What do you think?
Rate this book
Forge of Empires: Three Revolutionary Statesmen and the World They Made, 1861-1871
In the space of a single decade, three leaders liberated tens of millions of souls, remade their own vast countries, and altered forever the forms of national power:
Abraham Lincoln freed a subjugated race and transformed the American Republic.
Tsar Alexander II broke the chains of the serfs and brought the rule of law to Russia.
Otto von Bismarck threw over the petty Teutonic princes, defeated the House of Austria and the last of the imperial Napoleons, and united the German nation.
The three statesmen forged the empires that would dominate the twentieth century through two world wars, the Cold War, and beyond. Each of the three was a revolutionary, yet each consolidated a nation that differed profoundly from the others in its conceptions of liberty, power, and human destiny. Michael Knox Beran's Forge of Empires brilliantly entwines the stories of the three epochal transformations and their fateful legacies.
Telling the stories from the point of view of those who participated in the momentous events -- among them Walt Whitman and Friedrich Nietzsche, Mary Chesnut and Leo Tolstoy, Napoleon III and the Empress Eugénie -- Beran weaves a rich tapestry of high drama and human pathos. Great events often turned on the decisions of a few lone souls, and each of the three statesmen faced moments of painful doubt or denial as well as significant decisions that would redefine their nations.
With its vivid narrative and memorable portraiture, Forge of Empires sheds new light on a question of perennial importance: How are free states made, and how are they unmade? In the same decade that saw freedom's victories, one of the trinity of liberators revealed himself as an enemy to the free state, and another lost heart. What Lincoln called the "germ" of freedom, which was "to grow and expand into the universal liberty of mankind," came close to being annihilated in a world crisis that pitted the free state against new philosophies of terror and coercion.
Forge of Empires is a masterly story of one of history's most significant decades.
Abraham Lincoln freed a subjugated race and transformed the American Republic.
Tsar Alexander II broke the chains of the serfs and brought the rule of law to Russia.
Otto von Bismarck threw over the petty Teutonic princes, defeated the House of Austria and the last of the imperial Napoleons, and united the German nation.
The three statesmen forged the empires that would dominate the twentieth century through two world wars, the Cold War, and beyond. Each of the three was a revolutionary, yet each consolidated a nation that differed profoundly from the others in its conceptions of liberty, power, and human destiny. Michael Knox Beran's Forge of Empires brilliantly entwines the stories of the three epochal transformations and their fateful legacies.
Telling the stories from the point of view of those who participated in the momentous events -- among them Walt Whitman and Friedrich Nietzsche, Mary Chesnut and Leo Tolstoy, Napoleon III and the Empress Eugénie -- Beran weaves a rich tapestry of high drama and human pathos. Great events often turned on the decisions of a few lone souls, and each of the three statesmen faced moments of painful doubt or denial as well as significant decisions that would redefine their nations.
With its vivid narrative and memorable portraiture, Forge of Empires sheds new light on a question of perennial importance: How are free states made, and how are they unmade? In the same decade that saw freedom's victories, one of the trinity of liberators revealed himself as an enemy to the free state, and another lost heart. What Lincoln called the "germ" of freedom, which was "to grow and expand into the universal liberty of mankind," came close to being annihilated in a world crisis that pitted the free state against new philosophies of terror and coercion.
Forge of Empires is a masterly story of one of history's most significant decades.
477 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
6 people are currently reading
89 people want to read
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
November 20, 2011
Once on a Star Trek documentary I heard Leonard Nimoy discuss an old Chinese curse, `may you live in interesting times.' In that documentary, Nimoy is referring to the 1960s. However, this book talks about times that may have been far more interesting, the 1860s. Often, we in the United States are so obsessed and fascinated with ourselves that we forget the rest of the world exists. Which is why are sports champions are always titled the `World Champions' despite the fact that they are just playing in the United States*. I, myself, am certainly guilty of this. I often mark book reviews on historical events outside the United States with the labels `World History' and `Western Civilization' and inside the United States is labeled just `U.S. History.' The U.S. Civil War has been a source of fascination for us ever since it ended, but often we ignore the wider world that our conflict played out. Moreover, we should not ignore it, for foreign affairs is a big part of why that conflict played out the way it did.
