What do you think?
Rate this book
Empire
From the bestselling author of The English comes Empire, Jeremy Paxman's history of the British Empire accompanied by a flagship 5-part BBC TV series, for readers of Simon Schama and Andrew Marr.
The influence of the British Empire is everywhere, from the very existence of the United Kingdom to the ethnic composition of our cities. It affects everything, from Prime Ministers' decisions to send troops to war to the adventurers we admire. From the sports we think we're good at to the architecture of our buildings; the way we travel to the way we trade; the hopeless losers we will on, and the food we hunger for, the empire is never very far away.
In this acute and witty analysis, Jeremy Paxman goes to the very heart of empire. As he describes the selection process for colonial officers ('intended to weed out the cad, the feeble and the too clever') the importance of sport, the sweating domestic life of the colonial officer's wife ('the challenge with cooking meat was "to grasp the fleeting moment between toughness and putrefaction when the joint may possibly prove eatable"') and the crazed end for General Gordon of Khartoum, Paxman brings brilliantly to life the tragedy and comedy of Empire and reveals its profound and lasting effect on our nation and ourselves.
'Paxman is witty, incisive, acerbic and opinionated . . . In short, he carries the whole thing off with panache bordering on effrontery' Piers Brendon, Sunday Times
'Paxman is a magnificent historian, and Empire may be remembered as his finest work' Independent on Sunday
Jeremy Paxman was born in Yorkshire and educated at Cambridge. He is an award-winning journalist who spent ten years reporting from overseas, notably for Panorama. He is the author of five books including The English. He is the presenter of Newsnight and University Challenge and has presented BBC documentaries on various subjects including Victorian art and Wilfred Owen.
The influence of the British Empire is everywhere, from the very existence of the United Kingdom to the ethnic composition of our cities. It affects everything, from Prime Ministers' decisions to send troops to war to the adventurers we admire. From the sports we think we're good at to the architecture of our buildings; the way we travel to the way we trade; the hopeless losers we will on, and the food we hunger for, the empire is never very far away.
In this acute and witty analysis, Jeremy Paxman goes to the very heart of empire. As he describes the selection process for colonial officers ('intended to weed out the cad, the feeble and the too clever') the importance of sport, the sweating domestic life of the colonial officer's wife ('the challenge with cooking meat was "to grasp the fleeting moment between toughness and putrefaction when the joint may possibly prove eatable"') and the crazed end for General Gordon of Khartoum, Paxman brings brilliantly to life the tragedy and comedy of Empire and reveals its profound and lasting effect on our nation and ourselves.
'Paxman is witty, incisive, acerbic and opinionated . . . In short, he carries the whole thing off with panache bordering on effrontery' Piers Brendon, Sunday Times
'Paxman is a magnificent historian, and Empire may be remembered as his finest work' Independent on Sunday
Jeremy Paxman was born in Yorkshire and educated at Cambridge. He is an award-winning journalist who spent ten years reporting from overseas, notably for Panorama. He is the author of five books including The English. He is the presenter of Newsnight and University Challenge and has presented BBC documentaries on various subjects including Victorian art and Wilfred Owen.
368 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2011
70 people are currently reading
826 people want to read
About the author
Jeremy Paxman
23 books102 followersJeremy Dickson Paxman is a British journalist, author and television presenter. He has worked for the BBC since 1977. He is noted for a forthright and abrasive interviewing style, particularly when interrogating politicians. His regular appearances on the BBC2's Newsnight programme have been criticised as aggressive, intimidating, condescending and irreverent, and applauded as tough and incisive.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews
May 4, 2012
As I write novels set in the days of colonial rule, I obviously had a lot of interest in reading Paxman's book on the British Empire. But, oh dear, what a disappointment it was!
Although it masquerades as history, the book is really an exercise in rhetoric. Paxman's trademark sneer translates well to the page. Already, in the preface he alliteratively attacks Britain's "dilapidated democracy". Our democracy may well be dilapidated, but it is completely irrelevant to the point he is making at the time and, more importantly, he produces no evidence whatsoever to support the argument. It's simply a way to put the lesser mortals that he lives amongst in their place. It is ironic that much of the book derides, at length, the elitist pretensions of the English, using a style and tone that immediately marks Paxman as the Oxbridge graduate that he is.
For somebody who repeatedly criticises the British for their Anglo centric view of the world, Paxman's own vision seems peculiarly distorted by the country he is writing in. For him, the British Empire is different from all other empires, apparently unique in its arrogance and exploitation. It is almost as if other empires did not exist. So he writes that the Treaty of Paris in 1763 made it "undeniable that Britain was the pre-eminent world power". The treaty did, indeed, mark the end of a war in which Britain had been victorious over France and Spain, but it returned many of the territories that Britain had captured from the Spanish and left Spain in control of the Americas from Louisiana and California down to Chile. Meanwhile Britain's American colonies were restricted to those parts of Canada that had been settled and the original thirteen American colonies together with the areas opened to the west as far as the Mississippi. Most of these territories, of course, were to be lost with American independence. Britain had significant possessions in India, but Clive's victory at Plassey had taken place only six years earlier and nobody in 1763 could have foreseen the growth of British power in India. Otherwise, British colonisation was limited to a few specks on the map in West Africa, the West Indies and, nearer home, Gibraltar and Minorca. Paxman's confident assertion that British pre-eminence was "undeniable" is unlikely to be echoed by a Spaniard.
Paxman's approach does mean that his book is not bogged down in the kind of tedious detail that I have just gone into in trying to define the size of the Empire in 1763. Such a definition is quite difficult. Do we include uninhabited and unexplored regions of the world as part of the Empire simply because they were painted red on the map? What of those distant shores where a visiting British captain had once planted a Union flag and then moved on? That's the problem with history: it's messy and complicated. Paxman's book gets rid of the mess and complications but, unfortunately, this means that he gets rid of much of the history as well. The absence of any solid foundation to this edifice is partially disguised by the use of lots of quotations with footnoted references. In many cases, though, the references are to secondary sources. That is, if you check the reference, it will turn out to be a recent publication by another author with no indication of where the original quote came from. This is particularly annoying if you are trying to check any chronological details as this approach means that the date of the original quote is not given anywhere in Paxman's book. He also has an annoying habit of referring to "colonial historians", which most readers, I think, would take to mean historians from Britain's colonial period, whereas Paxman uses the term to disguise the fact that he is citing a modern historian who writes about colonial history. It's possible that his use of this terminology is just sloppy and lazy, but I think it is difficult to see it as anything other than deliberately misleading.
