The Rise & Fall of the British Empire

by Lawrence James

THE RISE AND FALL OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE covers the history of British expansion overseas from the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries. Narrative and analysis are interwoven with revealing eyewitness quotation to provide keen insight into the minds of those involved in conquering, settling and ruling the greatest Empire the world has seen. Throughout, there are consistant themes; the search for profit and the moral misgivings it generated; domestic developments which made imperial expansion desirable; and the sense of national and personal destiny felt by the empire-builders. Spanning four centuries and six continents, James' magnificent survey examines the imperial experience and its legacy with tremendous verve. Informed, comprehensive and perceptive, it is the essential summary of the era. 'James' epic is not only a first-rate narrative, but also a penetrating portrait of the British...Having largely, if often inadvertently, selfishly or ham-fistedly, engineered the world we live in, we need the courage now to face up to our record as coolly and intelligently as Lawrence James has done' - John Spurling, TLS

Genres: History, Nonfiction, British Literature, European History, World History, India, Politics

714 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1994

About the author

Edwin James Lawrence, most commonly known as Lawrence James, is an English historian and writer.

James graduated with a BA in English & History from the University of York in 1966, and subsequently undertook a research degree at Merton College, Oxford. Following a career as a teacher, James became a full-time writer in 1985.

James has written several works of popular history about the British Empire, and has contributed pieces for Daily Mail, The Times and the Literary Review.

Reviews

[Maureen · Rating 2 out of 5]

once into this book it becomes impossible to sustain; the author is hell-bent to present british imperialism as a) different from the (bad) imperialism of others and b) provided a noble service of preparing hapless fools for self government. Britain was no tyrant, but a good parent... noblesse oblige oozes from these pages; they provide a gloss thick as butter on even the opium trade.. it was impossible to finish this "spin" piece, for it made me gag. There are few errors of comision, but the errors of omission are rampant. Best read for what it tells about the self-complacency of the imperial mindset . . . how easily the average human can gloss over any, even every, pecadillo/shame/gross misconduct... in this respect, very revealing and disturbing

[KOMET · Rating 5 out of 5]

In writing this critique, I must advise any prospective reader to brace him/herself for a long stretch, for this is a weighty and comprehensive book about one of the most extraordinary empires that ever existed.

In the case of the British Empire, it did not come into being as part of a deliberate plan from one nation to dominate a large corner of the globe. The Empire's origins are to be found in Elizabethan England, in which a poor nation barely recovered from a prolonged period of internal dissention and external threats from Imperial Spain, began to reach out to both the Americas and India to establish trade and markets. Eventually, over time, as England grew and prospered and gave rise to Great Britain, the trade concessions in India and the growth of its land holdings in the Americas and the West Indies in the 17th & 18th centuries would act as springboards (notwithstanding the occasional setbacks, such as the loss of the American colonies in 1783) to an extensive network of colonies and protectorates that straddled the globe by the 1930s. This book also provides revealing analyses as to why the Empire declined and fell as Britain herself (after 1945) could no longer afford to be a major player on the world stage.

This is a book only for the serious student of history. I highly recommend it.

[Aaron Million · Rating 4 out of 5]

The British empire once had its claws everywhere. Starting with its own islands, it spanned the entire globe: North America, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and the Far East. It was the preeminent world power in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Control of the seas was paramount in the time before air travel, and Britain had it. Lawrence James has written an easily-readable book that takes readers around the world and through several centuries.

Being an island nation, Great Britain knew that, to some extent, it would need to rely on trade in order to survive. What better way to do that than trade with yourself? How do you do that? Take possession of other countries and islands! Once you have done that, then trade routes needed to be established. Of course, it had competitors: the French, the Dutch, the Spanish, the Portuguese, and to a lesser extent the Russians and even later on, the Germans. In these times, Britain was usually at war with one or more of these countries - most often France, with Spain a close second. Great Britain was ultimately stronger than all of them, although as the empire increased the British had to form alliances with some of its former enemies in order to fend off some of the other countries. Which meant that they were often going from being aligned with, say, Spain, to suddenly forming an agreement with Russia. The goal was to stay stronger than whoever the adversary of the day was. Most frequently this was France, as it was a quite formidable power in its own right. By the latter 18th century Spain was somewhat of a decaying empire, and neither the Dutch nor the Portuguese were strong enough any longer to legitimately challenge the British on their own.

But eventually the empire became too big. Even with temporary alliances, the British empire was so far-flung that the British simply did not have the manpower and the materiel to be able to defend it. There were only so many ships that could be built, and so many sailors who could manage the ships. Too, not every administrator of a colony was the best. And Parliament itself often hampered the empire by misjudging the determination of peoples within the empire, with what became the United States being a case in point.

There were two other factors that heavily contributed to the eventual dissolution of the empire: arrogance and racism. Sometimes the two went together, sometimes not. The British thought they knew what was best for the lands that they possessed, no matter how far from the British Isles they were. And they didn't like being challenged on that either. The British looked down on the American colonists, thinking them inferior in character to themselves. The British looked down on Australia, not being able to outgrow the thinking that it was a penal colony and not much more. The British misjudged the religious differences in the Canadian province of Quebec. And this is with white people!

When it came to minorities, such as in India or Hong Kong, racism reared its ugly head. Well-born British aristocrats and officers were never going to take orders or even suggestions from people whom they felt to be their mental and physical inferiors. There was this arrogant sense of moral superiority running through Britain's dealings with its African settlements such as in Nigeria. British imperialism was at its worst when dealing with anyone who was non-white. Also, it should be noted that Britain did not ultimately leave somewhere such as Egypt because they saw the light and decided that the people actually living there should determine their own fates. No, it was because they were either forced out or could not longer muster enough money and manpower to control it. The Suez crisis in 1956 is an example of this. Britain did not like that they had lost control of the Suez Canal after already having to get out of Egypt, and they wanted to force their way back in. The Prime Minister at the time, Anthony Eden, decided to concoct a scheme whereby Israel would invade Egypt, and then France and Great Britain would rush in to stop it, and then Britain would just stay and take over management of the Canal. This was sort of the last gasp of the empire at this point, following two world wars that greatly depleted Britain's power and influence.