David Donald's Lincoln played out the life of one man, Doris Goodwin's bookTeam of Rivals showed an administration, but Michael Beran's book gives us the world that was. The focus is on the three legendary statesmen: Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States; Otto Von Bismarck, Prime Minster of Prussia and then Chancellor of Germany; and Tsar Alexander II, Emperor of Russia. Lincoln would hold his nation together that was being torn apart by the Civil War and would succeed in eradicating slavery from the Union. Bismarck would unify his county into a single nation, and Tsar Alexander sought to modernize his nation by liberating his nation's serfs and providing for a constitutional monarchy.
Of the three leaders, only Lincoln would succeed in every way possible. Bismarck would unify Germany but he was always dependent on the patronage of his sovereign for unlike Lincoln, who served in a Republic, Bismarck served a King who he transformed into an Emperor. Bismarck would live to see a new Emperor come to the throne had he built and begin a process to ruin it all. Tsar Alexander was an emperor already, and in theory absolute. Unfortunately, after the centuries of serfdom, transforming the entire nation's population from serfs to citizens would take some doing and when undermined by both conservative and radical elements it would become impossible.
Tsar Alexander was just following example that other monarchs, and Bismarck, were making with `Tory Democracy.' For the monarchs and aristocrats of the mid-nineteenth century were a far more cleaver breed then their late eighteenth century counterparts. They would embrace popular reform as way of maintaining their hold on power.
"The free-state men were every day becoming more impatient with his rule. He imposed a censorship on the press; but this, he knew, was a shopworn tactic, and only strengthened the opposition. He must try something else. He had been intrigued by the way in which Europe's craftiest politicians used (or proposed to use) the power of the lower orders against the liberal middle--against the bourgeois and professional classes. In France, Napoleon III organized mass plebiscites to ratify his power. In England, Benjamin Disraeli envisioned a union between the common people and the aristocracy, and alliance which Winston Churchill's father, Lord Randolph Churchill, was later to christen `Tory Democracy.' Others called it `neofeudal paternalism' or `English Tory Socialism.'
It was and ingenious strategy. Use democratic paternalism to subvert the institutions of freedom. Today, when democracy and liberty are practically synonymous, such a policy seems paradoxical. But it did not seem so in the nineteenth century. In England and the United States, the rule of law, bills of rights, independent judiciaries, and legislative control of the purse and the army developed before the advent of universal suffrage. When, during the nineteenth century, democracy grew up in England and America, the institutions of the free state were relatively stable; the broader franchise did not destroy free constitutions, it made them stronger. But in countries without such stable constitutions, it made them stronger. But in countries without such stable constitutions, unscrupulous leaders used democratic instruments--plebiscites and manhood suffrage--to subvert fledgling institutions of freedom." p.175
This book also connects the dots on how these events all tied into each other. Generally, I and most other historians both professionals, and us amateurs, are aware of the British and French support for the Confederacy during the U.S Civil War. However, I do not believe that most are equally aware of the Prussian and Russian support for the Union. Bismarck could not support the South since he was trying to unify his own nation, and Alexander equally supported the Union in his outright refusal even to consider recognizing the Confederacy. This book also gives detail on how the United States, angry at the French for their support of the Confederacy, was able to play a role in the Franco-Prussian War.
"The advice of Philip Sheridan, General Grant's cavalry master, made a deep impression upon him. Sheridan had come to the Prussian camp as an observer. He urged the Germans to embrace the policy of total war to which Lincoln and Grant had been driven to during the Civil War. `The proper strategy,' Sheridan told Bismarck over dinner at Rheims, `consists in the first place of inflicting as telling blows as possible on the enemy's army, and then in causing the inhabitants so much suffering that they must long for peace, and force their Government to demand it. The people must be left with nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war...' `You know how to hit an enemy as no other army does, but you have not learned how to annihilate him. One must see more smoke of burning villages, otherwise you will not finish the French.'" (p.353)
This book opens a window into another time, one that sees all these dramatic events and actors great and small take part. The History Channel should a documentary based on it. For, I found this book more entertaining than a movie. This book has a brilliant narrative and I highly recommend to anyone.
*Now granted the amount of foreign players in our pro leagues might give those titles more legitimacy but we have always had those titles.
David Donald's Lincoln played out the life of one man, Doris Goodwin's bookTeam of Rivals showed an administration, but Michael Beran's book gives us the world that was. The focus is on the three legendary statesmen: Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States; Otto Von Bismarck, Prime Minster of Prussia and then Chancellor of Germany; and Tsar Alexander II, Emperor of Russia. Lincoln would hold his nation together that was being torn apart by the Civil War and would succeed in eradicating slavery from the Union. Bismarck would unify his county into a single nation, and Tsar Alexander sought to modernize his nation by liberating his nation's serfs and providing for a constitutional monarchy.
Of the three leaders, only Lincoln would succeed in every way possible. Bismarck would unify Germany but he was always dependent on the patronage of his sovereign for unlike Lincoln, who served in a Republic, Bismarck served a King who he transformed into an Emperor. Bismarck would live to see a new Emperor come to the throne had he built and begin a process to ruin it all. Tsar Alexander was an emperor already, and in theory absolute. Unfortunately, after the centuries of serfdom, transforming the entire nation's population from serfs to citizens would take some doing and when undermined by both conservative and radical elements it would become impossible.
Tsar Alexander was just following example that other monarchs, and Bismarck, were making with `Tory Democracy.' For the monarchs and aristocrats of the mid-nineteenth century were a far more cleaver breed then their late eighteenth century counterparts. They would embrace popular reform as way of maintaining their hold on power.
"The free-state men were every day becoming more impatient with his rule. He imposed a censorship on the press; but this, he knew, was a shopworn tactic, and only strengthened the opposition. He must try something else. He had been intrigued by the way in which Europe's craftiest politicians used (or proposed to use) the power of the lower orders against the liberal middle--against the bourgeois and professional classes. In France, Napoleon III organized mass plebiscites to ratify his power. In England, Benjamin Disraeli envisioned a union between the common people and the aristocracy, and alliance which Winston Churchill's father, Lord Randolph Churchill, was later to christen `Tory Democracy.' Others called it `neofeudal paternalism' or `English Tory Socialism.'
It was and ingenious strategy. Use democratic paternalism to subvert the institutions of freedom. Today, when democracy and liberty are practically synonymous, such a policy seems paradoxical. But it did not seem so in the nineteenth century. In England and the United States, the rule of law, bills of rights, independent judiciaries, and legislative control of the purse and the army developed before the advent of universal suffrage. When, during the nineteenth century, democracy grew up in England and America, the institutions of the free state were relatively stable; the broader franchise did not destroy free constitutions, it made them stronger. But in countries without such stable constitutions, it made them stronger. But in countries without such stable constitutions, unscrupulous leaders used democratic instruments--plebiscites and manhood suffrage--to subvert fledgling institutions of freedom." p.175
This book also connects the dots on how these events all tied into each other. Generally, I and most other historians both professionals, and us amateurs, are aware of the British and French support for the Confederacy during the U.S Civil War. However, I do not believe that most are equally aware of the Prussian and Russian support for the Union. Bismarck could not support the South since he was trying to unify his own nation, and Alexander equally supported the Union in his outright refusal even to consider recognizing the Confederacy. This book also gives detail on how the United States, angry at the French for their support of the Confederacy, was able to play a role in the Franco-Prussian War.
"The advice of Philip Sheridan, General Grant's cavalry master, made a deep impression upon him. Sheridan had come to the Prussian camp as an observer. He urged the Germans to embrace the policy of total war to which Lincoln and Grant had been driven to during the Civil War. `The proper strategy,' Sheridan told Bismarck over dinner at Rheims, `consists in the first place of inflicting as telling blows as possible on the enemy's army, and then in causing the inhabitants so much suffering that they must long for peace, and force their Government to demand it. The people must be left with nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war...' `You know how to hit an enemy as no other army does, but you have not learned how to annihilate him. One must see more smoke of burning villages, otherwise you will not finish the French.'" (p.353)
This book opens a window into another time, one that sees all these dramatic events and actors great and small take part. The History Channel should a documentary based on it. For, I found this book more entertaining than a movie. This book has a brilliant narrative and I highly recommend to anyone.
*Now granted the amount of foreign players in our pro leagues might give those titles more legitimacy but we have always had those titles.
December 28, 2022
A remarkably gripping book, history that is so well-told and thoroughly researched, the characters and the situations jump off the pages.
Three strands of stories are braided in the way two strands are.
One, the stage Civil War America, Lincoln. Besides well-known players like Seward, several second and third tier figures of history who were quite important at the time are described in vivid detail, and their roles explicated.
Two, Tsar Alexander in Russia, and his abolition of serfdom. Starting off with the Decembrists and telling about the undercurrents of anarchy and revolution that always threatened a Russian Tzar from within the court and without, as well as Count Orlov.
Three, Otto von Bismarck. I found this section the one I had the most to learn from. The ultimate "realist" who with hate in his heart, and imagination to make foreign affairs happen by willing it, born into a Junkers family, he would scheme and work to achieve unification of Germany. In actual fact, he was Prussian, and after his time, the Hapsburgs to the South would go into decline, and Prussia would pry itself free, creating a Germany of the north nationalistic and strong, and unafraid either of the Austrian empire to the South, England to the North, Russia to the East, or France, Spain and Italy to the West. We all know where that arc of German history took the world all the way to 1939, but that is another story. This is an exquisite telling of a decade that opened my eyes to Bismarck-ian plotting.
The eponymous "Forge of Empires" refers to how the triumph of the Union over the Confederacy, considered unlikely, resulted in shaping world history. Scarcely could a superpower influencing two world wars, especially the latter been envisaged if that outcome had been different. The abolition of serfdom and the Tsardom of Alexander had far reaching consequences and also reflected battles of ideas of the time that happened in America and Western Europe. Finally the emergence of (North)Germany as a superpower had its seeds in Count Otto von Bismarck's push against the South - the Austrians. One of the best histories.
Three strands of stories are braided in the way two strands are.
One, the stage Civil War America, Lincoln. Besides well-known players like Seward, several second and third tier figures of history who were quite important at the time are described in vivid detail, and their roles explicated.
Two, Tsar Alexander in Russia, and his abolition of serfdom. Starting off with the Decembrists and telling about the undercurrents of anarchy and revolution that always threatened a Russian Tzar from within the court and without, as well as Count Orlov.
Three, Otto von Bismarck. I found this section the one I had the most to learn from. The ultimate "realist" who with hate in his heart, and imagination to make foreign affairs happen by willing it, born into a Junkers family, he would scheme and work to achieve unification of Germany. In actual fact, he was Prussian, and after his time, the Hapsburgs to the South would go into decline, and Prussia would pry itself free, creating a Germany of the north nationalistic and strong, and unafraid either of the Austrian empire to the South, England to the North, Russia to the East, or France, Spain and Italy to the West. We all know where that arc of German history took the world all the way to 1939, but that is another story. This is an exquisite telling of a decade that opened my eyes to Bismarck-ian plotting.
The eponymous "Forge of Empires" refers to how the triumph of the Union over the Confederacy, considered unlikely, resulted in shaping world history. Scarcely could a superpower influencing two world wars, especially the latter been envisaged if that outcome had been different. The abolition of serfdom and the Tsardom of Alexander had far reaching consequences and also reflected battles of ideas of the time that happened in America and Western Europe. Finally the emergence of (North)Germany as a superpower had its seeds in Count Otto von Bismarck's push against the South - the Austrians. One of the best histories.
August 21, 2009
I think a lot of people don’t read history books because they fear the books will be long, boring, and full of words only a professor would use. Well this is exactly such a book.
The author tries to link Lincoln, Bismarck, and Alexander II over the ten year period from 1860-1870. However, instead of showing any real links between the philosophies of the three, you get spliced together histories of the three countries over that time period. It would probably be more beneficial to just read separate, more detailed histories of the Civil War, Bismarck’s unification of Germany, and Tsar Alexander II’s freeing of the serfs and make the links between the three of them yourself.
That’s not to say this is a bad book. There are a lot of interesting insights and facts, but it can be slow at times and I am not sure it really accomplishes what it set out to do which is to compare and contrast the three leaders and their revolutions/thoughts on freedom.
The author tries to link Lincoln, Bismarck, and Alexander II over the ten year period from 1860-1870. However, instead of showing any real links between the philosophies of the three, you get spliced together histories of the three countries over that time period. It would probably be more beneficial to just read separate, more detailed histories of the Civil War, Bismarck’s unification of Germany, and Tsar Alexander II’s freeing of the serfs and make the links between the three of them yourself.
That’s not to say this is a bad book. There are a lot of interesting insights and facts, but it can be slow at times and I am not sure it really accomplishes what it set out to do which is to compare and contrast the three leaders and their revolutions/thoughts on freedom.
December 9, 2012
Have read several times over the past 6 years.
This book should be required reading for ALL
high school students. So well written and
portrays the "world powers" and how decisions made at
that time have impacted our world as we know it today.
Have passed it on to several friends and family members.
This book should be required reading for ALL
high school students. So well written and
portrays the "world powers" and how decisions made at
that time have impacted our world as we know it today.
Have passed it on to several friends and family members.
July 29, 2011
Good large scale history. Helps put the American Civil War in a larger context.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews