What do you think?
Rate this book
Kampf um Vorherrschaft: Eine deutsche Geschichte Europas 1453 bis heute
500 Jahre Machtkämpfe um die Mitte Europas
In einem großen, umfassenden Wurf erzählt Brendan Simms die Geschichte Europas seit dem 15. Jahrhundert. Er beschreibt sie als Geschichte ständig wechselnder Machtverhältnisse und Rivalitäten, des Kampfs der großen und kleinen europäischen Länder um Einfluss sowie der Begehrlichkeiten entfernterer Mächte wie des Osmanischen Reiches oder der USA – vor allem aber schildert er sie als Geschichte der Auseinandersetzung um die Mitte des Kontinents, vom Heiligen Römischen Reich deutscher Nation bis zum wiedervereinigten Deutschland. Brendan Simms’ großartige Darstellung wird von vielen bereits mit Spannung erwartet und lädt gerade in diesen Tagen zu kontroversen Diskussionen ein.
In einem großen, umfassenden Wurf erzählt Brendan Simms die Geschichte Europas seit dem 15. Jahrhundert. Er beschreibt sie als Geschichte ständig wechselnder Machtverhältnisse und Rivalitäten, des Kampfs der großen und kleinen europäischen Länder um Einfluss sowie der Begehrlichkeiten entfernterer Mächte wie des Osmanischen Reiches oder der USA – vor allem aber schildert er sie als Geschichte der Auseinandersetzung um die Mitte des Kontinents, vom Heiligen Römischen Reich deutscher Nation bis zum wiedervereinigten Deutschland. Brendan Simms’ großartige Darstellung wird von vielen bereits mit Spannung erwartet und lädt gerade in diesen Tagen zu kontroversen Diskussionen ein.
896 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2013
256 people are currently reading
2286 people want to read
About the author
Brendan Simms
33 books65 followersBrendan Peter Simms is Professor of the History of International Relations in the Department of Politics and International Studies at the University of Cambridge. Simms studied at Trinity College Dublin, where he was elected a scholar in history in 1986, before completing his doctoral dissertation, Anglo-Prussian relations, 1804-1806: The Napoleonic Threat, at Cambridge under the supervision of Professor Tim Blanning in 1993. A Fellow of Peterhouse, he lectures and leads seminars on international history since 1945
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews
January 31, 2016
A lot of learning can be a dangerous thing. This is the second recent sweeping history of war and Europe that I've enjoyed thoroughly until the closing pages. As with Ian Morris's "War: What is it good for?" roughly 90% of this book would have received a 4 or even 5 star rating. The problem comes at the end, when these learned historians (of completely different styles and levels of seriousness) attempt to apply their knowledge to the present day and just miss the point entirely.
Before my massive problem, one small quibble. The book is billed as telling the story from 1453 to the present. In fact, the first four and a half centuries are done with by the halfway point. I would have enjoyed more coverage of those earlier years, that birthed the nation-state system, and so much of what we consider modern Europe. The narrative throughout was readable, detailed and enjoyable. There is of course vastly more information of contemporary relevance the closer you get to the present day, but I felt a bit cheated. Like I said a quibble, and it only slightly detracted from my enjoyment of the book.
When the book makes it to the 20th century grand strategy and wars that I sense Simms actually wanted to write about, the treatment is excellent. He effortlessly dips back and forth between domestic politics and the international struggle of what feels like dozens of countries. He expertly manages to incorporate the planet-wide conflicts that mattered, while sticking to his focus on the struggle for the European continent. The more I think about the feat, the more impressed I am. It's an almost year by year recounting of world events in the 20th century, and it's never boring or flabby.
He's got two points that he hammers home repeatedly. One is the way that foreign policy drove all manner of domestic changes, from administrative reform to social legislation, and the Second is the centrality of the struggle to control Germany, the European heartland, over the entire period discussed. These are perhaps not the most ambitious of points, but they are proven well. His narrative of the World Wars and the Cold War is just fantastic. The problems come after the Cold War ends.
The timbre of the narrative changes dramatically. Our sober guide to history's greatest horrors and triumphs disappears. Every minor reversal and savage little cold war hangover is described as a "colossal" and or "massive" crisis. The continued "failure" of the European public to take an interest in military aggrandizement and defense spending is lamented in frankly ludicrous terms. Here let me quote a bit: "... the European peoples had failed - even in this hour of crisis - to assert their right to participate in the defense of their common prosperity and security." The crisis he's referring to is I assume either Russia's ridiculous little war with Georgia or the financial crisis that took place in 2008. It's hard to see how defense spending would have helped with the financial crisis, and it's quite easy to see exactly how the NATO saber rattling Simms wants more of led to the war between Russia and Georgia.
The point he's missing is this. The pacification of Europe, accomplished at tremendous cost and existential risk to human civilization is one of mankind's greatest victories. I made a video on it once: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAdlA...). The fact that most of the European public now cares more about quality of life than the petty grandeur of killing the folks the next country over is something to be celebrated. My sense is that like many in the academic branch of the military industrial complex he sees a waning interest in grand strategy and geopolitics as a threat to his job security, or perhaps more important if less tangible, his job significance (I'd imagine that seat at Cambridge is pretty secure).
Unlike many of his ilk, Simms does at least acknowledge that Russia expected NATO expansion to stop with Germany after it allowed the USSR to collapse. He acknowledges it with one sentence. It's probably the shortest sentence in the book. The closing pages then lovingly chronicle NATO's relentless expansion, in tandem with the far more useful and benign European Union, with essentially zero analysis or explanation of why this should be so, and why these organizations are so uselessly but seemingly irrevocably connected. (Here's a helpful vid on how NATO started the crisis in Ukraine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9z9j... ) NATO are our guys, so Russia couldn't possibly have a legitimate objection to the expansion to its borders of world history's most powerful military organization, an organization founded explicitly to combat Russia. Objective history is impossible, but this degree of partisanship is just too much. I would have perhaps forgiven this unfortunately common affliction if it weren't for the ridiculousness of the book's final sentences.
