianonparade's review against another edition
4.0
There are innumerable clichés about the British Empire - that it was acquired in a fit of absent-mindedness by shopkeepers, that it was dismantled in a relatively benign manner, that on the whole it was the best of the Empires. Reading this book I'm not sure I can agree with any of those statements.
Spanning the years from 1781, just after the loss of the American colonies, up to 1997 and the handover of Hong Kong, this book is effectively one long history of acquisitiveness, greed, oppression, brutality and hypocrisy. I was quite shocked, to tell the truth. British colonial history never formed part of the syllabus at any point in my schooling, so I've never really known much about the Empire past Kipling and 'the white man's burden', the sun 'never setting on the British Empire' and the lingering legacy of the Commonwealth.
The most striking hallmark of the British Empire was, for me, the inherent hypocrisy at its very heart. The enduring claim was that Britain had a 'duty of care' to protect and nurture these colonies until they could mature to independence - an incredibly patronising attitude to begin with. But in actuality the Empire was far more about exploiting these colonies for our own benefits than any interest or duty to its native inhabitants.
The shadow of Rome hangs over this book like a cloud. All of the imperialists were incredibly aware of the fate of Rome, and the idea that the mother-nation would inevitably fall along with the Empire helps to explain a lot of the attitudes found in this book. What of Rome now, the imperialists would say. What of Macedonia and Egypt and Greece? They had a mortal fear of Britannia's decline and the notion of Empire was incredibly bound up in that. That Britannia still stands, more or less, whilst our Empire has long gone, bar a few rocky outposts that still prove a thorn in the side (say, the Falklands), is more a testament to the modern era than anything politicians, capitalists and imperialists did.
To be honest, it's a miracle any nation wants to be a part of the Commonwealth. With that kind of colonial legacy I'm amazed they want anything to do with 'Great' Britain.
Spanning the years from 1781, just after the loss of the American colonies, up to 1997 and the handover of Hong Kong, this book is effectively one long history of acquisitiveness, greed, oppression, brutality and hypocrisy. I was quite shocked, to tell the truth. British colonial history never formed part of the syllabus at any point in my schooling, so I've never really known much about the Empire past Kipling and 'the white man's burden', the sun 'never setting on the British Empire' and the lingering legacy of the Commonwealth.
The most striking hallmark of the British Empire was, for me, the inherent hypocrisy at its very heart. The enduring claim was that Britain had a 'duty of care' to protect and nurture these colonies until they could mature to independence - an incredibly patronising attitude to begin with. But in actuality the Empire was far more about exploiting these colonies for our own benefits than any interest or duty to its native inhabitants.
The shadow of Rome hangs over this book like a cloud. All of the imperialists were incredibly aware of the fate of Rome, and the idea that the mother-nation would inevitably fall along with the Empire helps to explain a lot of the attitudes found in this book. What of Rome now, the imperialists would say. What of Macedonia and Egypt and Greece? They had a mortal fear of Britannia's decline and the notion of Empire was incredibly bound up in that. That Britannia still stands, more or less, whilst our Empire has long gone, bar a few rocky outposts that still prove a thorn in the side (say, the Falklands), is more a testament to the modern era than anything politicians, capitalists and imperialists did.
To be honest, it's a miracle any nation wants to be a part of the Commonwealth. With that kind of colonial legacy I'm amazed they want anything to do with 'Great' Britain.
dcunning11235's review against another edition
4.0
This book was dense. I liked it, but it took me 2+ months to read it (granted, with much else going on).
It's definitely one of those books written from the stance that there are no good guys in history. Well, people that do good, but... Eh.
Very interesting; while the US has never had the colonial reach of GB, there are definitely some parallels (some). In that thread, it is interesting to become aware of ones own thinking following earlier reflections re: The decline of Romam Empire --> The decline of the British Empire --> The decline of the US... Hegemony.
But dense!
It's definitely one of those books written from the stance that there are no good guys in history. Well, people that do good, but... Eh.
Very interesting; while the US has never had the colonial reach of GB, there are definitely some parallels (some). In that thread, it is interesting to become aware of ones own thinking following earlier reflections re: The decline of Romam Empire --> The decline of the British Empire --> The decline of the US... Hegemony.
But dense!
librarianonparade's review against another edition
4.0
There are innumerable clichés about the British Empire - that it was acquired in a fit of absent-mindedness by shopkeepers, that it was dismantled in a relatively benign manner, that on the whole it was the best of the Empires. Reading this book I'm not sure I can agree with any of those statements.
Spanning the years from 1781, just after the loss of the American colonies, up to 1997 and the handover of Hong Kong, this book is effectively one long history of acquisitiveness, greed, oppression, brutality and hypocrisy. I was quite shocked, to tell the truth. British colonial history never formed part of the syllabus at any point in my schooling, so I've never really known much about the Empire past Kipling and 'the white man's burden', the sun 'never setting on the British Empire' and the lingering legacy of the Commonwealth.
The most striking hallmark of the British Empire was, for me, the inherent hypocrisy at its very heart. The enduring claim was that Britain had a 'duty of care' to protect and nurture these colonies until they could mature to independence - an incredibly patronising attitude to begin with. But in actuality the Empire was far more about exploiting these colonies for our own benefits than any interest or duty to its native inhabitants.
The shadow of Rome hangs over this book like a cloud. All of the imperialists were incredibly aware of the fate of Rome, and the idea that the mother-nation would inevitably fall along with the Empire helps to explain a lot of the attitudes found in this book. What of Rome now, the imperialists would say. What of Macedonia and Egypt and Greece? They had a mortal fear of Britannia's decline and the notion of Empire was incredibly bound up in that. That Britannia still stands, more or less, whilst our Empire has long gone, bar a few rocky outposts that still prove a thorn in the side (say, the Falklands), is more a testament to the modern era than anything politicians, capitalists and imperialists did.
To be honest, it's a miracle any nation wants to be a part of the Commonwealth. With that kind of colonial legacy I'm amazed they want anything to do with 'Great' Britain.
Spanning the years from 1781, just after the loss of the American colonies, up to 1997 and the handover of Hong Kong, this book is effectively one long history of acquisitiveness, greed, oppression, brutality and hypocrisy. I was quite shocked, to tell the truth. British colonial history never formed part of the syllabus at any point in my schooling, so I've never really known much about the Empire past Kipling and 'the white man's burden', the sun 'never setting on the British Empire' and the lingering legacy of the Commonwealth.
The most striking hallmark of the British Empire was, for me, the inherent hypocrisy at its very heart. The enduring claim was that Britain had a 'duty of care' to protect and nurture these colonies until they could mature to independence - an incredibly patronising attitude to begin with. But in actuality the Empire was far more about exploiting these colonies for our own benefits than any interest or duty to its native inhabitants.
The shadow of Rome hangs over this book like a cloud. All of the imperialists were incredibly aware of the fate of Rome, and the idea that the mother-nation would inevitably fall along with the Empire helps to explain a lot of the attitudes found in this book. What of Rome now, the imperialists would say. What of Macedonia and Egypt and Greece? They had a mortal fear of Britannia's decline and the notion of Empire was incredibly bound up in that. That Britannia still stands, more or less, whilst our Empire has long gone, bar a few rocky outposts that still prove a thorn in the side (say, the Falklands), is more a testament to the modern era than anything politicians, capitalists and imperialists did.
To be honest, it's a miracle any nation wants to be a part of the Commonwealth. With that kind of colonial legacy I'm amazed they want anything to do with 'Great' Britain.
More...