About those wars: James does not spend as much time on them as you might think. Britain's power was already beginning to wane by the time WWI came about. But it was still mighty strong, and it managed to help France. along with some assistance from Italy, hold off Germany for three bloody years before U.S. entry into the war helped to seal Germany's fate. But Britain suffered a lot. Britain lost 702,000 men in that conflict, with another 1.67 million wounded. And that is just Britain, not any of its Dominions (as Canada, New Zealand, India, South Africa and Australia came to be referred to as) or colonies. That is a gigantic loss of life. Really an entire generation of young men just wiped out. It is sort of amazing that Britain managed to survive and keep at least most of its empire intact in the following two decades, until WWII almost broke it. Literally and figuratively. But as James writes on page 455: "What had happened was that Britain's reputation as a global power had somehow outlived its actual strength in terms of wealth and economic capacity."

Unlike WWI, Britain found itself alone to face a mighty Germany once France folded in 1940. Quite frankly, I am not an admirer of Winston Churchill, but his wartime leadership just cannot be ignored. I'm not sure how he kept Britain together. He was almost out of money, his ships were being sunk by German submarines, his men were being killed, London was being bombed, and yet somehow he managed to keep Britain fighting strong enough to hang on until the Soviet Union was attacked by Hitler and thus came over to the British side, and then America after Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan. It is scary to contemplate what the world would look like today had Churchill not been Prime Minister then, and absolutely refused to surrender no matter how much damage Germany inflicted. Nonetheless, for purposes of the British empire, this just about killed it. After the war, Britain was bankrupt, the U.S. was now the preeminent world power, with the Soviet Union right behind it. And, importantly, people in these other countries no longer wish to be subjugated to what some out of touch Lord in London decided was best for them.

There were a few curious omissions. James does not discuss the War of 1812 at all. That was surprising to me, as the primary motivation for the U.S. going to war then was to take possession of Canada, which was a significant part of the British empire. Perhaps James side-stepped the conflict because it did not result in either an expansion or contraction of the empire. And perhaps it does not occupy as much of a place in British history as it does in American (and that is not saying much, as that is a largely forgotten war here) because Washington, D.C. - not London - was the capital city that was sacked and burned.

Nor does James talk about any Antarctic and Artic expeditions. Not a single word. Britain financed many such voyages of discovery in an effort to plant its flag in frozen tundra. Nor was it the only empire to attempt to do so. Maybes James's thinking is that the empire never actually expanded into either pole, so there was no reason to include it in what is already a large book. And perhaps he is right to do so: this is not a book about exploration.

There is a lot in this book, much of which I did not cover here. There are simply too many places to discuss, unless I want my review to run on and on. It is a good book, supplemented with many maps showing the empire at various stages, although I would have preferred a few more towards the end to show the decreasing footprint of the empire. Also, I learned what the terms "hugger mugger" and "wormwood" mean, as James used both repeatedly!

Grade: B+

[Tariq Mahmood · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this comprehensive book on the start and end of the great British Empire, Lawrence has managed to capture the cultural, moral, economic and political changes in Britain and their Empire. The rise is explained well but the fall felt a bit rushed. Maybe because of my background is from a former colony while the author hails from the mother ship?
The Empire was built on sea power and was lost when Americans and the Russians used their superior Air and conventional forces might to elbow their way to the top. It would have been extremely interesting to have a chapter to compare the British Empire with the other European Empires like the fate of French and the Portugese. Also, he could have analysed the cultural effect of the empire on the psyche of the British public in a bit more detail.

What I never knew before was the extent of American propoganda against the colonising European powers which makes perfect sense as they wanted to replace these ex powers as well as fight off the Russians for the top slot. The British have since their loss against the Egyptians nicely found a niche as American advisors and yes men. Not only the British but the French are trying to fight the British for the top poodle position.

This book has really made me understand the current political situation.

[Jim Graham · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a former Brit army officer I picked this up expecting a right royal, late-20th century revisionist empire bashing. I was wrong. I found this book to offer excellent insight into the condition of empire, and despite a reasonable understanding of Britain's exploits overseas, James' book provided me with a context I hadn't found elsewhere. Thoroughly enjoyable. A time well described.

[SA · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is truly epic in nature. Lengthy, it guides the reader through the entirety of the British empire. The focus is primarily around the government/business sector, with the social attitudes of British citizens and colonists also getting sufficient treatment. worth noting that what is rarely discussed are royal ongoings.

James is splendid on many levels. The research is both thorough and detailed. The social history is beautifully intertwined with the history. The book is broken down first on a chronological level, then into geography, making such an expansive amount of information fit neatly into compartmentalized sections. As far as I can tell, it is a very objective account of the British empire. This perspective was good for me, as my study of WWI & WWII had a definitively Ameri-centric flavor.

In many respects, I feel like I have a much better global perspective now that I have digested this history -- particularly in Africa, the middle east and south Asia. And James' telling of the tale is more than adequate. His writing style is very atpical of traditional non-fiction. The vocabulary is wide and does well to express the granular detail intertwined in Britain's history.

One point to make: this work is not exactly an easy read. it's not difficult, but the language combined with the length make it "a chore" at times. in chapters where I had a great interest, I moved swiftly. other chapters, not so much. It is definitely not a work of non-fiction, such as those by McCullough or Larsen, that read like a novel. All this said, it was clearly not the author's intent to turn history into a true novel. It is what it is -- an excellent, thorough and detailed treatment of "The Rise and Fall of the British Empire."

[Chase Parsley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book about the British Empire (i.e. its colonies, global struggles, etc.) that any world history teacher or history buff ought to read. As an American, I really appreciated the British perspective.

The book covers a lot of ground since it begins in 1600 and ends in the 1990s. Some of the parts I liked best included: the many wars with rival France from the late 1600s to the early 1800s, how British colonizers saw themselves as "the good guys" who spread civilization, commerce and law to natives across the world (this is of course in contrast to US classroom example of a tyrannical Britain that led the US to Revolution in the 1770s), the bitter debate within GB about what sort of Empire it should be (i.e. whether the Empire should work alongside the natives or instead be leaders/bosses of the natives), how Ireland and then Egypt threw off the British yoke between WWI and WWII, and the jingoism and racism of the early 1900s.

All in all this is a wonderful history lesson that shed much light, and I highly recommend it to any history fans out there.

[Stephanie Carr · Rating 5 out of 5]

That was good. Easy to read. Easy to follow. And for anytime I couldn't find a map in the book, it wasn't too hard to go to google. I learned so much from reading this. Stuff I'd never learned in school. I don't think I learned must of anything about the British Empire in school honestly, except for as it concerned America...

One thing I appreciate is now I actually understand more of the whole history that led African states to where they are, and the same with the Middle East. (And agh, I had no idea Pakistan was part of India once like, no one ever told me that lol)

Speaking of India. Wow. So much for me to learn there.

I like how there's a lot of care taken when discussing how Britain wanted to (eventually) grant independence to its colonies (under a time table in which considerations were made for how long it would take to get them used to democracy) or bring them into the Commonwealth and some places had so much more trouble with that transition than others. (Like goodness, the whole Pakistan/India divide and the religious fighting that occurred because where do you even draw the borders? Not to mention problems with black and white racial issues in the places in Central and South Africa. And the Suez War with Egypt!)

I just...really understand the history behind all of these places that I was never taught. Somethings you really do just have to get out and read yourself. I might be picking up more British history books in the future. Cause whoa like there's SO MUCH to explore there. (And so much out there to pick up, as opposed to finding Japanese history books I can read in English hah)

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

The largest empire in history ended less than a century ago, yet the legacy of how it rose and how it fell will impact the world for longer than it existed. Lawrence James’ chronicles the 400-year long history of The Rise and Fall of the British Empire, from its begins on the eastern seaboard of North American spanning a quarter of the world to the collection of tiny outposts scattered across the globe.

Neither a simple nor a comprehensive history, James looks at the British Empire in the vain of economic, martial, political, and cultural elements not only in Britain but in the colonies as well. Beginning with the various settlements on the eastern seaboard of North America, James describes the various colonies and latter colonial administrators that made their way from Britain to locations around the globe which would have an impact on attitudes of the Empire over the centuries. The role of economics in not only the growth the empire but also the Royal Navy that quickly became interdependent and along with the growth of the Empire’s size the same with the nation’s prestige. The lessons of the American War of Independence not only in terms of military fragility, but also politically influenced how Britain developed the “white” dominions over the coming centuries. And the effect of the liberal, moralistic bent of the Empire to paternally watch over “lesser” peoples and teach them clashing with the bombast of the late-19th Century rush of imperialism in the last century of the Empire’s exists and its effects both at home and abroad.

Composing an overview of 400-years of history than spans across the globe and noting the effects on not only Britain but the territories it once controlled was no easy task, especially in roughly 630 pages of text. James attempted to balance the “positive” and “negative” historiography of the Empire while also adding to it. The contrast between upper-and upper-middle class Britons thinking of the Empire with that of the working-class Britons and colonial subjects was one of the most interesting narratives that James brought to the book especially in the twilight years of the Empire. Although it is hard to fault James given the vast swath of history he tackled there were some mythical history elements in his relating of the American War of Independence that makes the more critical reader take pause on if the related histories of India, South Africa, Egypt, and others do not contain similar historical myths.

The Rise and Fall of the British Empire is neither a multi-volume comprehensive history nor a simple history that deals with popular myths of history, it is an overview of how an island nation came to govern over a quarter of the globe through cultural, economic, martial, and political developments. Lawrence James’s book is readable to both general and critical history readers and highly recommended.

[Ian · Rating 4 out of 5]

A definitive single volume history, which through the extent of the British Empire and everyone else's reaction to it, pretty clearly delineates why the global map looks the way it does today. Starting with the colonisation of America and finishing with African independent nationhood, James does a fine job of explaining the economic imperatives that forged the empire, the high-minded contemporary moral justification for its existence and the global realpolitik that forced its dissolution. I felt James to be broadly sympathetic to empire without excusing the rapacious greed of some of its supposed heroes or the violence and inhumanity perpetrated in its name. He makes the valid point about how (generally) civilised the retreat from empire was, contrasting with the French exit from Algeria and the Belgians from the Congo. For all the hand-wringing guilt about exploitation in the name of the Empire, it ought to be remembered that this was a time of empire-building and if the British had not planted their flag on distant territories, some other ambitious nation would, and who can say if they would have behaved in a way more acceptable to our 21st century sensibilities. Whatever your standpoint, the story of how a tiny island became the most important country in the world is a compelling one.

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not sure what to make of this book; On the one hand I was never bored reading it, but on the other it's tough to recommend. I think the problem really just boils down to scope. The author has set himself quite an audacious task here, and I'm sad to report that it falls a bit short, on length if nothing else - chronicling the rise and fall of the worldwide British empire is a massive undertaking, and even coming in at over 600 big pages, what you have here is mostly a very high-level overview. Subjects like the Raj that could take up entire volumes themselves are distilled down to under 200 pages. The result is a good, but unfortunately shallow; I would recommend this as a first read before seeing which parts of the history described whet your appetite, then looking for books that cover those areas in more detail.
To be fair, what you do get is pretty good; its relative brevity keeps the book moving very quickly. The only other complaint I can muster is that there are a few bizarre errors in the text - numerous typos, words left out, and my personal bane, quotation marks that begin and don't end, as well as one case where there's a set of ending quotation marks without a beginning. Add this all up and you've got an interesting but not essential book. (Also works well for flatting out curved Magic cards)

[S.P. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Covering the period between the first Queen Elizabeth and the second Lawrence follows the establishment of the British Empire from a few trading outposts and reaction to Catholic Spain, through its glory days as master of the seas, to its eventual demise through the 20th Century and two very costly world wars. In the end, the Empire faded away as its people, both at home and in the colonies and dominions found other priorities and the cost financially and politically of maintaining the Empire became too much.

The Rise and Fall of the British Empire, is a great read, lots of information there which is simply not taught in British schools anymore (through misguided sensitivities IMO). I admit I may be biased, but despite the errors and mistakes made much good came out of the Empire. I think Lawrence agrees and although he never pulls his punches with regard to the dubious exploits of some of the Empires subjects he is at heart what the Americans would term ‘a patriot’.

May the Empires legacy long continue.

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a balanced, but dry, study of British imperialism from 1600 through the war in the Falklands. The focus is on the colonies and dependencies of the empire, handled period by period, region by region. Except for decisions regarding the colonies and, later, the commonwealth, little consideration is given to events in the British Isles themselves, excepting Ireland. I picked it up looking forward to an English view on the American revolution (discussed at length) and War of 1812 (hardly mentioned) as well as their perspective on the Cold War years, including the Suez invasion.

[Jay · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lawrence puts together a well written book covering a comprehensive range of the British Empire and the imperialism, colonialsm, and early phases of international capital during the reign of the Empire. Areas of historical interest covered in this book are mercantilism, the economic value of exploiting colonies in order to build the British Navy to the most powerful force on the international sea, the trans-Atalntic slave trade, and an in-depth focus on the East India Company and India. I especially found areas of great interest concerning references to slavery in Jamaica, the North American colonies, the stockholders of the East India Company (earliest form of capitalism), and the India Acts as Britain turned to the value of India after losing the North American colonies after the American Revoultion. The book also briefly mentioned the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the acquisition of Palestine by Britain (which is part of the history leading into the creation of the modern nation-state of Israel). The British in Egypt and the control over the northern flowing Nile River (Fashoda)was also discussed within the book.

(Fashoda incident short response paper that I cited Lawerence on)

At the end of the 19th century the continent of Africa was already under European colonial siege, a race termed in history as the scramble for Africa. The major European powers in Africa at the turn of the century were the British and the French, with Germany, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and Italy also engaged on the continent. The incident of Fashoda (modern Sudan) was not only a ‘diplomatically’ resolved land conflict between Britain and France, it served as a very important evolution point in imperialism.

In July 1898, the French established a military presence at Fashoda under the command of Jean-Baptiste Marchand. As a result, British forces based in the Upper Nile region moved military forces under Lord Herbert Kitchener southward into Sudan toward Fashoda.

What was the importance of Fashoda? The Importance of Fashoda is its position on the Nile, which is a Northern flowing river. From a British perspective, French forces could put gunboats in the water or even erect a dam to completely cut off the flow of water, which would be disastrous on economic, health, military levels.

Kitchener won the battle of Omdurmam against Mahdist forces on the southward movement toward Fashoda. Full scale conflict between British and French forces never erupted over Fashoda because “France stepped down” because “her ally, Russia, refused to become entangled in a dispute over a stretch of sand in the middle of Africa” [1]. The French also understood the naval superiority that the British possessed over them and did not wish to see their own foreign trade decimated again, as it had been in the 18th century, due to conflict with Britain [2].

I offer two areas for contemplation and discussion:

The fact that Britain “had the Egyptian flag rather than the British flag hoisted over Fashoda” is very interesting. Looking at this period of colonial history, we see Britain using Egypt, basically a British property yet proclaimed as an autonomous protectorate, as a puppet state for military and political actions (to achieve British economic interests). I view this as an evolution in imperialism. Just as the modern imperial actions of the United States and their allies remove regimes such as Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, only to replace them with puppet governments which they can utilize or exploit, we can look back at the British return to Egypt in 1882 and see that Britain controlled the finances, government and military of Egypt.

A few weeks back while studying Dr. Said’s orientalism, we reviewed an account of General Gordon’s evacuation mission to Khartoum (north of Fashoda). I have to give consideration to the possibility of ‘under the table’ French support, in military or economic form, to the Mahdists in their opposition against British-Egyptian southern advancement. Any thoughts on this possibility?

[1] James, Lawrence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1996), 285.

[2] James, Lawrence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1996), 285.

(East India Company short response paper that I cited Lawerence on)

The East India Company had its origins at the beginning of the 17th century under the royal charter, titled Governor and Company of Merchants of London, by Elizabeth I, in order to compete with Portuguese traders in India and the Far East. By 1708, the original joint-stock company had merged with a competing firm to create the Honorable East India Company. The company amassed wealth in a variety of trade areas that included opium, cotton, tea, indigo, and silk. By 1740, the company “was purely a commercial enterprise, which imported and exported from its factories in India”, and by the middle of the eighteenth century controlled the opium producing regions of Bengal and Bihar [1] As the company expanded its territorial control over Mysire, Hyderabad, Punjab and the Mahratha states through a display of superior technological arms, “other Indian princes chose to preserve their independence by seeking an accommodation with the Company through unequal treaties, in which they agreed to surrender revenues” [ 2] By 1815, the East India Company “owned the most powerful army in India and governed, directly and indirectly, Bengal, much of the upper Ganges basin and extensive areas of eastern and southern India”, and by the turn of the 19th century, became “principally dependent on land taxes collected from the provinces it ruled” [3] The private company found the most colonial success in the decentralization of Indian rule “where the central authority of Mughal emperors was dissolving” [4].

War, conquest and expansion also was a lucrative business which generated “profits, most of which found their way into the hands of soldiers” instead of making it “on to the Company’s reckoning sheets”[5] The obvious difference between enlisting in the Royal military and the private Company military in India was that a man could acquire a handsome “nest egg for retirement or to provide an annuity for the families at home” more easily under the enlistment of the private sector.

The export profits in Opium were also immense until, in 1799, China, under emperor Kia King, banned the importation and cultivation of opium. Prior to the Chinese ban on opium, it appears that the East India Company attempted to keep their ships out of the direct Opium trade into China by inserting middle men opium agents, who would buy it from company owned producers and processors. [6] After the turn of the century, medical studies showing the benefits of opium became popular and opium exports were shifted toward Europe and the United States.

The accumulating wealth and military power of the East India Company was a growing concern within the British government and it appears that some of the Company’s overall profits were utilized in the form of bribes to Parliament and the Bank of England, “The power the East India Company had obtained by bribing the Government, as did also the Bank of England, it was forced to maintain by bribing again, as did the Bank of England. At every epoch when its monopoly was expiring, it could only effect a renewal of its Charter by offering fresh loans and by fresh presents made to the Government.” [7]

With the loss of the American colonies after the Revolutionary War, bribes were no longer enough as the British Empire looked to rebound from their lost North American revenues. After all, the British had accumulated a great level of debt from the American Revolution and the Seven Years War before that. The India Bill was introduced in 1783 by Charles Fox and was defeated, but the following year a modified version was passed and from that point forward the British Empire began to slowly take control of the East India Company. The Company finally ended trade in 1873.

[1] James, Lawerence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1994), 123.

[2] James, Lawerence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1994), 128-29.

[3] James, Lawerence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1994), 123.

[4] James, Lawerence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1994), 124.

[5] James, Lawerence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1994), 130.

[6] Opium Throughout History. Frontline. Public Broadcasting System, WGBH, 1998. Accessed on Monday, February 18, 2013 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontli...

[7] Marx, Karl. The East India Company-Its History and Results. New-York Herald Tribune, June 24, 1853. Accessed on February 18, 2013 from http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/...

“The events of the Seven-Years-War transformed the East India Company from a commercial into a military and territorial power[122]. It was then that the foundation was laid of the present British Empire in the East. Then East India stock rose to £263, and dividends were then paid at the rate of 12 1/2 per cent. But then there appeared a new enemy to the Company, no longer in the shape of rival societies, but in the shape of rival ministers and of a rival people. It was alleged that the Company’s territory had been conquered by the aid of British fleets and’, British armies, and that no British subjects could hold territorial sovereignties independent of the Crown. The ministers of the day and the people of the day claimed their share in the “wonderful treasures” imagined to have been won by the last conquests. The Company only saved its existence by an agreement made in 1767 that it should annually pay £400,000 into the National Exchequer. But the East India Company, instead of fulfilling its agreement, got into financial difficulties, and, instead of paying a tribute to the English people, appealed to Parliament for pecuniary aid. Serious alterations in the Charter were the consequence of this step. The Company’s affairs failing to improve, notwithstanding their new condition, and the English nation having simultaneously lost their colonies in North America, the necessity of elsewhere regaining some great Colonial Empire became more and more universally felt. The illustrious Fox thought the opportune moment had arrived, in 1783, for bringing forward his famous India bill, which proposed to abolish the Courts of Directors and Proprietors, and to vest the whole Indian government in the hands of seven Commissioners appointed by Parliament. By the personal influence of the imbecile King [George III] over the House of Lords, the bill of Mr. Fox was defeated, and made the instrument of breaking down the then Coalition Government of Fox and Lord North, and of placing the famous Pitt at the head of the Government. Pitt carried in 1784 a bill through both Houses, which directed the establishment of the Board of Control, consisting of six members of the Privy Council” – Karl Marx, New York Herald Tribune (June 24, 1854)

[Sam Nicholson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very comprehensive overview of the major events of the British Empire spanning from the 17th to the 20th Century. The book focusses on elements of the changing attitudes to empire (as well as the liberal (later left-wing) vs conservative attitudes throughout the centuries), education systems, trade and conquest.

The scope of the book is immense; however, because of this large scope, it is limited in detail in key areas. For example, the coverage of the mandate of Palestine throughout the early 20th century does not consider the politicking between France and the United Kingdom, as well as glazing over key elements of the nationalist movements in the Middle East.
For a more comprehensive review of the British mandate of Palestine, I recommend James Barr “A line in the sand”. I do not have an extensive area of knowledge in this area, however, noticing this makes one think “what other details are missing”. Because of this, I would recommend this book as an extensive overview of the history British Empire and use it as a springboard for more in-depth research into specific events.

While internal politics are discussed in regards to foreign and colonial policy, domestic politics are not addressed. There is not a comprehensive coverage of the interactions between England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Ireland and Scotland are discussed in terms of immigration to the colonies and Ireland’s succession from the empire is given a chapter. However, there is little discussion of the Scottish and Welsh opinions to empire. Britain is simply treated as Britain, and domestic politics (Jacobite rebellion, Reform acts etc) are mostly mentioned as side notes to foreign/colonial events. This is certainly problematic when one considers that domestic politics between (and as a whole) the nations of the United Kingdom would have influenced foreign/colonial policy. Instead, one has to consider Britain as a single unified (apart from the traditional political splits) entity. There is, however, much more attention given to the relationship of “white colonies” (Canada, New Zealand and Australia), as single entities, to Britain.

James has given a great deal of attention to the trade/commerce of the empire. The value of trade between colonies and Britain and other powers is present within most chapters. Also, discussions of the changing economy of Britain and its position in world trade are given particular attention. Expanding the economy, protecting existing business or capturing new areas for resources are given as the pre-text to most early colonial expansion. Later, imperialism seems to be characterised by protecting existing businesses/markets. But this is true in only some cases. For example, while “gunboat diplomacy” was enacted on colonies of other major powers, smaller powers or in instances in which Britain did not want to expand (reasons for this aren’t well addressed), expansion was still warranted across Africa and the South East Asian Pacific. Expansion is presented to have occurred when the British believed themselves to be racially superior, or as a reaction the another national power (I.e., the French Saharan expansion and German politicking in South Africa). A summary of when the British deemed expansion vs gunboat diplomacy acceptable would have been appreciated.

In terms of the cultural aspects of empire and the negatives that came with it, James appears to take a rather balanced approach. It does not seem that the empire is necessarily glorified by James, although there are perhaps some comments that ought to be phrased differently. While colonial atrocities are presented, these do not seem to be covered in-depth. James also at points addresses the colonial and racial attitudes of the British colonialist (as well as the subjects and other colonial powers). Again, this is presented as “matter of fact”, and does not challenge these views. There is not much discussion on the negatives of empire and how its legacy has impacted former colonies to this day. For those who are looking for a more anti-colonial (and Indian) perspective, “Inglorious Empire” by Shashi Tharoor seems to address these issues (and will be my next read on the British Empire).

James’s coverage of the 19th Century schooling attitudes and how they shaped the characters of the empire is certainly interesting. Yet, this almost alleviates the reader from criticising some the views of those characters, as simply being products of the schooling system and their time. Perhaps this is true. But, while James does address (for example) the pigheadedness of generals and politicians, he does not provide a critique of whether “British” values actually were 1) exclusively British or 2) even existed. For example, the so-described “British” value of fair-play is taken at face value. James does not provide a discussion of whether this is truly unique to Britishness. This values is also complicated by many examples in which the British did not play fairly on the international stage; yet James does not specifically identify this communal cognitive dissonance. Perhaps the British Empire was so enthralled in “spreading civilisation”, business interests or “prestige”, that fair-play went out of the window? A more scrupulous cross-examination between alleged British values and actions would have been worthwhile; however, as stated previously, this book is not particularly polemic and is ultimately interested in a “sequence of events” analysis of history.

Overall, this book is an extensive overview of the major events that lead to the rise and fall of the British Empire. A great deal of research has obviously gone into this book. However, its scope is also often its Achilles heel, limiting more in-depth information or discussion of key topics. I recommend this book as an overview of the major events that shaped the empire from the 17th to 20th Century, but I would recommend other books for specifics.

[Mike Connell · Rating 4 out of 5]

James argues that the UK initially built its empire with self-reliant, G-d-fearing men supported by naval power. Greed and profit became more important in the late 18th and 19th centuries. However, British education efforts planted the seeds of the empire’s demise among non-European subjects by nourishing a desire for self-government and independence. In British settler territories, after the disaster of the American Revolution, the UK gradually granted self-government to dominions who remained remarkedly loyal to the UK until the Cold War when the U.S. replaced the UK as the dominant power. Throughout the book, James uses a lot of obscure words like “wormwood,” which required the frequent use of a dictionary.
In the 17th century, religious dissidents seeking religious liberty predominated as immigrants to the New World possessed a strong Protestant work ethic and were convinced that they were blessed by Providence and doing G-d’s work. Indigenous people were not seen as using the land to its full potential, which undermined their claim to it. Self-reliant characters such as the fictional hero Robinson Crusoe were a model.
These early settlements were greatly assisted by the rise of British sea power in a succession of conflicts against Spain, Holland, and France. Britain’s island position gave it the advantage on concentrating on naval building as opposed to land forces. The Admiralty also gained valuable strategic points to strengthen their control through the seizure of Gibraltar, the Cape, and Singapore.
The American colonists saw themselves as British and resented their lack of representation. All their traditions and folklore stemmed from their English heritage. William Pitt understood the American perspective well but failed to sway the supporters of George III who saw the colonists as ungrateful children. The lack of proper planning and coordination led to the British defeat at Saratoga, which revealed how the conflict in America differed significantly from a campaign in Europe. While Britain ended up losing their English colonies, they held off the threats from France, Spain, and Holland, and were able to preserve their control in Canada.
The subsequent expansion of the British into the South Pacific through the efforts of Captain Cook led to the creation of new settler colonies in Australia and New Zealand. The former was populated largely by convicted criminals who were sent to Botany Bay as an opportunity for their redemption. The aborigines were nearly wiped out. In New Zealand, the Maori put up a much more determined opposition and gained more respect and status for their people.
During the long-running conflict against France, French captains were warned to let Captain Cook be unhindered lest they hinder the acquisition of knowledge for the world. In defeating France, the British benefited from a much stronger financial situation that allowed them to surpass their enemies in naval power while subsidizing continental allies and even sending effective English expeditionary forces under Marlborough and Wellington. France was unable to match Britain’s financial power.
During the late 19th century, the advent of the “New Imperialism” was largely a response to threats from competitors to Britain like France, Russia, and Germany. India was always considered the key base for Britain that provided access to trade throughout South and East Asia as well as a sizeable Indian Army, a huge market for British manufactures, and a source of revenue through British collection of land taxes on the subcontinent. India made the British empire into a true empire in the Roman mold and led to increasing feelings of racial superiority along with Social Darwinism. It also made control of Egypt and the Suez Canal vital interests, which even extended to defending the source of the Nile from French incursions. Competition between the UK and Russia in Central Asia and India in the so-called Great Game was akin to a 19th century Cold War, albeit with much lower stakes.
The Boer War was a wake-up call to the British that not all colonial wars would be one-sided affairs. After the celebrated relief of Mafeking, which produced the word “mafficking” for riotous celebrations, the Boers’ guerrilla campaign was long and painful and necessitated harsh measures against the civilian population to bring about eventual British victory. To mollify the Boers, the British did not insist on allowing non-whites to have the vote, which ultimately resulted in the apartheid system in the 20th century.
In the aftermath of the war, which had revealed many British recruits were physically lacking in strength and endurance, Britain embarked on a stringent effort to enhance British schools with increased emphasis on team sports and character with less on being clever or well-read. Glorification of imperial heroes through literature and other media helped created a great deal of enthusiasm for the war in 1914. Lord Baden-Powell also created the Boy Scouts, which James noted had the motto “Be Prepared,” in terms of be ready to defend the empire. The war itself brought Britain near bankruptcy due to the high cost of war loans as well as the horrific loss of life on the Western Front. The defeat of British forces by Turks undermined the myth of European invincibility. Additionally, Wilson’s 14 points raised hopes among non-Europeans for greater rights and even self-government.
During the interwar years, the British suffered from labor problems and had to abandon free trade. Chamberlain used appeasement to gain time to rearm and mollify his enemies not unlike the British had done in the 18th and 19th century with France and Russia. However, this time, the character of fascist leaders made any concession by the British seem like weakness that led to even greater demands. After Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia, the British could not launch a Copenhagen type raid to destroy the Italian navy like they might have done in the 18th century. Now, public opinion mattered, and executive action was hampered. As a result, Britain did next to nothing, dooming the League of Nations.
Ireland also became a major theater of conflict as the Irish revolted against delays in home rule. The use of British levies in the so-called Black and Tan units treated the Irish brutally and condescendingly looked down on them. The high cost of the fighting made it too great to maintain control of Ireland through continual repression. Thus, Ireland (except for the North) gained self-government and understandably declared neutrality in the war against Hitler.
Other dominions supported UK, albeit with only lukewarm support from South Africa. It became obvious during the war that Britain was dependent on U.S. support to preserve the empire and that the Americans were uninterested in doing so, at least until the outbreak of the Cold War with Stalin. James quotes Stilwell as being disgusted with the Colonel Blimps in India who looked down on non-Europeans and did not have particularly strong credentials as warriors. The Colonel Blimp caricature developed as British opinion began to question the wisdom and viability of the empire after WWI. The colonel was portrayed as an overweight, pompous, ignorant aristocratic high-ranking officer who spouted off conservative and racist diatribes in support of colonial control.
India had been ready to explode into revolt during the war, which the Japanese had tried to encourage. Even the Burmese initially welcomed the Japanese as liberators until they realized the new invaders were much more brutal than the British. After the war, Britain did not have much choice but to give India independence as the UK did not have the means to maintain control by repression. It was already overtaxed and had mortgaged most of its overseas holdings to the U.S. in exchange for Lend-Lease aid.
The 1956 Suez crisis was a watershed for the British Empire that ultimately signaled its demise. It was a sort of last gasp of imperial power whose invading troops in Egypt referred to the Egyptians disdainfully as “wogs.” Eden felt Nasser was a Mussolini like character whom Britain should not appease. However, given the Soviet suppression of Hungary at the same time, the U.S. refused to support the unilateral actions of Britain, France, and Israel, forcing a humiliating withdrawal. It was clear that the UK could no longer act independently on the world stage without the approval and often material support of the U.S..
To maintain the air of a world power, Harold MacMillan focused on building up nuclear capability for Britain and becoming the special partner of the U.S.. He was willing to allow colonies to gain independence and join the Commonwealth. Although the colonial authorities hoped for a 25-year period of tutelage to prepare democratic practices starting from the local level on up, educated Africans and Asians were intensely nationalistic and saw themselves as the nation’s proper rulers. The threat of violence and bloodshed in the Gold Coast led to a rushed process of independence for most colonies that resulted in almost uniformly corrupt and dictatorial regimes set up by educated locals who had spent most of their time abroad before independence. Dr. Banda of Malawi, for instance, had worked as a medical practitioner in Britain for several years prior to returning to lead an anti-colonial party against British rule. These educated leaders wanted nothing to do with traditional leaders who were largely kept out of power. The British preferred to deal with those who talked and acted like they did. In Malaya, the threat of communists led to an emergency where the British convinced most subjects to support their efforts, promising them independence and self-rule.
James ends his review of British decline with the successful war waged by Margaret Thatcher in defense of the Falkland Islands. Although, he notes that Reagan provided both the OK and intelligence support for the British. Concluding, James argues that the British Empire did a lot to improve the world, despite some obvious greed, brutality, and racism, as it educated a global cadre in parliamentary government and the rule of law. Today, even some former Portuguese colonies are asking for admission to the Commonwealth. While the Commonwealth is certainly not a vibrant alliance between nations, a lot of work goes on at local and regional levels sharing technical expertise and supporting further education in developing countries. Queen Elizabeth II did a lot to support the Commonwealth by serving as a beloved and unifying symbol. James comments that it is sad that most schools are ignoring the significant role played in world history by the British Empire, except to condemn and castigate it.
In a way, although James does not directly make this point, Britain lost its empire due to the same reason Napoleon failed in Spain and Portugal—the rise of local nationalism. However, while the nationalism against France arose directly from French brutality, much of the opposition to Britain came from colonial subjects who benefited from the generous efforts of Britain to educate its subjects. In that sense, the history of the British Empire is a memory to be cherished.

[Zac Cockroft · Rating 4 out of 5]

A seemingly comprehensive review

[Aaron Kleinheksel · Rating 4 out of 5]

Just finished reading this for a 2nd time due to a trip to England. This book is just a terrific one-volume history of Imperial Britain. The author has a very good handle on the material and does a magisterial job presenting different political disputes whilst being fair to both sides.

In these days when universities continually browbeat their students with the "wickedness" of western colonialism, this book presents a balanced view of the matter, and leaves you wondering whether there aren't many nations that would be much better off today if they had only remained a colony (there are).

Today we see in America a situation where our inheritance from Great Britain in maintaining world peace is being vacated purposefully by our misguided leadership. Reading this you see how "Pax Britannica" eroded just as "Pax Americana" now is. The internal hand-wringing and navel-gazing of the British political class during the later stages of empire mirrors our own to a startling degree. My question is... who takes the baton from us when we finally and fully surrender it? I don't think we will like the answer.

[Justin Barger · Rating 4 out of 5]

what a massive book

Kind of made me a bit sad at the end, but all's well that ends well. I feel like the empire, for all its faults, really had good intentions that were squandered by local disputes (in different colonial subjects, not so much domestically, except early on during The English Civil War) over sovereignty and it made me simultaneously bitter but also somewhat of a muted pride for my own people, being an American of British descent. You can also see the evolution of the British ideas of "empire" from a conquering power (1600s-late 1700s) to an idea founded upon benevolent colonialism (the idea that England had a moral imperative to teach colonial subjects western mentalities and moralities - which lasted until from the early 1800s to the dawn of the 20th century) to when the empire looked back and ended up being more of a burden, suggesting that the best policy was a hands off policy (late 1800s-to the end of ww2 to today). so yeah, you can say this book had elements of intellectual and cultural history despite being a work of diplomatic and political history mainly.

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

James sets out a thematic approach to the evolution and evaporation of the empire. Generally each section is set into periods of time, and within this section there is usually a geographical look around the various accumulating areas of hegemony and outright empire, but always he hews closely to the themes of what the various groups of people were thinking: British government, British subjects (almost wrote citizens), and empiric locals.

I wished he had somehow included a more comprehensive review of how the various colonies/etc came into the fold, mutated within the empire, and then exited (as the case may be). After reading this, I'm sure that (a) he made a wise decision, (b) one could find such tables in old Blimp/GA Henty-esque textbooks, (c) such an approach would actually have been far more dry and reference book than this discourse.

I strongly recommend this to any anglophiles, or those inveterate travelers who wonder about how and why the British Empire grew so vast and then outgrew itself morally.

[john r baucom jr · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent "balcony" view of world history with British perspective

Excellent perspective on European and Britain's affects on the world that still influenced the events of today. I felt it gives an effective perspective on what was good and bad about imperialism. Some of the old class , racism and bigotry that was so rampant (and maybe is always) is certainly discussed . I do feel that England's better angels are fairly demonstrated as a force for good, but oh some events were terrible

[Luke Brennan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Omits the beginning of the English/British Empire in Ireland. It presents as the first attempt at a colony as happening in North America whereas in fact there were a whole series of prior efforts in Ireland, although going by the different name of 'plantations'.

Neither is he too keen on Gandhi. He is portrayed as a fluffed up self-important ingrate who refused to recognise the benevolent civilizing force of the British Empire in owning his country and people.

[Natalie Shinn · Rating 2 out of 5]

FINALLY finished this fucking book. Definitely succumbed to the sunk cost fallacy and should've quit but here we are. Wish I could say I learnt lots from the 600 odd pages besides dates of various battles led by bygone generals. Not the social history text I was hoping for, open to suggestions for more informative works on British history!

[Sean Chick · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of the more fair works about the British Empire, it is undone by its rambling and disjointed style and organization.

[Colonel Sir Cedric Wycliffe-Hawthorne · Rating 4 out of 5]

Review for The Rise and Fall of the British Empire by Lawrence James

Lawrence James’ The Rise and Fall of the British Empire is a well-rounded, perceptive exploration of one of the most powerful empires in human history. From its dominance as a maritime superpower to its decline and the eventual dissolution of its colonial holdings, this book offers a sweeping narrative of Britain’s imperial trajectory. The work is both scholarly and accessible, making it an essential read for those interested in understanding the complex forces that shaped modern geopolitics.

Key Themes and Insights:
• The British Empire’s Global Reach: James traces the evolution of the British Empire from its early maritime explorations to its rise as the most powerful colonial entity in history. The book emphasizes Britain’s strategic use of its navy, the establishment of vast trade routes, and the expansion of its territories across continents, from India to Africa and the Americas.
• Military and Economic Foundations: The book delves into the dual nature of British imperialism, examining both the military conquests and economic motivations that drove the empire’s expansion. James skillfully interweaves these themes, demonstrating how military supremacy and economic dominance were crucial to Britain’s imperial strategy.
• The Decline of Empire: A significant portion of the book is dedicated to the factors that contributed to the fall of the British Empire. James covers both the internal and external pressures, from the impact of two world wars to the rise of nationalist movements in colonies and changing political landscapes at home.
• Imperial Legacy: The book does not shy away from discussing the legacy of the British Empire, highlighting the lasting effects of colonial rule on former colonies and on Britain itself. James gives a nuanced examination of how imperialism shaped modern political and economic systems, providing readers with a critical perspective on the enduring consequences of British dominance.

Final Verdict:

James’ narrative is both comprehensive and balanced, offering readers a broad understanding of British imperial history without losing sight of the human cost and complexity of colonialism. His approach is detailed yet readable, making the book accessible to both academic and general audiences. While it provides thorough insight into Britain’s imperial past, some readers may feel that the narrative sometimes lacks the depth of analysis in certain areas, particularly when it comes to the voices of the colonized.

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (4/5) — A highly informative and thought-provoking work on the British Empire, blending historical detail with engaging storytelling, though it could have delved deeper into some areas.

[Suleman Dawood · Rating 3 out of 5]

Here's a word of advice. If a book starts with "The Rise and Fall of X", don't bother reading it. The author takes on the audacious task of summarizing the entire history of the empire in 700 pages. I don't think one could write a decent account for the British Raj in that amount of pages. But accounting for it's flawed premise. Lawrence James does incredibly well to cover all aspects of the empire, from the economic policies, domestic attitudes, internal politics as well as liberation movements. But the author's pro-Empire bias can not be ignored, he literally names a chapter "The Greatest Blessing Africa has ever known". Despite covering both pro-Empire and anti-Empire sentiments throughout history, the author does not give a good faith account of anti-imperialist struggle throughout the colonies. He glosses over the Empire's actions against the Malaysian insurgency. He mentions fringe political figures in India, who proposed alliances with Japan but Nehru's commitment to democracy against the fascists only gets one line in the book.

So yes, you are not getting an unbiased account of history neither are you getting the full picture or context of the Empire through its stages (which wouldn't have been possible anyway because of the scope being covered). However, where the book shines is its assessment of internal British politics regarding Empire. Perspectives of Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists and Imperialists are all covered and how they influenced the actions of the Empire. Because Britain was not a monolith, it was a complex entity that evolved and changed over time.

[Suleman Dawood · Rating 3 out of 5]

Here's a word of advice. If a book starts with "The Rise and Fall of X", don't bother reading it. The author takes on the audacious task of summarizing the entire history of the empire in 700 pages. I don't think one could write a decent account for the British Raj in that amount of pages. But accounting for it's flawed premise. Lawrence James does incredibly well to cover all aspects of the empire, from the economic policies, domestic attitudes, internal politics as well as liberation movements. But the author's pro-Empire bias can not be ignored, he literally names a chapter "The Greatest Blessing Africa has ever known". Despite covering both pro-Empire and anti-Empire sentiments throughout history, the author does not give a good faith account of anti-imperialist struggle throughout the colonies. He glosses over the Empire's actions against the Malaysian insurgency. He mentions fringe political figures in India, who proposed alliances with Japan but Nehru's commitment to democracy against the fascists only gets one line in the book.So yes, you are not getting an unbiased account of history neither are you getting the full picture or context of the Empire through its stages (which wouldn't have been possible anyway because of the scope being covered). However, where the book shines is its assessment of internal British politics regarding Empire. Perspectives of Liberals, Conservatives, Socialists and Imperialists are all covered and how they influenced the actions of the Empire. Because Britain was not a monolith, it was a complex entity that evolved and changed over time.

[Ankush Agarwal · Rating 3 out of 5]

Spanning approximately 750 pages, the book meticulously unfolds the entire history of the British Empire, capturing its inception, global expansion, and ultimate decline. Mr. James impressively maintains an impartial stance in his collection and presentation of historical events. The uniqueness of this literary work lies in its comprehensive exploration of the Empire's journey, skillfully organized into distinct phases and diverse geographical locations.

While the book's strength lies in its well-structured and exhaustive approach, it also reveals its most significant weakness. The transitions between historical periods lack smoothness and linearity, causing occasional jarring moments for the reader. Similarly, the arrangement of the countries under the Empire could have been more thoughtfully organized. Despite the vast documentation, the book falls short of providing sufficient depth for each country. As a reader not completely familiar with British history, I yearned for a more profound exploration of certain narratives and the inclusion of overlooked aspects to present a more engaging, story-like format.

In its current state, the book is better suited for scholarly research than for a casual yet intrigued reader seeking to delve into the Empire's history. A more nuanced narrative approach could transform it into a captivating journey for readers eager to absorb the complexities of the British Empire.

[Alexandra Lewis · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book because I wanted to understand more about the history of the British empire, having been taught next to nothing about it at school.
I spent some time looking for a book which was a relatively "straight" telling of history; not a polemic, but also not shying away from the darker side of this history.

For the most part I think the book achieves it. Its incredibly long, over 600 pages, and it's taken me nearly a year to read. Despite its length, because its covering such a huge swathe of history, it necessarily goes into relatively shallow depth in many things. For example, the American war of independence is covered in a single chapter.

The book covers both the events, and attitudes towards them and it has helped me understand a lot about the world as it is.

History is complex and cannot simply be boiled down to good and bad. However I was slightly mystified that after reading 640 pages of slaving, stealing land, cheating, war crimes, burning villages and so, so much racism, all committed in the name of trade, the author somehow concludes the empire was a force for moral good.

In summary, a fascinating book covering a large swathe of history but definitely a commitment.

[Richard Greene · Rating 3 out of 5]

James' Rise and Fall of the British Empire is a nifty summary of the British empire from the 1600s to the early 1990s. While it would take volumes to accurately recount the history of Britain, Rise and Fall is a handy, fast-paced summary of the British expansion and contraction in about a 40o-year period. If you are looking for in-depth accounts of major events such as the American Revolutionary, the Napoleonic and 20th century World Wars, you won't find them here. What you do get is a fast recap of the British rule and several chapters offering British introspection of itself at all key points in the timeline. James inserts himself in the narrative, particularly late, but offers critiques, liberal and conservative, of the Empire equally. It's hard to come away with an impression, that is overall good or bad, of what the British Empire has done for humankind after reading Rise and Fall. But overall, the book is a good starting point for further reading about political history and development worldwide, from Asia/Oceania, India, Africa, the Middle East and North America.