Keep in mind that in the run up to World War I, the cataclysm that started off Europe's horrific 20th century, the European people marched eagerly off to war. To be sure there was all manner of manipulation by elites, but much of the continent really believed that the war was right and good, and their side, their national blood and steel, would prevail. This is how Simms closes the book, referring to the present day:
"In short, at the start of the third decade of the second millennium, [sic, he ain't talking about 1021] Europeans were no less preoccupied by how the vital space at the heart of the continent was to be organized than they had been in times gone by. The German Question, eclipsed for more than a decade after unification, was back."
That's simply not true.
Angst over a financial management is not the urge to march off and blow somebody up.
That's not history.
Before my massive problem, one small quibble. The book is billed as telling the story from 1453 to the present. In fact, the first four and a half centuries are done with by the halfway point. I would have enjoyed more coverage of those earlier years, that birthed the nation-state system, and so much of what we consider modern Europe. The narrative throughout was readable, detailed and enjoyable. There is of course vastly more information of contemporary relevance the closer you get to the present day, but I felt a bit cheated. Like I said a quibble, and it only slightly detracted from my enjoyment of the book.
When the book makes it to the 20th century grand strategy and wars that I sense Simms actually wanted to write about, the treatment is excellent. He effortlessly dips back and forth between domestic politics and the international struggle of what feels like dozens of countries. He expertly manages to incorporate the planet-wide conflicts that mattered, while sticking to his focus on the struggle for the European continent. The more I think about the feat, the more impressed I am. It's an almost year by year recounting of world events in the 20th century, and it's never boring or flabby.
He's got two points that he hammers home repeatedly. One is the way that foreign policy drove all manner of domestic changes, from administrative reform to social legislation, and the Second is the centrality of the struggle to control Germany, the European heartland, over the entire period discussed. These are perhaps not the most ambitious of points, but they are proven well. His narrative of the World Wars and the Cold War is just fantastic. The problems come after the Cold War ends.
The timbre of the narrative changes dramatically. Our sober guide to history's greatest horrors and triumphs disappears. Every minor reversal and savage little cold war hangover is described as a "colossal" and or "massive" crisis. The continued "failure" of the European public to take an interest in military aggrandizement and defense spending is lamented in frankly ludicrous terms. Here let me quote a bit: "... the European peoples had failed - even in this hour of crisis - to assert their right to participate in the defense of their common prosperity and security." The crisis he's referring to is I assume either Russia's ridiculous little war with Georgia or the financial crisis that took place in 2008. It's hard to see how defense spending would have helped with the financial crisis, and it's quite easy to see exactly how the NATO saber rattling Simms wants more of led to the war between Russia and Georgia.
The point he's missing is this. The pacification of Europe, accomplished at tremendous cost and existential risk to human civilization is one of mankind's greatest victories. I made a video on it once: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAdlA...). The fact that most of the European public now cares more about quality of life than the petty grandeur of killing the folks the next country over is something to be celebrated. My sense is that like many in the academic branch of the military industrial complex he sees a waning interest in grand strategy and geopolitics as a threat to his job security, or perhaps more important if less tangible, his job significance (I'd imagine that seat at Cambridge is pretty secure).
Unlike many of his ilk, Simms does at least acknowledge that Russia expected NATO expansion to stop with Germany after it allowed the USSR to collapse. He acknowledges it with one sentence. It's probably the shortest sentence in the book. The closing pages then lovingly chronicle NATO's relentless expansion, in tandem with the far more useful and benign European Union, with essentially zero analysis or explanation of why this should be so, and why these organizations are so uselessly but seemingly irrevocably connected. (Here's a helpful vid on how NATO started the crisis in Ukraine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9z9j... ) NATO are our guys, so Russia couldn't possibly have a legitimate objection to the expansion to its borders of world history's most powerful military organization, an organization founded explicitly to combat Russia. Objective history is impossible, but this degree of partisanship is just too much. I would have perhaps forgiven this unfortunately common affliction if it weren't for the ridiculousness of the book's final sentences.
Keep in mind that in the run up to World War I, the cataclysm that started off Europe's horrific 20th century, the European people marched eagerly off to war. To be sure there was all manner of manipulation by elites, but much of the continent really believed that the war was right and good, and their side, their national blood and steel, would prevail. This is how Simms closes the book, referring to the present day:
"In short, at the start of the third decade of the second millennium, [sic, he ain't talking about 1021] Europeans were no less preoccupied by how the vital space at the heart of the continent was to be organized than they had been in times gone by. The German Question, eclipsed for more than a decade after unification, was back."
That's simply not true.
Angst over a financial management is not the urge to march off and blow somebody up.
That's not history.
May 26, 2013
In this impressive survey of European power politics since the fall of Constantinople, Brendan Simms builds on a theme familiar from his earlier works on Prussia: the primacy of foreign-policy over domestic politics. However, the main thread running through the book is the thesis that the German-speaking lands of central Europe are the key to the balance of power on the continent and in the wider world.
At the outset, Simms puts forward the argument that the Holy Roman Empire and its successor states have been “the principal source of political legitimacy for anybody who wants to speak for Europe”. Consequently, his interpretation of every major conflict in European history over the last 500 years is made through a German prism. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which brought an end to the Thirty Years’ War, is seen not so much as the beginning of the sovereign state system that we still know today, but rather as the vehicle for which the Empire was given a constitution that “would reconcile the political aspirations of Germans with the requirements of the international state system.”
The wars of Louis XIV are seen by Simms as a means of ensuring that France would control the resources of the Empire as much as being the product of the Sun King’s quest for grandeur. The outcome of the Seven Years’ War in which the Prussia of Frederick the Great had almost been brought to its knees is seen in retrospect as the point at which “two ideal types of European parliamentary and absolutist regimes, Britain and Prussia” emerged victorious. The French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars were driven as much by the pursuit of a geopolitical agenda centred on Germany as they were by ideology. When Napoleon lost at Leipzig in 1813, his consequent ejection from Germany meant that the game was up even though the campaigns of 1814 and 1815 were yet to come.
Simms’s argument that the Vienna Settlement of 1815 and the European Revolutions of 1848-9 were centred on the destiny of Germany is persuasive. His account of the growing sense of German nationalism which culminated in the Wars of Unification between 1864 and 1871 concludes with the observation that with the mastery of Germany assured, a new phase in the struggle for European supremacy was about to begin. This brings us on to the Hohenzollern and National Socialist attempts to achieve German hegemony in Europe. The story of Bismarck’s posthumous failure to prevent the existence of a powerful alliance against Imperial Germany, the post-war dislocation wrought by the Treaty of Versailles, and Hitler’s rise to power and subsequent aggressive foreign policy to “Germanise” Europe are all familiar. Simms places all of this in a wider context. With the fall of France in 1940, the United States was aware that this had led to a fundamental change in the European and, hence, global balance of power. By the end of the following year, Hitler had contrived to ensure that the most powerful coalition of powers imaginable now opposed Germany making his downfall inevitable.
Although Germany was partitioned in 1945, it remained the fulcrum of European power politics during the Cold War. As Simms puts it, each side “sought to win over the Germans, or at least to deny them to the other side. They were also determined to prevent the re-emergence of German power. The parallel projects of NATO and European integration were designed with this twin purpose in mind.”
With the end of the Cold War and the re-unification of East and West Germany, the “German problem” has re-emerged in another guise given the nation’s economic superiority. Simms argues that only Britain, “because she possesses the most credible fighting force on the continent at the moment” and Germany “because her economic strength is vital to the functioning of the Single Market and the Euro” can bring about deeper integration in Europe. This would appear unlikely because British Euroscepticism is well entrenched while opposition to the European project is becoming more popular in Germany. Simms concludes that his thesis of the primacy of foreign policy no longer holds in Germany and other western European countries as a result of the “uncoupling of western European state and society from the project of making war” since the mid-1960s. Therefore, it “follows that only a major external threat will unite Europeans today.” Simms postulates that such a threat could emerge through Russia, China or radical Islam.
In summary, Simms’s work is an excellent read that should be of equal value to the general reader and to the historian with more of a specialist interest in European power politics during the past half millennium.
At the outset, Simms puts forward the argument that the Holy Roman Empire and its successor states have been “the principal source of political legitimacy for anybody who wants to speak for Europe”. Consequently, his interpretation of every major conflict in European history over the last 500 years is made through a German prism. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648), which brought an end to the Thirty Years’ War, is seen not so much as the beginning of the sovereign state system that we still know today, but rather as the vehicle for which the Empire was given a constitution that “would reconcile the political aspirations of Germans with the requirements of the international state system.”
The wars of Louis XIV are seen by Simms as a means of ensuring that France would control the resources of the Empire as much as being the product of the Sun King’s quest for grandeur. The outcome of the Seven Years’ War in which the Prussia of Frederick the Great had almost been brought to its knees is seen in retrospect as the point at which “two ideal types of European parliamentary and absolutist regimes, Britain and Prussia” emerged victorious. The French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars were driven as much by the pursuit of a geopolitical agenda centred on Germany as they were by ideology. When Napoleon lost at Leipzig in 1813, his consequent ejection from Germany meant that the game was up even though the campaigns of 1814 and 1815 were yet to come.
Simms’s argument that the Vienna Settlement of 1815 and the European Revolutions of 1848-9 were centred on the destiny of Germany is persuasive. His account of the growing sense of German nationalism which culminated in the Wars of Unification between 1864 and 1871 concludes with the observation that with the mastery of Germany assured, a new phase in the struggle for European supremacy was about to begin. This brings us on to the Hohenzollern and National Socialist attempts to achieve German hegemony in Europe. The story of Bismarck’s posthumous failure to prevent the existence of a powerful alliance against Imperial Germany, the post-war dislocation wrought by the Treaty of Versailles, and Hitler’s rise to power and subsequent aggressive foreign policy to “Germanise” Europe are all familiar. Simms places all of this in a wider context. With the fall of France in 1940, the United States was aware that this had led to a fundamental change in the European and, hence, global balance of power. By the end of the following year, Hitler had contrived to ensure that the most powerful coalition of powers imaginable now opposed Germany making his downfall inevitable.
Although Germany was partitioned in 1945, it remained the fulcrum of European power politics during the Cold War. As Simms puts it, each side “sought to win over the Germans, or at least to deny them to the other side. They were also determined to prevent the re-emergence of German power. The parallel projects of NATO and European integration were designed with this twin purpose in mind.”
With the end of the Cold War and the re-unification of East and West Germany, the “German problem” has re-emerged in another guise given the nation’s economic superiority. Simms argues that only Britain, “because she possesses the most credible fighting force on the continent at the moment” and Germany “because her economic strength is vital to the functioning of the Single Market and the Euro” can bring about deeper integration in Europe. This would appear unlikely because British Euroscepticism is well entrenched while opposition to the European project is becoming more popular in Germany. Simms concludes that his thesis of the primacy of foreign policy no longer holds in Germany and other western European countries as a result of the “uncoupling of western European state and society from the project of making war” since the mid-1960s. Therefore, it “follows that only a major external threat will unite Europeans today.” Simms postulates that such a threat could emerge through Russia, China or radical Islam.
In summary, Simms’s work is an excellent read that should be of equal value to the general reader and to the historian with more of a specialist interest in European power politics during the past half millennium.
January 14, 2022
This is the monster of the book, a lot of pages, small print, dense with information, but overall pretty good, and you can read it whether you are not familiar with European history or if you are a history buff.
The biggest point this book is trying to tell, Germany (Holy Roman Empire might be more accurate) is the heart of Europe, and who controls it, dominates Europe, and although there is a lot of truth in that, sometimes Simms overemphasizes just how important Germany is. Sometimes you get the notion that everything that happened and is related to the Western civilization is because of Central Europe.
But not to be overly critical, you will get a really good summary of how things happened over ages and if you are interested in a massive history book about Europe since 1453. this is a pretty good choice.
The biggest point this book is trying to tell, Germany (Holy Roman Empire might be more accurate) is the heart of Europe, and who controls it, dominates Europe, and although there is a lot of truth in that, sometimes Simms overemphasizes just how important Germany is. Sometimes you get the notion that everything that happened and is related to the Western civilization is because of Central Europe.
But not to be overly critical, you will get a really good summary of how things happened over ages and if you are interested in a massive history book about Europe since 1453. this is a pretty good choice.
March 6, 2016
Za poslední dobu asi jedna z nejlepších knih o evropské historii a to říkám a píšu přes to, že na těch 600 stranách proletí pět set let. I přes to je velmi detailní, výborně dává věci do souvislostí a je detailně vyzdrojovaná. Navíc, pokud čtenář není kovaný marxista, bude se mu autorovo východisko zdát pravděpodobně velmi neutrální. Takže za mne doporučuju. Mírná škoda je, že kniha končí někdy rokem 2011, nejposlednější události už tam nejsou. Ale výborně jsou zde sumarizovány problémy s EU a s její poslední integrací, problémy ve vztahu k Blízkému Východu a samozřejmě k Rusku.
December 14, 2017
'The Soviet Union, in short, did not have a military-industrial complex like the United States, it was a military-industrial complex.'
This brilliantly placed line signifies the book's ability to spark off vivid understandings of Europe's various historical situations. It is a thoughtful and fair minded piece of work, usually fast paced and often exhilarating, sometimes sloggy, overall seeming to make the most of its material. It has an argument, a carefully trained perspective, and I'm sure anybody would learn a great deal from it, while having some moments of real pleasure along the way. Simms captures Europe as an entity in the midst of history, wilfully perceiving centuries of twists and turns through the filters associated with current/recent issues.
Criticisms
There are a couple of overbearing issues with the style. Early on there is some awkward, seemingly unedited, diction and syntax. There are even instances of elementary mistakes which even a total novice like me can spot - like referring to the Dutch 'Estates General', which is the French term, or saying that Baldwin was the leader of the opposition in 1934. And throughout, paragraphs begin with either 'The real issue was not [insert event], but Germany and the whole balance of power', or 'This international development had a profound effect on domestic politics in many countries' - I like repetition of ideas because it ingrains the essential message of such a long book, and shows self-confidence. But this is far too much, and that becomes apparent early-on. There are also moments when Simms clearly over eggs the primacy of foreign policy, for example declaring that the British revolution was entirely a function of the debate around participation in the European wars. Finally, the book inevitably struggles with the breadth and depth of such a vast and intricate period of history. Even though it is massively lopsided towards the final 100 years, some areas are list-like and don't leave much impression or understanding. There are some other issues, but no-one interested in the topic or attracted by the idea of the book should really be discouraged. If you're still uncertain, let one or two of Simms's genius pieces for the New Statesman convince you, particularly: https://www.newstatesman.com/world/eu...
This brilliantly placed line signifies the book's ability to spark off vivid understandings of Europe's various historical situations. It is a thoughtful and fair minded piece of work, usually fast paced and often exhilarating, sometimes sloggy, overall seeming to make the most of its material. It has an argument, a carefully trained perspective, and I'm sure anybody would learn a great deal from it, while having some moments of real pleasure along the way. Simms captures Europe as an entity in the midst of history, wilfully perceiving centuries of twists and turns through the filters associated with current/recent issues.
Criticisms
There are a couple of overbearing issues with the style. Early on there is some awkward, seemingly unedited, diction and syntax. There are even instances of elementary mistakes which even a total novice like me can spot - like referring to the Dutch 'Estates General', which is the French term, or saying that Baldwin was the leader of the opposition in 1934. And throughout, paragraphs begin with either 'The real issue was not [insert event], but Germany and the whole balance of power', or 'This international development had a profound effect on domestic politics in many countries' - I like repetition of ideas because it ingrains the essential message of such a long book, and shows self-confidence. But this is far too much, and that becomes apparent early-on. There are also moments when Simms clearly over eggs the primacy of foreign policy, for example declaring that the British revolution was entirely a function of the debate around participation in the European wars. Finally, the book inevitably struggles with the breadth and depth of such a vast and intricate period of history. Even though it is massively lopsided towards the final 100 years, some areas are list-like and don't leave much impression or understanding. There are some other issues, but no-one interested in the topic or attracted by the idea of the book should really be discouraged. If you're still uncertain, let one or two of Simms's genius pieces for the New Statesman convince you, particularly: https://www.newstatesman.com/world/eu...
December 27, 2016
There are two major theses in this book. One is presented right at the outset: due to its central position and massive potential, he who controls Germany dominates Europe. For the first part of this book, the active powers deliberately prevent anyone, including the Germans, from controlling Germany, in order to maintain the balance. From 1870-1944, however, Germany is unified and attempts to prove that a dominating Germany dominates Europe, and was prevented from doing so only at great cost. Then, of course, Germany is divided again and becomes the most important front of the Cold War. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the book sort of peters out - it's difficult to do a whole lot of analysis on recent history, but the centrality of Germany to the EU is obvious, even if some of the other discussion of the last 20 years may not be.
The second theses, moving beyond geography is history, is that foreign policy drives social and economic changes in the name of being more efficient for the next war. Sometimes, this resulted in more democracy, sometimes in more absolutism or autocracy, but the goal was always to be strong enough to win (usually in, against, or as Germany). This is, perhaps, more than a bit reductionist, but the author does a fairly good job of arguing for it. It also explains the heavy focus on international relations, which shouldn't be surprising given the title, and the short shrift given to the rest of history from 1453.
My major quibble with the book is that when European politics goes global, some parts of the non-European map get a lot of focus and some are almost completely ignored. Japan, for instance, is barely mentioned before or after the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, and China is largely ignored outside of it being a pain to Khruschev in the 1950s. Meanwhile we get a surprisingly detailed amount of Afghan politics - and Middle Eastern and Jewish foreign relations more generally. Current events and all, but it's a bit weird given the wide scope of the book.
The second theses, moving beyond geography is history, is that foreign policy drives social and economic changes in the name of being more efficient for the next war. Sometimes, this resulted in more democracy, sometimes in more absolutism or autocracy, but the goal was always to be strong enough to win (usually in, against, or as Germany). This is, perhaps, more than a bit reductionist, but the author does a fairly good job of arguing for it. It also explains the heavy focus on international relations, which shouldn't be surprising given the title, and the short shrift given to the rest of history from 1453.
My major quibble with the book is that when European politics goes global, some parts of the non-European map get a lot of focus and some are almost completely ignored. Japan, for instance, is barely mentioned before or after the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, and China is largely ignored outside of it being a pain to Khruschev in the 1950s. Meanwhile we get a surprisingly detailed amount of Afghan politics - and Middle Eastern and Jewish foreign relations more generally. Current events and all, but it's a bit weird given the wide scope of the book.
February 8, 2014
The copy I read was some 530 pages making it almost "550 years in 550 pages." An excellent book: I now understand the significance of the Holy Roman Empire more than I ever did before.
Simms's is pushing the thesis that Germany (by dint of its central position) has been central to European history (and all the more so when it was fragmented) and also that foreign policy trumps domestic policy (to the extent that the English Civil War was a result of the Stuarts' failure to sufficiently support Protestants in the low countries). It is not altogether convincing but it provides a good focus for his narrative.
He even reverses the causes of WWII, in that where we tend to think that the economics (in the form of the 30s depression) drove foreign policy troubles (in the form of an aggressive Germany) he argues that foreign policy triggered it by triggering the depression (through the French reaction to Curtius' policies that drove the Wiener Kreditanstalt to default).
As far as current affairs go, it is notable how often an expansionist Russsia was the source of the continent's instability.
A slog, given the length, but well worth it.
Simms's is pushing the thesis that Germany (by dint of its central position) has been central to European history (and all the more so when it was fragmented) and also that foreign policy trumps domestic policy (to the extent that the English Civil War was a result of the Stuarts' failure to sufficiently support Protestants in the low countries). It is not altogether convincing but it provides a good focus for his narrative.
He even reverses the causes of WWII, in that where we tend to think that the economics (in the form of the 30s depression) drove foreign policy troubles (in the form of an aggressive Germany) he argues that foreign policy triggered it by triggering the depression (through the French reaction to Curtius' policies that drove the Wiener Kreditanstalt to default).
As far as current affairs go, it is notable how often an expansionist Russsia was the source of the continent's instability.
A slog, given the length, but well worth it.
August 8, 2014
Q; What is the most important part of Europe over which control must be exerted to maintain peace, democracy and prosperity?
This book is a monster to read. 535 pages of small print, denser to read than the average insurance document. To be honest it has taken me ages to read it; I can manage about three pages at a time before my head swims and I have to put it down. Thank the gods for my habit of reading more than one book at a time; there have been occasions when I became so bogged down in European geopolitics that I wanted to give up reading this.
Brendan Peter Simms is an Irish historian and Professor of the History of International Relations in the Department of Politics and International Studies at the University of Cambridge. In this book he covers the major events that have created the Europe we recognise from 1453 to the present day. This is no mean feat in itself and to make it readable, even if in small pieces, doubly so. It covers a huge array of subject matter and his references cover nearly a hundred pages more. Even at a year a page (approximately) there is so much raw meat that I found it pretty difficult to digest at times. This is another book that needs an accompanying pencil and paper to keep notes on what happens when and who is who. I confess to getting very confused between my Louis, Ludwigs, Wilhelms and Williams.
It is a masterpiece of scholarly work and I am sure that I am not able to judge any of the conclusions he draws. As much as anything else my knowledge of European history is scant - the reason for reading this book after all -and my acquaintance with English history between 1603 and 1900 is equally glancing due to the syllabus I was taught in school. So from that point of view this book was fascinating, enjoyable and a huge learning curve.
The writing is not without its difficulties. It is very dense and pared down to bare essentials. This is understandable bearing in mind the subject matter but it does make the whole thing very relentless, occasionally oppressive. As the centuries roll on the increased impact of the rest of the world becomes apparent and by the late twentieth century everything from East Timor to the Iraq crisis plays a role in determining the politics of Europe, with or without American or Soviet pressure. In fact the last fifty years has been a meteor storm impacting on the way Europe behaves and is governed and the pace of the writing increases accordingly.
There are no real synonyms for the word geopolitic. This is a pity because the word is used so often throughout the book that it engendered a nervous tick and loss of concentration when I saw it. I admit this sounds silly, and probably is, but when one word is used repeatedly it becomes jarring and disruptive. In a book that is ONLY about five hundred years of geopolitics need it have been used so often?
However, if that is my only criticism of this book, I accept that it is plausibly puerile. It is a magnificent read, as long as you take it slowly.
A: Germany (but we have known this five hundred years).
This book is a monster to read. 535 pages of small print, denser to read than the average insurance document. To be honest it has taken me ages to read it; I can manage about three pages at a time before my head swims and I have to put it down. Thank the gods for my habit of reading more than one book at a time; there have been occasions when I became so bogged down in European geopolitics that I wanted to give up reading this.
Brendan Peter Simms is an Irish historian and Professor of the History of International Relations in the Department of Politics and International Studies at the University of Cambridge. In this book he covers the major events that have created the Europe we recognise from 1453 to the present day. This is no mean feat in itself and to make it readable, even if in small pieces, doubly so. It covers a huge array of subject matter and his references cover nearly a hundred pages more. Even at a year a page (approximately) there is so much raw meat that I found it pretty difficult to digest at times. This is another book that needs an accompanying pencil and paper to keep notes on what happens when and who is who. I confess to getting very confused between my Louis, Ludwigs, Wilhelms and Williams.
It is a masterpiece of scholarly work and I am sure that I am not able to judge any of the conclusions he draws. As much as anything else my knowledge of European history is scant - the reason for reading this book after all -and my acquaintance with English history between 1603 and 1900 is equally glancing due to the syllabus I was taught in school. So from that point of view this book was fascinating, enjoyable and a huge learning curve.
The writing is not without its difficulties. It is very dense and pared down to bare essentials. This is understandable bearing in mind the subject matter but it does make the whole thing very relentless, occasionally oppressive. As the centuries roll on the increased impact of the rest of the world becomes apparent and by the late twentieth century everything from East Timor to the Iraq crisis plays a role in determining the politics of Europe, with or without American or Soviet pressure. In fact the last fifty years has been a meteor storm impacting on the way Europe behaves and is governed and the pace of the writing increases accordingly.
There are no real synonyms for the word geopolitic. This is a pity because the word is used so often throughout the book that it engendered a nervous tick and loss of concentration when I saw it. I admit this sounds silly, and probably is, but when one word is used repeatedly it becomes jarring and disruptive. In a book that is ONLY about five hundred years of geopolitics need it have been used so often?
However, if that is my only criticism of this book, I accept that it is plausibly puerile. It is a magnificent read, as long as you take it slowly.
A: Germany (but we have known this five hundred years).
September 27, 2013
Not sure if the focus is too large trying to do all of Europe in a single history or if the author was chasing his thesis statement through European History, but this reads a bit like the "begets/begats" portion of The Bible. The focus skips around Europe on a paragraph by paragraph basis. For the Europhile historian, pro and amateur, this might be a good read. The focus on this one misses with me.
January 21, 2014
I thought this book was quite interesting, however I object to Pancho Villa being considered a warlord. It was a bit to pro American and finding more fault with the Soviet than WWII Germany and there were other issues.
May 18, 2023
Like wading through porridge: When I stop to sample some it's nourishing, but its density makes progress impossible.
May 29, 2023
As the great German philosopher Leibniz lamented in 1670: “Germany is the ball which the powers toss to one another, Germany is the battlefield on which the struggle for mastery in Europe is fought.”
And this, in a nutshell, is Brendan Simms’s theory which he masterfully develops throughout this book. He wants us to see that what matters, and has always mattered in a power struggle, is geography, or more precisely geopolitics. To control a land mass, you need to control it from the centre, whoever controls the centre of Europe eventually rules the entire world. Thus the need to control what over time became Germany, but mostly to control its power as it morphed from Holy Roman Empire to a full-fledged modern state. This might sound a bit over the top but reading Simms will give you a better idea of what he means.
If you are looking for a social history, with a lot of moral appreciations and heartfelt human stories, this is not the book for you. If, on the contrary, you are eager to find out all about European geopolitics in order to better understand our current predicament, from Brexit to the war in Ukraine, and even about Europe’s relationship to the rest of the world, then this will be a revelation to you. It is a history of Europe seen exclusively trough the prism of international relations, or foreign policy if you will. In the great tradition of diplomatic history, in a time when, sadly, a lot of the historical profession has turned to sociology, Simms reminds us that nations struggle mostly for territory and resources, wether our modern sensibilities like it or not, and that moral questions that have surfaced in the last 60 years or so can just as much be a cynical tool to legitimate interventions into other nation’s affairs to cement a geopolitical advantage. Yes, Simms is a fan of Realpolitik just as Kissinger is, and many other historians and statesmen/women, because we do have to consider hard, cold reality sometimes in order to make difficult choices. Populations are mostly oblivious to that reality and seldom understand it. But as you will also learn while reading Simms, this was not always the case. Not paying attention to international affairs is a modern trend.
I love how Simms often refers to the US as “the first independent European state established on the far shores of the Atlantic”. We know Russia is a European state but few of us ever think of America as European, but it is, in its political and social traditions. And it quickly joined France, Great Britain, and Russia in the fight to keep the balance of power in Europe for fear one power would get it all, but also to try and be that power. We can safely say that the US has won that game. In its bid to keep a tight control over Germany after WWII, it secured its place as world ruler. Through this book, you will also understand why the EU still hasn’t got an army, why Russia has always clumsily and desperately clung to Europe and shunned an asian orientation, and you will learn a lot about peculiar Germany and how it has seen its place in the world throughout history.
Written in 2013, not a lot of media space was given to the publishing of this history of Europe, as books about power politics and diplomacy have gone out of fashion. Simms is a professor of international relations at Cambridge and it shows. The book reads a bit like a class lecture, but not a boring one, rest assured. It is full of interesting and often funny anecdotes that bring a light touch to a really ambitious and detailed narrative. I think he keeps it clear, concise, and chronological, so that it remains accessible to as many readers as possible. It is a great reference book, or starting point, to explore more with other reads further down the road. And the impressive reference list at the end of the book is a great plus. Simms is never on a moral high ground and never gives a personal opinion. He lets us think for ourselves as we discover the facts. He ends his book not with prognostications but with pertinent questions, and reading this book in 2023, one can safely say that he picked the right ones. You might not agree with all the directions he is taking while driving his point, but you will surely end up with a clearer view of today’s challenges, with a better understanding of it all. You will certainly be less influenced by the daily news smorgasbord that gives you so much anxiety, but actually never lets you have a broader perspective. It will take time to read, but it will be worth it.
And this, in a nutshell, is Brendan Simms’s theory which he masterfully develops throughout this book. He wants us to see that what matters, and has always mattered in a power struggle, is geography, or more precisely geopolitics. To control a land mass, you need to control it from the centre, whoever controls the centre of Europe eventually rules the entire world. Thus the need to control what over time became Germany, but mostly to control its power as it morphed from Holy Roman Empire to a full-fledged modern state. This might sound a bit over the top but reading Simms will give you a better idea of what he means.
If you are looking for a social history, with a lot of moral appreciations and heartfelt human stories, this is not the book for you. If, on the contrary, you are eager to find out all about European geopolitics in order to better understand our current predicament, from Brexit to the war in Ukraine, and even about Europe’s relationship to the rest of the world, then this will be a revelation to you. It is a history of Europe seen exclusively trough the prism of international relations, or foreign policy if you will. In the great tradition of diplomatic history, in a time when, sadly, a lot of the historical profession has turned to sociology, Simms reminds us that nations struggle mostly for territory and resources, wether our modern sensibilities like it or not, and that moral questions that have surfaced in the last 60 years or so can just as much be a cynical tool to legitimate interventions into other nation’s affairs to cement a geopolitical advantage. Yes, Simms is a fan of Realpolitik just as Kissinger is, and many other historians and statesmen/women, because we do have to consider hard, cold reality sometimes in order to make difficult choices. Populations are mostly oblivious to that reality and seldom understand it. But as you will also learn while reading Simms, this was not always the case. Not paying attention to international affairs is a modern trend.
I love how Simms often refers to the US as “the first independent European state established on the far shores of the Atlantic”. We know Russia is a European state but few of us ever think of America as European, but it is, in its political and social traditions. And it quickly joined France, Great Britain, and Russia in the fight to keep the balance of power in Europe for fear one power would get it all, but also to try and be that power. We can safely say that the US has won that game. In its bid to keep a tight control over Germany after WWII, it secured its place as world ruler. Through this book, you will also understand why the EU still hasn’t got an army, why Russia has always clumsily and desperately clung to Europe and shunned an asian orientation, and you will learn a lot about peculiar Germany and how it has seen its place in the world throughout history.
Written in 2013, not a lot of media space was given to the publishing of this history of Europe, as books about power politics and diplomacy have gone out of fashion. Simms is a professor of international relations at Cambridge and it shows. The book reads a bit like a class lecture, but not a boring one, rest assured. It is full of interesting and often funny anecdotes that bring a light touch to a really ambitious and detailed narrative. I think he keeps it clear, concise, and chronological, so that it remains accessible to as many readers as possible. It is a great reference book, or starting point, to explore more with other reads further down the road. And the impressive reference list at the end of the book is a great plus. Simms is never on a moral high ground and never gives a personal opinion. He lets us think for ourselves as we discover the facts. He ends his book not with prognostications but with pertinent questions, and reading this book in 2023, one can safely say that he picked the right ones. You might not agree with all the directions he is taking while driving his point, but you will surely end up with a clearer view of today’s challenges, with a better understanding of it all. You will certainly be less influenced by the daily news smorgasbord that gives you so much anxiety, but actually never lets you have a broader perspective. It will take time to read, but it will be worth it.
February 5, 2019
This book is not for the weak. This book is a 700 year epic that is split up into only 8 chapters and 535 pages of actual content, about 200 of them are notes and the index. Because of this power dynamic, the information inside each chapter is heavy and really requires a background knowledge in each of the 8 eras that are being described. Mr. Simms has packed in a lot of dates, wars, alliances, and names within each chapter that it can be hard to keep track of, especially in the early chapters. I am more of a fan and "scholar" of modern history, for both world and US (American Revolution to present). The first 3 or 4 chapters were a bit difficult to understand, but then the last 4 were easy because I have prior knowledge in the events. I would not read this book if you want an introduction to the history of the continent because this reads like a college level textbook.
Besides the content part, this book could have easily been split up into more than 8 chapters. Reading almost 70-100 pages of in depth European History can be very exhausting and would probably draw a more casual reader of history to this book. Also, the timeline of events can be very sporadic and get out of hand. He can be talking about something that happened in 1593 for example, and then on the next page talk about a series of wars that lasted from 1575-1586. It can get very confusing then for readers who are not as well schooled on the period that he covers. Overall an ambitious project, but there are better books of European history that can attract the casual fan to the topic.
Besides the content part, this book could have easily been split up into more than 8 chapters. Reading almost 70-100 pages of in depth European History can be very exhausting and would probably draw a more casual reader of history to this book. Also, the timeline of events can be very sporadic and get out of hand. He can be talking about something that happened in 1593 for example, and then on the next page talk about a series of wars that lasted from 1575-1586. It can get very confusing then for readers who are not as well schooled on the period that he covers. Overall an ambitious project, but there are better books of European history that can attract the casual fan to the topic.
April 10, 2022
A wonderful book for anyone interested in European history. A lot about the dominance of Germany but even so, if you are interested in how Europe has evolved from the 15th century then, although very long, this book is for you!
April 1, 2018
An immersive story of the last 500 years of European conflicts and interlaced events.
Even tough the author seems a bit "obsessed" by the German role in most of the important developments of recent history, I strongly believe this remains an amazing read. I would have also loved a more thorough approach of contemporary issues.
Even tough the author seems a bit "obsessed" by the German role in most of the important developments of recent history, I strongly believe this remains an amazing read. I would have also loved a more thorough approach of contemporary issues.
April 18, 2016
Quando, há muitos anos, foi lançado o muito didático 'O Mundo de Sofia', li na sua epígrafe uma frase de Goethe que se tornou para mim não diria um lema, mas pelo menos um ideal que gosto de sentir sempre presente: "Quem não sabe dar conta de 5.000 anos de história, vive o dia que passa, e permanece nas trevas, ignorante." E sinto isso ainda mais agora, que sou pai, e sei que dentro de poucos anos vou querer saber dar respostas e ajudar a fazer novas perguntas ao meu filho, como o meu pai sempre soube fazer comigo.