Generally, the book left me with a the feeling that some of the detail in it might be plain wrong, but as I'm not a professional historian this remained, for a while, just a niggling doubt. That changed when the book moved onto the Indian Mutiny and, in particular, the siege of Cawnpore. My own novel, 'Cawnpore' is set during the siege. I enjoyed researching it. There was an enormous amount written about it at the time and some good modern summaries. (The best is probably Ward's Our Bones are Scattered.) Despite this, Paxman makes several errors. He says that the rebel leader, Nana Sahib, was "a victim of the Company's new Doctrine of Lapse which decreed that only natural born sons could succeed to the father's lands". Nana Sahib did, indeed, suffer under the Doctrine of Lapse, as the British refused to recognise his title. He did not, however, have any lands to lose. His adoptive father had already forfeited these as the result of a failed rebellion many years earlier. Nana Sahib did lose his father's pension, but this was not because of the Doctrine of Lapse. Paxman claims that the shooting of prisoners was "too inefficient to act as a final solution" where most accounts agree that the rebel soldiers deliberately fired wide – an act for which they surely deserve some credit, even after 150 years. Most astonishing of all, Paxman claims that the women and children murdered in what is generally became known as the massacre of the bibighar, had not been included in the promise of safe passage given by the Nana Sahib. This is quite astounding, as even the most cursory reading of any of the literature about Cawnpore shows it to be simply untrue. The point, though not significant in the context of Paxman's arguments, is not a trivial one. The cold-blooded massacre of women and children who had surrendered under promise of safe conduct was a significant factor in the horrific level of reprisals conducted by British forces. Whilst it does not excuse British conduct (which did lead to expressions of concern even at the time) simply rewriting history in this way is quite extraordinary.
We should not blame Paxman for all of these errors. His acknowledgements start with a credit to Jillian Taylor, who seems to have done much of the work. Paxman refers to himself as the writer. And here is the nub of the problem. Historians research their subject areas and, from the mass of information which they gather, they try to tease out some proper understanding of the subject. Paxman clearly started with his own prejudices (he read English at Cambridge and has no background in history) and then sent Ms Taylor off to gather up whatever factoids she could dredge up to support his position. In fairness, many of the factoids are fascinating. We learn, for example, that Lord Crewe, the Colonial Secretary, was so dull that it is alleged that a woman lost her mind listening to one of his speeches. We don't know who the woman was and no authority for the story is given, suggesting it is apocryphal, but it's amusing nonetheless. It isn't exactly history, but then neither is the extended summary of the plot of Rider Haggard's She with which he opens a chapter on the role of women in the Empire. Unattributed quote, after-dinner tales and outright fiction – it's all grist to Paxman's mill.
It would be easier to forgive the way in which Paxman has subjugated historical fact to the presentation of his rhetoric if all of this was done to illustrate some worthwhile argument. But, though the whole idea of Empire is clearly anathema to Paxman's 21st-century liberalism, it's not at all clear where he is going with this. He argues that modern Britain is itself a product of Empire, an argument that would surely be better supported by an analysis of modern Britain than by a trip through 300 years of colonial adventurism. He claims that the Empire was always about making money, but later discusses at length the good that was done by many young men who served abroad, dedicating themselves to the welfare of people that Britain had taken responsibility for and from whom it could never sensibly expect to make a profit. He details the brutality of some British military ventures but, finally, concedes that other nations have often behaved even worse and that, given the geo-political realities, many countries were better off under the protection of Britain than had they been left to other occupiers.
Perhaps, in the end, Paxman has accidentally stumbled on the truth of the British Empire. It was, indeed, in many ways a very bad thing, but sometimes it achieved things that changed the world for the better. (Paxman singles out the abolition of slavery as one of Britain's greatest achievements.) It was run by some wise men and a great number of fools. Many were in it just for what they could get out of it, while many a young man died far from home convinced that the good that he could achieve more than made up for his meagre salary. The British Empire was vast, inchoate and very, very complicated. The unthinking condemnation of Empire by modern liberals is as prejudiced and ignorant as the unthinking jingoism of an earlier generation. If other readers take this lesson from this extraordinarily poorly constructed book, then, perhaps, there is some tiny glimmer of worth hidden amongst all the dross.
Although it masquerades as history, the book is really an exercise in rhetoric. Paxman's trademark sneer translates well to the page. Already, in the preface he alliteratively attacks Britain's "dilapidated democracy". Our democracy may well be dilapidated, but it is completely irrelevant to the point he is making at the time and, more importantly, he produces no evidence whatsoever to support the argument. It's simply a way to put the lesser mortals that he lives amongst in their place. It is ironic that much of the book derides, at length, the elitist pretensions of the English, using a style and tone that immediately marks Paxman as the Oxbridge graduate that he is.
For somebody who repeatedly criticises the British for their Anglo centric view of the world, Paxman's own vision seems peculiarly distorted by the country he is writing in. For him, the British Empire is different from all other empires, apparently unique in its arrogance and exploitation. It is almost as if other empires did not exist. So he writes that the Treaty of Paris in 1763 made it "undeniable that Britain was the pre-eminent world power". The treaty did, indeed, mark the end of a war in which Britain had been victorious over France and Spain, but it returned many of the territories that Britain had captured from the Spanish and left Spain in control of the Americas from Louisiana and California down to Chile. Meanwhile Britain's American colonies were restricted to those parts of Canada that had been settled and the original thirteen American colonies together with the areas opened to the west as far as the Mississippi. Most of these territories, of course, were to be lost with American independence. Britain had significant possessions in India, but Clive's victory at Plassey had taken place only six years earlier and nobody in 1763 could have foreseen the growth of British power in India. Otherwise, British colonisation was limited to a few specks on the map in West Africa, the West Indies and, nearer home, Gibraltar and Minorca. Paxman's confident assertion that British pre-eminence was "undeniable" is unlikely to be echoed by a Spaniard.
Paxman's approach does mean that his book is not bogged down in the kind of tedious detail that I have just gone into in trying to define the size of the Empire in 1763. Such a definition is quite difficult. Do we include uninhabited and unexplored regions of the world as part of the Empire simply because they were painted red on the map? What of those distant shores where a visiting British captain had once planted a Union flag and then moved on? That's the problem with history: it's messy and complicated. Paxman's book gets rid of the mess and complications but, unfortunately, this means that he gets rid of much of the history as well. The absence of any solid foundation to this edifice is partially disguised by the use of lots of quotations with footnoted references. In many cases, though, the references are to secondary sources. That is, if you check the reference, it will turn out to be a recent publication by another author with no indication of where the original quote came from. This is particularly annoying if you are trying to check any chronological details as this approach means that the date of the original quote is not given anywhere in Paxman's book. He also has an annoying habit of referring to "colonial historians", which most readers, I think, would take to mean historians from Britain's colonial period, whereas Paxman uses the term to disguise the fact that he is citing a modern historian who writes about colonial history. It's possible that his use of this terminology is just sloppy and lazy, but I think it is difficult to see it as anything other than deliberately misleading.
Generally, the book left me with a the feeling that some of the detail in it might be plain wrong, but as I'm not a professional historian this remained, for a while, just a niggling doubt. That changed when the book moved onto the Indian Mutiny and, in particular, the siege of Cawnpore. My own novel, 'Cawnpore' is set during the siege. I enjoyed researching it. There was an enormous amount written about it at the time and some good modern summaries. (The best is probably Ward's Our Bones are Scattered.) Despite this, Paxman makes several errors. He says that the rebel leader, Nana Sahib, was "a victim of the Company's new Doctrine of Lapse which decreed that only natural born sons could succeed to the father's lands". Nana Sahib did, indeed, suffer under the Doctrine of Lapse, as the British refused to recognise his title. He did not, however, have any lands to lose. His adoptive father had already forfeited these as the result of a failed rebellion many years earlier. Nana Sahib did lose his father's pension, but this was not because of the Doctrine of Lapse. Paxman claims that the shooting of prisoners was "too inefficient to act as a final solution" where most accounts agree that the rebel soldiers deliberately fired wide – an act for which they surely deserve some credit, even after 150 years. Most astonishing of all, Paxman claims that the women and children murdered in what is generally became known as the massacre of the bibighar, had not been included in the promise of safe passage given by the Nana Sahib. This is quite astounding, as even the most cursory reading of any of the literature about Cawnpore shows it to be simply untrue. The point, though not significant in the context of Paxman's arguments, is not a trivial one. The cold-blooded massacre of women and children who had surrendered under promise of safe conduct was a significant factor in the horrific level of reprisals conducted by British forces. Whilst it does not excuse British conduct (which did lead to expressions of concern even at the time) simply rewriting history in this way is quite extraordinary.
We should not blame Paxman for all of these errors. His acknowledgements start with a credit to Jillian Taylor, who seems to have done much of the work. Paxman refers to himself as the writer. And here is the nub of the problem. Historians research their subject areas and, from the mass of information which they gather, they try to tease out some proper understanding of the subject. Paxman clearly started with his own prejudices (he read English at Cambridge and has no background in history) and then sent Ms Taylor off to gather up whatever factoids she could dredge up to support his position. In fairness, many of the factoids are fascinating. We learn, for example, that Lord Crewe, the Colonial Secretary, was so dull that it is alleged that a woman lost her mind listening to one of his speeches. We don't know who the woman was and no authority for the story is given, suggesting it is apocryphal, but it's amusing nonetheless. It isn't exactly history, but then neither is the extended summary of the plot of Rider Haggard's She with which he opens a chapter on the role of women in the Empire. Unattributed quote, after-dinner tales and outright fiction – it's all grist to Paxman's mill.
It would be easier to forgive the way in which Paxman has subjugated historical fact to the presentation of his rhetoric if all of this was done to illustrate some worthwhile argument. But, though the whole idea of Empire is clearly anathema to Paxman's 21st-century liberalism, it's not at all clear where he is going with this. He argues that modern Britain is itself a product of Empire, an argument that would surely be better supported by an analysis of modern Britain than by a trip through 300 years of colonial adventurism. He claims that the Empire was always about making money, but later discusses at length the good that was done by many young men who served abroad, dedicating themselves to the welfare of people that Britain had taken responsibility for and from whom it could never sensibly expect to make a profit. He details the brutality of some British military ventures but, finally, concedes that other nations have often behaved even worse and that, given the geo-political realities, many countries were better off under the protection of Britain than had they been left to other occupiers.
Perhaps, in the end, Paxman has accidentally stumbled on the truth of the British Empire. It was, indeed, in many ways a very bad thing, but sometimes it achieved things that changed the world for the better. (Paxman singles out the abolition of slavery as one of Britain's greatest achievements.) It was run by some wise men and a great number of fools. Many were in it just for what they could get out of it, while many a young man died far from home convinced that the good that he could achieve more than made up for his meagre salary. The British Empire was vast, inchoate and very, very complicated. The unthinking condemnation of Empire by modern liberals is as prejudiced and ignorant as the unthinking jingoism of an earlier generation. If other readers take this lesson from this extraordinarily poorly constructed book, then, perhaps, there is some tiny glimmer of worth hidden amongst all the dross.
June 1, 2013
In this hugely entertaining book, Paxman seeks to explain how it came about that Britain, a small island off the coast of the Europe, established an Empire on which the sun never set.
His answer appears to be through technological advancement (which gave the British the means), mercantilist opportunism (which gave the British the motives) pure accident (which, in Robert Clive’s victory at Plassey, fortuitously gave the British India) and self-delusion (which gave the British the belief that they had a moral pre-eminence to do whatever they wanted). The consequent sustainability of the Empire, so Paxman goes onto explains, can be put down to the British public school system, which turned out jolly good chaps to go into the colonial service and their stiff-upper lip wives to support them in their endeavours.
Paxman’s judgement is not only that the British Empire was a bad thing at the time for the world, but that in the longer term it has been the worst thing that could have happened to Britain herself. Dean Rusk once said that Britain has lost an Empire, but yet to find a role. Paxman puts it in far more ‘Paxmanic’ terms: that the only country not yet to have decolonized is Britain itself. It remains, firmly stuck in its past glories which, well, were not so glorious, as it turns out.
The book, then, would be rather depressing if you (like me) you are British, were it not for Paxman’s style of writing and sardonic humour which makes this a brilliant read. He writes, like he interviews politicians, with a kind of prosecutorial approach where questions are asked in such a loaded tone, that the viewer will be left guffawing at the answer for the lie that it is, before the politician’s mouth has even opened. In his writing style, one can hear Paxman’s disdainful, accusatory voice being used to full effect on nutcases ranging from General Gordon, to Cecil Rhodes, to a retired brigadier grumbling about how “politicians don’t know Orientals like we do”.
My personal favourite part of this book is the description of the colonial service recruitment process, which sought to select sound-but-not-to-bright chaps churned out by the public school system able to take the hardship of serving as district officers in the remotest parts of the world. The most important quality, it seemed, was a sense of fair play inculcated through the game of cricket. (This take on things, certainly gives new meaning to the phrase “Test Match”).
However, whilst I enjoyed this book, I have come away from it with the view that Paxman’s harsh judgement is too much of a blunt instrument. The British Empire, unfairly, comes off worse than Home Secretary Michael Howard did after Paxman had (quite fairly) bludgeoned him into being the parody of the evasive politician, in their notorious interview. For a fairer more balanced depiction of Empire, I would refer readers to Niall Ferguson’s “Empire: How Britain Made the World”.
The export of the rule of law, globalization through international trade and English as a Lingua Franka, are achievements not be sniffed at. I live and work in Hong Kong (and, incidentally, being part British and part Chinese, am a product of a union between one of those public-school jolly good chaps and a Hong Kong lass). Not for nothing, does Hong Kong, one of the most important international finance centres in the world, trumpet these three achievements as its main selling points. Yes, the “two systems” part of the “one country, two systems” formula, are products of the British Empire.
In education as well, one cannot help noticing that the British public school system which Paxman punishes, is much in demand from the wealthy families in China (not just Hong Kong) and India and elsewhere.
Probably the most lasting feature of Empire, however (and Paxman does elude to this) are the sports which the British created to keep their district officers trained and entertained: soccer, cricket and rugby. The globalization of English Premier League football, may in fact, be viewed as the continuation of the British Empire in today’s world, albeit in another form. On a Monday morning, offices from Shanghai to Singapore, from Hong Kong to Hanoi, will abound with conversations about the exploits Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal at the weekend. The football shirt is one of the most observable fashion items across Asia.
For this reason, Paxman’s observation of Britain being the last country in the world not to decolonize may not be too far from the truth. And the multi-racial Britain on display in the Jubilee and Olympic year of 2012, showed a nation more comfortable with its place in the world, and the contribution it has made to it, than perhaps Paxman makes out.
All in all, therefore, although I may not agree with all his conclusions, this is a well-written, thoroughly thought-provoking book, full of wit and observation and worthy of a five-star rating.
Peter Gregoire (author of Article 109)
Peter Gregoire
His answer appears to be through technological advancement (which gave the British the means), mercantilist opportunism (which gave the British the motives) pure accident (which, in Robert Clive’s victory at Plassey, fortuitously gave the British India) and self-delusion (which gave the British the belief that they had a moral pre-eminence to do whatever they wanted). The consequent sustainability of the Empire, so Paxman goes onto explains, can be put down to the British public school system, which turned out jolly good chaps to go into the colonial service and their stiff-upper lip wives to support them in their endeavours.
Paxman’s judgement is not only that the British Empire was a bad thing at the time for the world, but that in the longer term it has been the worst thing that could have happened to Britain herself. Dean Rusk once said that Britain has lost an Empire, but yet to find a role. Paxman puts it in far more ‘Paxmanic’ terms: that the only country not yet to have decolonized is Britain itself. It remains, firmly stuck in its past glories which, well, were not so glorious, as it turns out.
The book, then, would be rather depressing if you (like me) you are British, were it not for Paxman’s style of writing and sardonic humour which makes this a brilliant read. He writes, like he interviews politicians, with a kind of prosecutorial approach where questions are asked in such a loaded tone, that the viewer will be left guffawing at the answer for the lie that it is, before the politician’s mouth has even opened. In his writing style, one can hear Paxman’s disdainful, accusatory voice being used to full effect on nutcases ranging from General Gordon, to Cecil Rhodes, to a retired brigadier grumbling about how “politicians don’t know Orientals like we do”.
My personal favourite part of this book is the description of the colonial service recruitment process, which sought to select sound-but-not-to-bright chaps churned out by the public school system able to take the hardship of serving as district officers in the remotest parts of the world. The most important quality, it seemed, was a sense of fair play inculcated through the game of cricket. (This take on things, certainly gives new meaning to the phrase “Test Match”).
However, whilst I enjoyed this book, I have come away from it with the view that Paxman’s harsh judgement is too much of a blunt instrument. The British Empire, unfairly, comes off worse than Home Secretary Michael Howard did after Paxman had (quite fairly) bludgeoned him into being the parody of the evasive politician, in their notorious interview. For a fairer more balanced depiction of Empire, I would refer readers to Niall Ferguson’s “Empire: How Britain Made the World”.
The export of the rule of law, globalization through international trade and English as a Lingua Franka, are achievements not be sniffed at. I live and work in Hong Kong (and, incidentally, being part British and part Chinese, am a product of a union between one of those public-school jolly good chaps and a Hong Kong lass). Not for nothing, does Hong Kong, one of the most important international finance centres in the world, trumpet these three achievements as its main selling points. Yes, the “two systems” part of the “one country, two systems” formula, are products of the British Empire.
In education as well, one cannot help noticing that the British public school system which Paxman punishes, is much in demand from the wealthy families in China (not just Hong Kong) and India and elsewhere.
Probably the most lasting feature of Empire, however (and Paxman does elude to this) are the sports which the British created to keep their district officers trained and entertained: soccer, cricket and rugby. The globalization of English Premier League football, may in fact, be viewed as the continuation of the British Empire in today’s world, albeit in another form. On a Monday morning, offices from Shanghai to Singapore, from Hong Kong to Hanoi, will abound with conversations about the exploits Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal at the weekend. The football shirt is one of the most observable fashion items across Asia.
For this reason, Paxman’s observation of Britain being the last country in the world not to decolonize may not be too far from the truth. And the multi-racial Britain on display in the Jubilee and Olympic year of 2012, showed a nation more comfortable with its place in the world, and the contribution it has made to it, than perhaps Paxman makes out.
All in all, therefore, although I may not agree with all his conclusions, this is a well-written, thoroughly thought-provoking book, full of wit and observation and worthy of a five-star rating.
Peter Gregoire (author of Article 109)
Peter Gregoire
September 24, 2020
3.5 Stars!
“The British came out of both world wars on the winning side, and so never had the need to reimagine themselves as anything other than that what they had once been, nor need to think much about the legacy of their actions.”
Whether on the crest of a climax at the prospect of getting to pronounce another French word on University Challenge, or tearing a lying politician another one, I’ve been a long term fan of Paxman. I mind watching and enjoying the BBC series of this back when it first came out too.
There are many sickening examples of the excess and brutality of the British Empire in here, but perhaps the most sinister of all is found in the case of the slave ship Zong, where in 1781 sickness broke out on the overcrowded decks, leading to horrific conditions. After 70 slaves had perished, the captain, who had a financial stake in the cargo, came up with a way to protect his investment, after realising that the deaths on board would become a charge on ship owners, if the seriously ill were to drown at sea, then the problem would shift to insurance underwriters. “He told the crew that water supplies were gravely low and therefore the sick Africans, who would die anyway, should be thrown in the sea.”
All in over 130 Africans were thrown into the sea and although the captain told insurers that this had to be done in order to preserve precious water supplies, which were dangerously low. When the ship got to its destination, over 400 gallons of fresh water was found on board, and he claimed that it was the result of “an unexpected downpour.”.”
Elsewhere, there is an interesting overview of James Cook (one of the many British men from yesteryear who’s image and legacy has undergone a bit of an overdue re-analysis in recent times). As well many other toothless monarchs, cunning merchants and bullying military men, we see getting away with some truly appalling behaviour under the aegis of empire.
But let’s not forget the people who reaped the most riches and gained the most benefits. The ones who got statues made in their image or have institutions named after them, towns, cities and even countries named after them all across the planet. Their legacy can be seen throughout the empire today, their ancestors have enjoyed generations of immense wealth and privilege on the backs of those slaves, these are the ladies and gentlemen who attend the finest schools and universities and end up in parliament or reside in royal palaces and yet even when the empire was at its so called peak, the cities within its own country were among the most poverty stricken and disease ridden throughout the whole of Europe. From the east end of London all the way to the inner city slums of Glasgow, millions were struggling to keep their children alive, or keep a roof over their head and disease at bay as their masters grew more bloated, arrogant and entitled and never ever stopped patting themselves on the back.
Without doubt the British Empire was a long, dark and shameful chapter. Empire or Commonwealth was built on greed, theft, cruelty and slavery, and although never overtly declared, there are still global empires very much alive today, most notably China and the US. These surreptitious empires conquer by stealth, through economic colonialism, a product of globalisation, they have long since realised that you don’t need to waste resources in physically invading and colonising a country, there are other, more efficient means to do so. Why bother transporting slaves when you can keep them where they are and exploit the cheap labour, without having to worry about housing them or looking out for their welfare?...
“The British came out of both world wars on the winning side, and so never had the need to reimagine themselves as anything other than that what they had once been, nor need to think much about the legacy of their actions.”
Whether on the crest of a climax at the prospect of getting to pronounce another French word on University Challenge, or tearing a lying politician another one, I’ve been a long term fan of Paxman. I mind watching and enjoying the BBC series of this back when it first came out too.
There are many sickening examples of the excess and brutality of the British Empire in here, but perhaps the most sinister of all is found in the case of the slave ship Zong, where in 1781 sickness broke out on the overcrowded decks, leading to horrific conditions. After 70 slaves had perished, the captain, who had a financial stake in the cargo, came up with a way to protect his investment, after realising that the deaths on board would become a charge on ship owners, if the seriously ill were to drown at sea, then the problem would shift to insurance underwriters. “He told the crew that water supplies were gravely low and therefore the sick Africans, who would die anyway, should be thrown in the sea.”
All in over 130 Africans were thrown into the sea and although the captain told insurers that this had to be done in order to preserve precious water supplies, which were dangerously low. When the ship got to its destination, over 400 gallons of fresh water was found on board, and he claimed that it was the result of “an unexpected downpour.”.”
Elsewhere, there is an interesting overview of James Cook (one of the many British men from yesteryear who’s image and legacy has undergone a bit of an overdue re-analysis in recent times). As well many other toothless monarchs, cunning merchants and bullying military men, we see getting away with some truly appalling behaviour under the aegis of empire.
But let’s not forget the people who reaped the most riches and gained the most benefits. The ones who got statues made in their image or have institutions named after them, towns, cities and even countries named after them all across the planet. Their legacy can be seen throughout the empire today, their ancestors have enjoyed generations of immense wealth and privilege on the backs of those slaves, these are the ladies and gentlemen who attend the finest schools and universities and end up in parliament or reside in royal palaces and yet even when the empire was at its so called peak, the cities within its own country were among the most poverty stricken and disease ridden throughout the whole of Europe. From the east end of London all the way to the inner city slums of Glasgow, millions were struggling to keep their children alive, or keep a roof over their head and disease at bay as their masters grew more bloated, arrogant and entitled and never ever stopped patting themselves on the back.
Without doubt the British Empire was a long, dark and shameful chapter. Empire or Commonwealth was built on greed, theft, cruelty and slavery, and although never overtly declared, there are still global empires very much alive today, most notably China and the US. These surreptitious empires conquer by stealth, through economic colonialism, a product of globalisation, they have long since realised that you don’t need to waste resources in physically invading and colonising a country, there are other, more efficient means to do so. Why bother transporting slaves when you can keep them where they are and exploit the cheap labour, without having to worry about housing them or looking out for their welfare?...
April 21, 2013
The great tragedy of Jeremy Paxman's literary career is that it exists. Truth be told, I have been a little biased against Paxman since I happened to see an episode of University Challenge in which Paxman condemned out of hand the work of Marshal McLuhan, particularly The Medium is the Massage. This condemnation would have been fine if Paxman had at least read the title out correctly - he thought it was The Medium is the Message. Over such small ignorances is celebrity respect lost.
Onto the book: the cover jacket of Empire promises a book that will help us understand the British, however Paxman does not deliver. Only the last chapter really addresses this - the other twelve are pop history (albeit with some good researching and tasty flavours). Ironically, given Paxman's tone throughout the book to historical figures, the last chapter starts with a quote from J.G. Farrell: "We look on past ages with condescension, as a mere preparation for us ... but what if we are a mere after-glow of them?"
Truly this can be no concern of the author, as most of the book is spent sneering at the sensibilities of times past. In a way this adds authenticity - those who are very quick to harshly judge the forebears of their own culture often refuse point blank to judge other cultures - and gives us an insight into Paxman's mind. Sadly for me, I don't really care what Paxman's personal opinions are on things. I can save any future reader the hassle by simply saying "read the Independent or the Grauniad and save yourself the time".
He rather exaggerates the taxes levied on the Americas prior to the Civil War, and he spends approximately a third of the book on denigrating slavery and slavers, but mentions Wilberforce (the anti-slavery campaigner) only in passing. This rather undermines his criticism of slavery by demonstrating modern sensibilities without any of the historian's usual care for context, which is a shame. Another pet bugbear that comes out is Baden-Powell, who gets criticism for his imperial thinking whilst being described as setting down a credo of racial equality and service to others in the Scouts.
The last chapter is the only one that really tries to address the question the book asks, and sadly it is too short - which is a shame, because Paxman raises some excellent questions in it (although his tentative suggestion of Britain's purpose becoming the EU is perhaps more shaky now than when he wrote it). Still, his premise that the nation lacks a goal and therefore is content to just become a society that consumes until it ceases being able to produce wealth, is a strong one.
Tl;dr - light historical book, frequently polluted by author's condescension.
Onto the book: the cover jacket of Empire promises a book that will help us understand the British, however Paxman does not deliver. Only the last chapter really addresses this - the other twelve are pop history (albeit with some good researching and tasty flavours). Ironically, given Paxman's tone throughout the book to historical figures, the last chapter starts with a quote from J.G. Farrell: "We look on past ages with condescension, as a mere preparation for us ... but what if we are a mere after-glow of them?"
Truly this can be no concern of the author, as most of the book is spent sneering at the sensibilities of times past. In a way this adds authenticity - those who are very quick to harshly judge the forebears of their own culture often refuse point blank to judge other cultures - and gives us an insight into Paxman's mind. Sadly for me, I don't really care what Paxman's personal opinions are on things. I can save any future reader the hassle by simply saying "read the Independent or the Grauniad and save yourself the time".
He rather exaggerates the taxes levied on the Americas prior to the Civil War, and he spends approximately a third of the book on denigrating slavery and slavers, but mentions Wilberforce (the anti-slavery campaigner) only in passing. This rather undermines his criticism of slavery by demonstrating modern sensibilities without any of the historian's usual care for context, which is a shame. Another pet bugbear that comes out is Baden-Powell, who gets criticism for his imperial thinking whilst being described as setting down a credo of racial equality and service to others in the Scouts.
The last chapter is the only one that really tries to address the question the book asks, and sadly it is too short - which is a shame, because Paxman raises some excellent questions in it (although his tentative suggestion of Britain's purpose becoming the EU is perhaps more shaky now than when he wrote it). Still, his premise that the nation lacks a goal and therefore is content to just become a society that consumes until it ceases being able to produce wealth, is a strong one.
Tl;dr - light historical book, frequently polluted by author's condescension.
December 19, 2017
Jeremy Paxman here contributes an enthusiastic and engaging, not to mention wide-reaching review of the British Empire, exploring what life was like in our territories abroad and how it shaped the very notion of Britain as a whole. As a fan of Paxman, I had previously watched the accompanying BBC TV series, and was delighted when I found out that this volume is every bit as good. As an armchair historian, Paxman isn't afraid to offer plenty of criticism at the behaviour of the Brits abroad, but at the same time said criticism is balanced with other, positive aspects. There's no political angle here, just entertaining, anecdotal reading that keeps on coming.
July 27, 2016
I loved this book, and will definitely read more of Paxman's work. His writing cuts a swathe through the meanderings of British Imperial history, collecting up salient points, on which he opines with a mix of caustic wit and regret. If you want a quick gallop through the lamentable past of the great ol' British Empire, this is a good starter. Warning: contains bad news and scenes of graphic violence.
July 7, 2020
Imperialism. Systemic racism. Manifest destiny. Queen Victoria. It's all around us.
November 21, 2021
I was rather disappointed in this book as while it is packed with Paxman's direct and very dry wit the lack of historical context and understanding needed when looking at historical matters just makes this come across as condescending and a little snidey. Obviously past decisions were somewhat questionable by today's standards but they do need to be looked at in context of the wider situation at the time, especially given the huge changes society goes through on a regular basis. And let's face it, none of us can claim to be perfect now never mind then! I also don't think it achieved the claimed goal of showing how having been an empire continues to influence modern Britain, certainly not with any clear supporting evidence, or if there is it has gotten a little lost in the repeated digs that are made.
November 23, 2022
Enjoyed the series, read the book
I think it’s just a small snapshot of the empire but a good, concise and, I think, pretty balanced view. Sad, funny and shocking in measures. I think something to talk about a little more perhaps.
I think it’s just a small snapshot of the empire but a good, concise and, I think, pretty balanced view. Sad, funny and shocking in measures. I think something to talk about a little more perhaps.
April 6, 2015
This is the book that the BBC series of the same name is based upon, written by the TV host. While the television production was well polished, with a large amount of content distributed over five hour long episodes that never got boring, the book leaves much to be desired. It is poorly edited and organized, the thirteen untitled chapters following a very rough chronological history from the early days of Britain's overseas exploits in the West Indies via state sanctioned piracy, through the gradual conquest of India to its final tumultuous post-WWII years when the empire was dissolved in a matter of decades what took centuries to acquire. Each episode of the TV series on the other hand, clearly revolved around a theme, from business to exploration and sport for example. I expected to learn more about the subject from the book, but was disappointed as it did not offer more than what I had already gleaned from watching the TV series, which I highly rate and recommend to anyone with a passing interest in history. Paxman is a better TV host than writer, it seems!
January 24, 2021
I’m not entirely sure how I feel about this one. As a fan of Jeremy Paxman on screen, I thought I’d give him a go off it too. However I was left somewhat disappointed. The book, for want of a better phrase, has no structure. It jumps back and forth throughout between different periods and different colonies. One minute he’s writing about Clive of India in the 1760s, then all of a sudden you skip 200 years to a cricket game between England and the West Indies. Whilst it’s not particularly bad by any means, it just doesn’t say anything. There’s no narrative, no message, no point. The accompanying BBC documentary series is taken almost word for word from the book. Had I known this before reading it, I wouldn’t have bothered and instead just watched the documentary. I can’t say I’d recommend it, but at the same time it’s a good introductory book for a young history buff or GCSE student. Other than that it doesn’t have much going for it.
November 30, 2013
I've just finished reading the paperback edition, renamed simply 'Empire' (the 'What ruling the world did to the British' more than likely having been removed following the criticism of the hardback) and can say that I've thoroughly enjoyed it. If you approach reading 'Empire' as Paxman's take on history rather than a definitive account then the book is very enjoyable, albeit rather condensed, Paxman cramming 300 years of history across every continent into less than 300 pages. If you are looking for an introduction to the historical and socio-political justifications and rationalizations of the Empire delivered with Paxman's dry sense of wit and sarcasm the I would highly recommend 'Empire' as an engaging read.
December 3, 2016
I enjoyed this. There's a coherent through-line to the analysis. It's self-aware without being too pleased with itself. I see several nay-Sayers elsewhere, all of whom seem unable to forget Paxman the tv personality and just view the book as a stand-alone entity (yes, there's a BBC series that ties in with the book; no, I haven't seen it; no, you can read a book without having to see the tv series, it shouldn't diminish the experience). This was enjoyable, lucid and unwilling to regurgitate previous hagiographers of Empire. I'd happily read more of his stuff.
November 28, 2017
I found this to be unapologetic of the true crimes of Empire. There's form given to say the polite politically correct forms however many cases are made for the 'but'?
June 12, 2020
I loved this book. It was a coincidence to finish it during the current #BLM but gave some excellent context to current calls for equality.
September 15, 2024
Jeremy Paxman’s Empire: What Ruling the World Did to the British offers a thorough examination of the British Empire’s impact not only on the countries it ruled but also on Britain itself. Paxman, a well-known British journalist and broadcaster, explores how the empire shaped British society, culture, and politics, leaving an indelible mark on the nation long after the fall of the empire.
The book begins by examining how Britain became a global superpower, focusing on the expansion of trade, military conquest, and colonization. Paxman sheds light on key figures such as Cecil Rhodes, Robert Clive, and Queen Victoria, but his narrative is also interspersed with stories of lesser-known individuals who contributed to the empire's growth. His examination is thorough, covering British involvement in India, Africa, and the Caribbean, as well as lesser-known territories like the Pacific islands.
A central theme in Empire is the profound cultural impact that ruling an empire had on the British psyche. Paxman explores how the British public’s view of themselves was shaped by their imperial exploits, fostering a sense of superiority and duty toward “civilizing” the rest of the world. At the same time, he does not shy away from the darker aspects of empire, including the brutal suppression of local populations, the exploitation of resources, and the establishment of racial hierarchies.
The book also touches on the post-imperial period, exploring how Britain’s retreat from empire affected its national identity. Paxman delves into the lingering effects of empire in contemporary Britain, such as debates over immigration, multiculturalism, and the country’s place in the world. This makes Empire not just a historical account but also a commentary on modern British society.
In conclusion, Empire: What Ruling the World Did to the British is a comprehensive and insightful examination of the British Empire's legacy. Paxman’s ability to balance admiration with criticism makes this book a valuable read for anyone interested in the history of British imperialism and its lasting impact on the world.
The book begins by examining how Britain became a global superpower, focusing on the expansion of trade, military conquest, and colonization. Paxman sheds light on key figures such as Cecil Rhodes, Robert Clive, and Queen Victoria, but his narrative is also interspersed with stories of lesser-known individuals who contributed to the empire's growth. His examination is thorough, covering British involvement in India, Africa, and the Caribbean, as well as lesser-known territories like the Pacific islands.
A central theme in Empire is the profound cultural impact that ruling an empire had on the British psyche. Paxman explores how the British public’s view of themselves was shaped by their imperial exploits, fostering a sense of superiority and duty toward “civilizing” the rest of the world. At the same time, he does not shy away from the darker aspects of empire, including the brutal suppression of local populations, the exploitation of resources, and the establishment of racial hierarchies.
The book also touches on the post-imperial period, exploring how Britain’s retreat from empire affected its national identity. Paxman delves into the lingering effects of empire in contemporary Britain, such as debates over immigration, multiculturalism, and the country’s place in the world. This makes Empire not just a historical account but also a commentary on modern British society.
In conclusion, Empire: What Ruling the World Did to the British is a comprehensive and insightful examination of the British Empire's legacy. Paxman’s ability to balance admiration with criticism makes this book a valuable read for anyone interested in the history of British imperialism and its lasting impact on the world.
July 22, 2021
This is the first book I've read about the British Empire, and I really cannot fault it. I found it to be an informative read starting at the very early stages of the British Empire right up until today and beyond.
For me, who has very little knowledge of the actual British empire, instead of some loose comments about Hong Kong, the Union Jack in the corner of some flags and the Common Wealth, I wanted to know more.
What I learned through this book, is how far reaching and damaging the British empire was to the world and its people. There are a huge number of atrocities that were done in the name of the empire, which are far reaching and are still having an impact on todays current affairs (Israel/Palestine conflict anyone?).
However, where this book does loose a star, is the superficial overview of some key aspects of history; which I will need to pick up another book on, these topics include but are not limited too; the opium wars in China, the slave trade, the Windrush Scandal, the first world war, the second world war, the Boer war and India in general.
However, I can clearly see this is a well researched book, and was a good place to start in my learning of all things British History which was never properly taught in schools.
For me, who has very little knowledge of the actual British empire, instead of some loose comments about Hong Kong, the Union Jack in the corner of some flags and the Common Wealth, I wanted to know more.
What I learned through this book, is how far reaching and damaging the British empire was to the world and its people. There are a huge number of atrocities that were done in the name of the empire, which are far reaching and are still having an impact on todays current affairs (Israel/Palestine conflict anyone?).
However, where this book does loose a star, is the superficial overview of some key aspects of history; which I will need to pick up another book on, these topics include but are not limited too; the opium wars in China, the slave trade, the Windrush Scandal, the first world war, the second world war, the Boer war and India in general.
However, I can clearly see this is a well researched book, and was a good place to start in my learning of all things British History which was never properly taught in schools.
August 31, 2019
Mr Paxman’s book ‘Empire’ is both incredibly well researched and written. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and would have liked to see 2 additions given that history is interwoven connected pieces of narratives.
1. ‘Empire’ would ideally include reference to what many argue to be the first global empire, namely the Persian Empire which spanned three continents. E.g: Jeremy refers to the Declaration of Independence and perhaps should have made reference to the fact that the Founding Fathers drew inspiration and indeed had a copy of Cyrus the Great’s (the first king of Persia) declaration of human rights - commonly recognised as the first charter of human rights, written in 539 BC.
2. The first reference to New York should ideally include reference to its predecessor ‘New Amsterdam’ and the Dutch war. Given its consequences, this would have been a great insight into the the origins of the name New York and indeed its boroughs such as Harlem, Bronx and Brooklyn.
1. ‘Empire’ would ideally include reference to what many argue to be the first global empire, namely the Persian Empire which spanned three continents. E.g: Jeremy refers to the Declaration of Independence and perhaps should have made reference to the fact that the Founding Fathers drew inspiration and indeed had a copy of Cyrus the Great’s (the first king of Persia) declaration of human rights - commonly recognised as the first charter of human rights, written in 539 BC.
2. The first reference to New York should ideally include reference to its predecessor ‘New Amsterdam’ and the Dutch war. Given its consequences, this would have been a great insight into the the origins of the name New York and indeed its boroughs such as Harlem, Bronx and Brooklyn.
September 12, 2018
Paxman's Empire was quite an unexpectedly emotionally-challenging read. The author has managed to weave the book into a well paced, contextually well detailed, thoroughly informative and overall enjoyable read.
At times, Paxman is amusing the author with a passing satirical comment on the hindsight hilarity of the Empire's 18th century officials, reflecting the satirical nature of the British media itself (a comment he makes in the latter part of the book), whereas at other times, he leaves the reader in disbelief and, especially as a European, or more specifically, an Englishman, disgrace at the actions of our ancestors, from slavery to sheer genocide. Empire is an eyeopening read.
At times, Paxman is amusing the author with a passing satirical comment on the hindsight hilarity of the Empire's 18th century officials, reflecting the satirical nature of the British media itself (a comment he makes in the latter part of the book), whereas at other times, he leaves the reader in disbelief and, especially as a European, or more specifically, an Englishman, disgrace at the actions of our ancestors, from slavery to sheer genocide. Empire is an eyeopening read.
August 24, 2018
Thoroughly enjoyed reading this book! Paxman delivered an incisive analysis of an empire that lasted centuries and told the story of both its momentous beginnings and its egregious end. It has definitely enabled me to take a step back and fully appreciate the magnitude of the British Empire and the impact it had in a multitude of countries. By and large, the British Empire was an astonishment in what it accomplished but the legacy it imprinted on various colonies was far more glaring and can help to explain many of the existing conflicts around the world.
July 4, 2024
The influence of the British Empire lies not only in our impact on the world, but also on ourselves -- it's an admirable and intriguing opening to a reflection on Britain that falls plainly short of it's objective.
The majority of the book is a popular history of the British Empire -- which mixes together debunked myths, rumor, and slander with the truth and a bit of condescension. There is shockingly little in this book that actually addresses the core theme.
I've heard the BBC TV show of the same name was much better organized and true to purpose.
The majority of the book is a popular history of the British Empire -- which mixes together debunked myths, rumor, and slander with the truth and a bit of condescension. There is shockingly little in this book that actually addresses the core theme.
I've heard the BBC TV show of the same name was much better organized and true to purpose.
January 20, 2018
Not what the cover says.
The title promises to tell us "what ruling the world did to the British", but never really does. Instead, we get another "rise & fall" history of the British Empire, but one not based on serious scholarship. Add to the mix the author's overt prejudices, and you receive something more resembling a long newspaper column than historical research. There are far better books on the subject of British Imperalism. Pass this one.
The title promises to tell us "what ruling the world did to the British", but never really does. Instead, we get another "rise & fall" history of the British Empire, but one not based on serious scholarship. Add to the mix the author's overt prejudices, and you receive something more resembling a long newspaper column than historical research. There are far better books on the subject of British Imperalism. Pass this one.
July 22, 2023
If you want to know a little of how the British empire began, how it was run and how it finally collapsed then you can't go too wrong with this book.
It won't have all the answers but gives a good overview of the British empire.
Yes the footnotes can be a bit annoying but it does not impact on the content of the book.
A solid 4.5 stars
It won't have all the answers but gives a good overview of the British empire.
Yes the footnotes can be a bit annoying but it does not impact on the content of the book.
A solid 4.5 stars
January 4, 2021
Interesting book exploring how the Empire affected Britain (rather than how Britain affected the rest of the world), although I feel it didn't quite succeed in this mission. More of an all stops covered history book.
April 10, 2024
Disappointing, another resume of the history of the British Empire. Slight reflections on how the British, ordinary ones, were affected but not what I had hoped for....maybe that was always impossible?
July 4, 2024
Enjoyed reading about British actions across the empire .
However the last few pages written in regard to how this shapes our society now, I felt could have been expanded on a lot. Was expecting much more of this notion
However the last few pages written in regard to how this shapes our society now, I felt could have been expanded on a lot. Was expecting much more of this notion
July 23, 2025
A strong 3/5, but you get the sense Paxman was enjoying himself a little too much writing it and glossing over some of the most consequential details in favour of wry anecdotes. Does justice to the dissolution of the British Empire a lot more so than its formation.
July 15, 2021
Some stories I hadn't heard before, I particularly liked his conclusion. It's clear that Mr Paxman feels that the Empire was not the great thing Victorian England thought it was.
July 27, 2021
I like this book. It mirrors Paxman's on views on Empire as you would expect but is relatively unbiased and comes from a man who has changed his tune on the British Empire numerous times.
August 12, 2021
A clear-eyed objective analysis of the Empire, warts and all. The benefits are minuscule, compared to the pillage and plunder that was foisted on huge swathes of the world.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 79 reviews