What do you think?
Rate this book
The First English Empire: Power and Identities in the British Isles, 1093-1343
The future of the United Kingdom is an increasingly open question. This book traces the issue's roots to the Middle Ages, when English power and control came to extend to the whole of the British Isles. By 1300 it looked as if Edward I was in control of virtually the whole of the British Isles. Ireland, Scotland, and Wales had, in different degrees, been subjugated to his authority; contemporaries were even comparing him to King Arthur. This was the culmination of a remarkable English advance into the outer zones of the British Isles in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The advance was not only a matter of military power, political control, and governmental and legal institutions; it also involved extensive colonization and the absorption of these outer zones into the economic and cultural orbit of an England-dominated world. What remained to be seen was how stable (especially in Scotland and Ireland) this English 'empire' would be; how far the northern and western parts of the British Isles could be absorbed in an English-centered polity and society; and to what extent the early and self-confident development of English identity would determine the relationships between England and the rest of the British Isles. The answers to those questions would be shaped by the past of the country that was England; the answers would also cast their shadow over the future of the British Isles for centuries to come.
224 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
About the author
R.R. Davies
14 books10 followersSir Robert Rees Davies was a Welsh historian received a First in his degree from University College, London, where he later returned as a lecturer. In 1975, he was appointed Professor of History, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth. In 1995, he was appointed the Chichele Professor of Medieval History at the University of Oxford and made a fellow of All Souls College. From 1995 to 2005 he served as Chairman of the Ancient Monuments Board for Wales. Davies was appointed a Knight Bachelor for services to history in the Queen's 2005 New Year's Honours.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
February 5, 2016
The First English Empire is an excellent example of a book written by an expert on a topic they are incredibly familiar with. The familiarity with sources, especially those in Wales which many English historians are not familiar with, is outstanding. Davies has previously written on Welsh topics and it shows. His arguments are well structured, well reasoned, and have excellent evidence to back them up. At times his arguments are incredibly difficult to understand, given the nature of what is being argued, and pages require a re-reading or breaking down.
Historical writings on shared ideas, customs and values is difficult because of the nature of evidence. These concepts can be difficult to find in historical fact, and therefore Davies wrestles with ideas hard to prove. This does not prevent him, however, from convincingly arguing his case within each essay and providing a platform for further academic discussion.
Davies provides 7 fully-fledged essays in this volume, each adding to the last, yet each able to be read as a standalone for the purpose of historiographical research. They are as follows:
1. The High Kingship of the British Isles
2. Island Mythologies
3. Orbits of Power
4. Political Heartlands and Political Backwaters
5. 'Sweet civility' and 'barbarous rudeness'
6. The Anglicization of the British Isles
7. The Ebb Tide of the English Empire, 1304-1343
Each of these essays excellently uses primary sources, ranging from medieval sources harking back to the mythological time of King Arthur (2), to early modern discussions of manners and customs in Wales from the English perspective (5). Personally, the earlier essays in this volume were the stronger. This is probably because of my greater familiarity with the material, however, and not due to the weakness of the essays themselves.
Overall, this title is a must-read for those with an academic interest in England in the high-late Middle Ages. For casual readers, however, the content is often dense and difficult to understand. As an aspiring academic, I find myself positioned between these two positions. Perhaps in ten years I will further understand the nuances in Davies' arguments. Either way, I thoroughly enjoyed The First English Empire, and would recommend it to those with a particular interest in medieval British history.
Historical writings on shared ideas, customs and values is difficult because of the nature of evidence. These concepts can be difficult to find in historical fact, and therefore Davies wrestles with ideas hard to prove. This does not prevent him, however, from convincingly arguing his case within each essay and providing a platform for further academic discussion.
Davies provides 7 fully-fledged essays in this volume, each adding to the last, yet each able to be read as a standalone for the purpose of historiographical research. They are as follows:
1. The High Kingship of the British Isles
2. Island Mythologies
3. Orbits of Power
4. Political Heartlands and Political Backwaters
5. 'Sweet civility' and 'barbarous rudeness'
6. The Anglicization of the British Isles
7. The Ebb Tide of the English Empire, 1304-1343
Each of these essays excellently uses primary sources, ranging from medieval sources harking back to the mythological time of King Arthur (2), to early modern discussions of manners and customs in Wales from the English perspective (5). Personally, the earlier essays in this volume were the stronger. This is probably because of my greater familiarity with the material, however, and not due to the weakness of the essays themselves.
Overall, this title is a must-read for those with an academic interest in England in the high-late Middle Ages. For casual readers, however, the content is often dense and difficult to understand. As an aspiring academic, I find myself positioned between these two positions. Perhaps in ten years I will further understand the nuances in Davies' arguments. Either way, I thoroughly enjoyed The First English Empire, and would recommend it to those with a particular interest in medieval British history.
July 28, 2012
I found this an excellent look at the formation of the "first English empire." Davies is very good at convincing that, "In fact there was--and is--no finality or irreversibility about the countries we have come to know as England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland." 63 The same could be said for the "empire" as a whole.
One of the things I found interesting was how economic and social differences became "ethnic" differences and then cause for discrimination. In the end, a powerful sense of "English" identity led to an inability to truly integrate the other lands of the British Isles with England itself.
"The British Isles in 1300 may have been a world dominated by the power of England and the English; but it remained a world of plural political mythologies and loyalties, a world of at least four peoples and four countries." 194
"Such an early and well-defined identity, with its accompanying comforting mythology and its cultural border guards...precluded the necessity, or indeed the desirability, of making accomodations--whether political, institutional, cultural...or mythological--with the non-English polities, cultures, and societies of the British Isles, other than reluctantly and on its own terms." 200
One of the things I found interesting was how economic and social differences became "ethnic" differences and then cause for discrimination. In the end, a powerful sense of "English" identity led to an inability to truly integrate the other lands of the British Isles with England itself.
"The British Isles in 1300 may have been a world dominated by the power of England and the English; but it remained a world of plural political mythologies and loyalties, a world of at least four peoples and four countries." 194
"Such an early and well-defined identity, with its accompanying comforting mythology and its cultural border guards...precluded the necessity, or indeed the desirability, of making accomodations--whether political, institutional, cultural...or mythological--with the non-English polities, cultures, and societies of the British Isles, other than reluctantly and on its own terms." 200
June 21, 2026
I am not a fan of the way this guy writes. Needlessly pretentious and jargony, but if you can read past that it’s a very interesting book.
It’s striking how much of the settler-colonial process that would in a few centuries be used (in large part by England and her daughter countries) to devastate the western hemisphere was already fully formed even in twelfth-century England. The conquests of Wales and Ireland read shockingly similarly to the American conquests of the west. And something that the author touches on is just how much of that process was ported over from previous cultures, in 1066 from the Normans, before that from the Danes, before that with the migrations of the Angles, so on and so forth. It seems that this particular process of conquest and assimilation goes profoundly deep into European history.
Indeed, it seems to be (in the European context at least) a foundational part of “civilization”, by which I mean the settled, agricultural, feudal way of life that was initially spread (again, via conquest and assimilation), by the Romans. Even when the Roman Empire dissolved, this mode of doing things persisted, using proto-settler colonialism to conquer and absorb non-agricultural societies, imposing on them an agricultural (and feudal) way of life for the material benefit of the conquerors. The Romans did this to the Gauls, creating the Franks, who did this to the Britains, creating the English, who did this to the Celts, creating the Welsh/Irish/Scots. One could trace this process straight through the development of Americans, Canadians, Aussies, and so on.
Something else the author highlights that is particularly instructive is the shifting relationship between the people in a given society and their state. Looking back from modern day, it’s easy to project features of modern nationhood like geographic continuity and relative national homogeneity. But at the time things were very different. A King of the English is not the same as the King of England. The former refers to a legal figurehead for people who speak English, whether they do that in London or Dublin, while the latter refers to an office of a particular nation state with defined geographic boundaries, and theoretically no reach beyond them.
Before the rise of nationalism, individual places were far less ethnically homogenous, and legal systems overlapped and blurred in places, creating spectrums of legal status and overlapping claims to sovereignty which were rarely policed in such a rigid sense as they are now. This allowed for a flexibility in “international” relations that made the whole system work. England could claim control over parts of Ireland because there were simply so many English speakers there. But it was also a double-edged sword. Once England stopped seeding Ireland with English-speakers, those very same colonists began to learn Irish, simply because it was the most useful language…in Ireland.
It’s striking how much of the settler-colonial process that would in a few centuries be used (in large part by England and her daughter countries) to devastate the western hemisphere was already fully formed even in twelfth-century England. The conquests of Wales and Ireland read shockingly similarly to the American conquests of the west. And something that the author touches on is just how much of that process was ported over from previous cultures, in 1066 from the Normans, before that from the Danes, before that with the migrations of the Angles, so on and so forth. It seems that this particular process of conquest and assimilation goes profoundly deep into European history.
Indeed, it seems to be (in the European context at least) a foundational part of “civilization”, by which I mean the settled, agricultural, feudal way of life that was initially spread (again, via conquest and assimilation), by the Romans. Even when the Roman Empire dissolved, this mode of doing things persisted, using proto-settler colonialism to conquer and absorb non-agricultural societies, imposing on them an agricultural (and feudal) way of life for the material benefit of the conquerors. The Romans did this to the Gauls, creating the Franks, who did this to the Britains, creating the English, who did this to the Celts, creating the Welsh/Irish/Scots. One could trace this process straight through the development of Americans, Canadians, Aussies, and so on.
Something else the author highlights that is particularly instructive is the shifting relationship between the people in a given society and their state. Looking back from modern day, it’s easy to project features of modern nationhood like geographic continuity and relative national homogeneity. But at the time things were very different. A King of the English is not the same as the King of England. The former refers to a legal figurehead for people who speak English, whether they do that in London or Dublin, while the latter refers to an office of a particular nation state with defined geographic boundaries, and theoretically no reach beyond them.
Before the rise of nationalism, individual places were far less ethnically homogenous, and legal systems overlapped and blurred in places, creating spectrums of legal status and overlapping claims to sovereignty which were rarely policed in such a rigid sense as they are now. This allowed for a flexibility in “international” relations that made the whole system work. England could claim control over parts of Ireland because there were simply so many English speakers there. But it was also a double-edged sword. Once England stopped seeding Ireland with English-speakers, those very same colonists began to learn Irish, simply because it was the most useful language…in Ireland.
February 11, 2025
A particular and academic explication of the tension and distinction between regnum Anglorum and orbis Britanniae under the Angevin kings. Anglo-Norman post-1066 hegemony reached into and set the tone for the rest of the British Isles—indeed, understood itself as hegemon, and in that capacity conveyed institutions, legal codes, and even people to Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Under Henry II this happened in an open, amiable, conciliatory manner; under Edward I, it was more a brutal military subjugation. Yet by the late Middle Ages, there remained nevertheless power centres and cultures out of the direct control of the English state. England and the Church may have evinced a shorthand understanding of the British Isles as united under the English king, but "either in pretension or in reality" it was not so. The conversational tone of passages of this book makes sense given its origin in lectures Davies gave at Oxford in 1998, and it makes what could have been a dry meditation a little lighter. For grad students only, but to those grad students I do recommend this.
Takeaway:
"To talk of tenure is, of course, to broach the issue of feudalism, and to talk of feudalism is to introduce a measure of excitability and controversy which is bad for historians' blood pressure. There are those who would reify feudalism and talk of it lovingly as a 'finished article'; there are others who claim that it is a historiographical phantom invented by over-cerebral lawyers. Be that as it may, what is beyond doubt—and what has never been attempted—is that a map of the feudal geography of the British Isles in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries would be one of the most revealing guides to the extent and penetration of English and Anglicized tenural norms within these islands. . . . [I]t would enable us to see how far the feudal template had to be recast to take account of the existing social and economic structure and, most crucially, what were the limits of its applicability."
Takeaway:
"To talk of tenure is, of course, to broach the issue of feudalism, and to talk of feudalism is to introduce a measure of excitability and controversy which is bad for historians' blood pressure. There are those who would reify feudalism and talk of it lovingly as a 'finished article'; there are others who claim that it is a historiographical phantom invented by over-cerebral lawyers. Be that as it may, what is beyond doubt—and what has never been attempted—is that a map of the feudal geography of the British Isles in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries would be one of the most revealing guides to the extent and penetration of English and Anglicized tenural norms within these islands. . . . [I]t would enable us to see how far the feudal template had to be recast to take account of the existing social and economic structure and, most crucially, what were the limits of its applicability."
February 4, 2017
R. R. Davies was the one of the greatest Welsh Historians. The books is well researched and referenced. The bibliography is excellent.
The subject matter is well written.
My own concern and point of note. Rees Davies was a noted Welsh nationalist and at times the book is biased and partisan. However, that does not detract from a great piece of work.
The subject matter is well written.
My own concern and point of note. Rees Davies was a noted Welsh nationalist and at times the book is biased and partisan. However, that does not detract from a great piece of work.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews