Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power

The main reason to read Ferguson's Empire is to learn more about this strange beast, mostly ignored or derided over the last half-century. An empire has its own circulatory system, its own way of extending its arms, and has not really been treated as a serious subject for decades. It provides another way of studying the history of globalization, and offers a coherent approach not available through other means. But does the subject have the vividness and drama to sustain a coffee table tome? And can an Oxford historian whose claim to fame has been two 400-page volumes on an 18th century Jewish banker make it worth reading? Is this thing worth the exertion to heft, let alone finance? And why should Americans even care about somebody else's past glories? The book provides its own answer: it is worthwhile on every count. Indeed the subject grips you, the story is told dramatically, the plot twists and turns, there are lively characters. The text breaths, like something delivered energetically in a lecture hall, with passion. The pictures are a beautiful complement to what you read. From chapter one through the last, Empire reads well, informing as it entertains. On that basis alone the work is worth reading, and given the cost, worth owning (and flaunting) for a long time. But does it actually make the case that the Empire helped the U.K. and the world as a whole? This matter seeps through the body of the text, but steps forward in both the introduction and conclusion. And further, an additional matter thrusts itself forward: should the U.S. take heed of this history and assume the imperial mantle, though it does not seem to want it or show much promise of carrying it well, given its short attention span and allegiance to "democratic traditions?" It is this issue of Empire's worth and the U.S.'s potential imperial role that has driven this book and its author into the limelight. The argument is not made in the body of the text, but instead surfaces there only in a few places with a more forceful articulation in the introduction and conclusion. Ferguson admits a fondness for empire in the introduction, and the conclusion adds an American angle. One can appreciate an excellent work of history, and then address this application of history within a philosophical argument about the British past and the American future. You can feel reasonably well armed for the debate on reading the body of the text, and can have some fun with the political argument. So despite its bulk and museum-like quality, Empire can serve as a springboard for serious thought and discussion. Not a bad way to spend at bit of time!

Niall Ferguson at his best, condensing four centuries or so in a readable book. The British empire was not by smart design but an ad hoc concoction of trading outposts and colonies that evolved to a centrally ruled, geographically dispersed entity under the crown. The author analyzes the forces that kept it together as well as the reasons that led to its disintegration in the clash with other empires in the twentieth century. This is probably the weakest argument in the book since that British fought other empires until then successfully. It may be the sheer size of the conflict and its lethality that exposed the British Empire and had Churchill begging like Fala at FDRs doorstep. Or it maybe that the US had too many strategic and economic advantages that the British could not challenge and as a result the transition to the new hegemony under the US was a peaceful one. It is very clear that the US aimed for the disintegration of the Empire at the Bretton Woods conference. There was no lack of opportunism, adventurism and greed. The British used their technological and financial prowess to control the seas. Naval power was the glue that kept far distant territories together. The British never found gold and silver to plunder like the Spaniards and so they had to work harder at it. It is always a mystery to me, how the British governed the Indian subcontinent of 350mm people with 1000 administrators and 65,000 troops. The author theorizes but I don't think the answer is complete. The write up on the colonization of Africa is superb, specially the description of the religious climate at home. The author sprinkles the narrative with economic data and that makes his arguments more convincing. Overall a worthwhile read.

I almost didn't purchase this book, because some professional reviewers denigrated it as an "apology" for the British Empire. I'm glad I didn't listen to those reviewers and, after reading the book, I'm puzzled that anyone could come to that conclusion. Professor Ferguson spends a good portion of the book detailing many of the negative aspects of the Empire- the condescending and racist attitudes, frequently, that were displayed by the British towards subject peoples; the excessive use of force (literally, overkill) in places such as Omdurman (where the British, and their Egyptian and Sudanese auxilliaries, used Maxim machine guns to mow down their Islamic fundamentalist opponents, who were generally armed with rifles and swords. The fundamentalist forces had about 35,000 men killed, while the British lost about 400.) and Amritsar, India (where, in 1919, the British forces broke up a peaceful demonstration by firing on unarmed civilians and killing 379 and injuring 1,500 of them). Professor Ferguson also does not sweep British behavior during the Boer War under the historical carpet. He discusses the concentration camps the British set up to detain the wives and children of Boer soldiers. Conditions, especially in the beginning, were horrendous and many of the women and children died from hunger and disease. (When Sir Nevile Henderson complained to Goering about the Nazi concentration camps, Goering leapt at the chance to take out a German encyclopaedia which, under the entry for concentration camp, said this: "First used by the British in the South African War"). This being said, Professor Ferguson doesn't fail to point out some of the positive accomplishments of the Empire- the introduction of free trade to areas that otherwise would have engaged in protectionism; improvement in the living standards in many of the colonial areas, due to the above and also due to British investment in underdeveloped areas; the creation of infrastructure and the introduction of democracy and Western legal principles, etc. The thing that disturbs me about some of the professional reviews of this book is the tendency to see things in black and white. Empire is bad, and that's all there is to say. Well, most things in life are not black and white. Professor Ferguson spends the majority of the book outlining the bad aspects of the Empire, and he uses maybe 25% of the book to discuss the good things. This book is analytical, well-written (Professor Ferguson has an easy, breezy, informal style and, which is always a bonus in a book written by an academic, a refreshing sense of humor), and thought-provoking. There are also many wonderful color and black-and-white photographs which complement the text nicely. The only reason I didn't give the book 5 stars is that the ending is a bit weak. The book's subtitle is "The Rise And Demise Of The British World Order And The Lessons For Global Power." The conclusion is supposed to provide the lessons, but doesn't. Professor Ferguson makes the mistake of trying to make the book "relevant" to today. He should have left well-enough alone and stuck to just talking about the Empire. He makes the obvious point that the United States is the only nation capable today of having a position of global power equivalent to the position Britain used to hold. Fair enough. But what should the U.S. do with this power? Aye, there's the rub! Professor Ferguson doesn't really know, so he tosses in some vague generalities. He questions whether "...the dissemination of Western 'civilization'...can safely be entrusted to Messrs Disney and McDonald." He goes on to say, "But it (America) is an empire that lacks the drive to export its capital, its people and its culture to those backward regions which need them most urgently and which, if they are neglected, will breed the greatest threats to its security." Well, maybe we should ask some of the people in those "backward" places what THEY want. They probably would like the capital...I'm not so sure about wanting our people and our culture. This whole subject needs a book of its own (probably many books) for a proper discussion. My key point is that Professor Ferguson does himself a disservice by tossing off comments like this, which come across as afterthoughts...especially after the clockwork, smooth analysis which flows through the rest of the book. Still, overall, this is an excellent book for anyone who wants a well-balanced and comprehensive account of the rise and fall of the British Empire.

First, prospective buyers should understand that this is NOT a history of the British Empire, but rather reflections on the empire, and its implications for the modern world, particularly the United States. It is more like a graduate school History seminar in book form, largely set out in fascinating and apt anecdotes, and generously, but never obtrusively, illustrated with a wonderful selection of maps, photos and paintings. Thus, it presumes a fair amount of knowledge of world, and especially British, history. And although I consider myself quite knowledgeable in these matters, I was surprised and delighted with facts and stories I had never come across before, or, perhaps better stated, had never viewed from Ferguson's particular angle. Don't for a minute believe the book is merely the excuse for the TV series: it stands on its own as a refreshing and perceptive treatment of an age that is gone, but on the grand wheel of history, may come again. Ferguson rolls out a parade of small stories and forces the reader, in a most gentle and enjoyable way, to think big. If that single attribute doesn't denote a worthwhile history book, I don't know what does. You won't regret the read.

Niall Ferguson does a good job of presenting the “good aspects of the colonial era”, if there is such a thing. Overall he does convincingly argue that in the 20th century as competition between different empires increased. The British empire offered a better alternative to what could have been if Germany or Japan won WWII for example. Financing a empire as large as Britain’s ultimately became too expensive. But at the end of the day with issues that really mattered, as far as universal values are concerned the British held the line and did the right thing.

I must say that I learned more and was compelled to stop and think more times by this book than any I have read in a while. I am sure it will enrage many. But they will most angry because they find difficulty refuting Ferguson’s arguments.

This is a kind of casual time wasting stroll with a chipper professor of no great consequence, with his good decorum, correct opinions (eugenics is "snake-oil science", Kitchener was a butcher etc.) and dreadful witticims (on fishing being more important than religion in early Mass. "it was cod not God"). Fergie has some interesting stuff on the beginnings of Empire (stealing gold from the Spanish) and how the heck Britain acquired India in the early days (by way of the East India Company, kind of an old day Halliburton with a private army). However past about 1880 it all becomes rather slipshod, complete with the oft regurgitated Churchill's personal observations on the Boer War and Sudan (if you have read "The Last Lion" by William Manchester you'll recognise the quotations) and stuff that seems clearly lifted from "A Peace to End all Peace" (albeit this is speculation as footnotes and citations of quoted materials are clearly not for philosopher kings like Mr Ferguson). Also before you drink the Kool Aid of Fergie's lofty ideals of an American Reich around the globe, take a reality pill from Pat Buchanan - 'A Republic, Not an Empire' or "Where the Right Went Wrong" are both excellent rebuttals of mushy globalism.

In the world today those nations who were once ruled by British Law are far better off then those ruled by nations that have never had respect for human rights, private property or the rule of law. Britain set the stage for much of what the modern free world takes for granted today. British rule was never perfect but it tops all other forms of high governance!