Ao ler este colosso da história do nosso continente, apeteceu-me acrescentar "E quem não sabe dar conta da geostratégica sabe apenas a História que passa..." - É de facto uma interpretação diferente de tudo o que eu tinha lido antes. O interesse geostratégico dos países, a sua necessidade de se protegerem, de criar zonas-tampão para sua segurança, de fazerem parte de uma aliança mais forte do que os países fora dessa aliança, segundo Simms, ditou e continua a ditar toda a política externa do nosso continente, e, por acréscimo, do mundo. É impressionante ver como personagens entram e saem da História com referências minímas, ou mesmo sendo ignoradas, mesmo quando são obrigatoriamente referidas em qualquer capítulo sobre a história da sua época noutro livro qualquer, e isso porque deixaram de ter importância nas decisões que mudaram o interesse geostratégico do seu país. A tese do autor, é clara e insistentemente referida ao longo do livro: tudo o que aconteceu de importante na europa está relacionado com a Alemanha, mesmo antes de haver Alemanha; e assim acompanhamos a evolução do velho continente desde a queda de Constantinopla até aos nossos dias. Simms é um académico, e um intelectual, e está naturalmente a falar para os seus pares; não há um pingo de consideração, benevolência ou vontade de explicar seja o que for que está implicito que o leitor deva saber: por exemplo se é mencionada uma reacção dos Franceses a uma batalha, o leitor terá que ir pesquisar que batalha foi essa, porque não terá do autor qualquer contextualização. Isso tornou esta leitura bastante pesada e morosa sobretudo nos primeiros capítulos, onde as minhas referências eram mais espaçadas e dificeis de cruzar; a partir da independência americana e sobretudo da primeira grande guerra, pude fruir mais da prosa do autor e sobretudo do seu entendimento das forças verdadeiramente em jogo. Não posso dizer que esta forma de ignorar completamente o leitor, e esta postura de "sabes, sabes, não sabes, azar" seja do meu agrado; mesmo entre isto e o seu oposto, como a espectacular empatia com o leitor de Bill Bryson, por exemplo, existem muitos exemplos intermédios de divulgação com interesse em trazer o leitor para a leitura (o meu favorito continua a ser Daniel J. Boorstin). Mas foi um livro muito importante por me fazer perceber que sem uma visão dos interesses geostratégica dos povos, a História é realmente uma sucessão quase arbitrária de eventos...
Ao ler este colosso da história do nosso continente, apeteceu-me acrescentar "E quem não sabe dar conta da geostratégica sabe apenas a História que passa..." - É de facto uma interpretação diferente de tudo o que eu tinha lido antes. O interesse geostratégico dos países, a sua necessidade de se protegerem, de criar zonas-tampão para sua segurança, de fazerem parte de uma aliança mais forte do que os países fora dessa aliança, segundo Simms, ditou e continua a ditar toda a política externa do nosso continente, e, por acréscimo, do mundo. É impressionante ver como personagens entram e saem da História com referências minímas, ou mesmo sendo ignoradas, mesmo quando são obrigatoriamente referidas em qualquer capítulo sobre a história da sua época noutro livro qualquer, e isso porque deixaram de ter importância nas decisões que mudaram o interesse geostratégico do seu país. A tese do autor, é clara e insistentemente referida ao longo do livro: tudo o que aconteceu de importante na europa está relacionado com a Alemanha, mesmo antes de haver Alemanha; e assim acompanhamos a evolução do velho continente desde a queda de Constantinopla até aos nossos dias. Simms é um académico, e um intelectual, e está naturalmente a falar para os seus pares; não há um pingo de consideração, benevolência ou vontade de explicar seja o que for que está implicito que o leitor deva saber: por exemplo se é mencionada uma reacção dos Franceses a uma batalha, o leitor terá que ir pesquisar que batalha foi essa, porque não terá do autor qualquer contextualização. Isso tornou esta leitura bastante pesada e morosa sobretudo nos primeiros capítulos, onde as minhas referências eram mais espaçadas e dificeis de cruzar; a partir da independência americana e sobretudo da primeira grande guerra, pude fruir mais da prosa do autor e sobretudo do seu entendimento das forças verdadeiramente em jogo. Não posso dizer que esta forma de ignorar completamente o leitor, e esta postura de "sabes, sabes, não sabes, azar" seja do meu agrado; mesmo entre isto e o seu oposto, como a espectacular empatia com o leitor de Bill Bryson, por exemplo, existem muitos exemplos intermédios de divulgação com interesse em trazer o leitor para a leitura (o meu favorito continua a ser Daniel J. Boorstin). Mas foi um livro muito importante por me fazer perceber que sem uma visão dos interesses geostratégica dos povos, a História é realmente uma sucessão quase arbitrária de eventos...
January 15, 2017
The book reviews 500 years of European geo-political and military history, chronologically and in exhausting factual detail (albeit without really enough detail on any area or period to fully understand what was going on without reference to specialist sources).
The book has a small number of chapters – each covering decades or sometimes centuries of history and each with a helpful introduction and conclusion covering the meta-theme of the period.
The book has a very clear and explicit theme – that of the central tension between centralisation and independence and more particularly of the critical role of the Germanic area over 500 years, : another key theme is the obsession of both central and more outlying players with maintaining the balance of power on the Continent (which often lead to periodic changes of alignments as if for example France was too heavily supported to counter Austro-Hungary, the reverse was almost certainly necessary a little later); the book also takes it as read that foreign policy dictates domestic policy rather than the other way round (social advancements and debates about optimal forms of society are routinely explained as being based around increasing the ability to fund and raise war.
At times the author’s keenness to make it clear that all major historical events, even those in the US or those popularly believed to have a much more obvious cause originate in some policy decision about Germany, is almost comical.
He argues for example that: Germany was the cause of the great depression rather than a victim (based on an argument around an Austrian bank the French allowed to fail to thwart a German-Austrian union and which tipped the US over the edge); that the English Civil war was fought because Charles was seen as not protecting German princes.
He never misses an opportunity to quote a contemporary reference to the importance of Germany, while not ever acknowledging that there may be lots of references saying the opposite. (Interestingly the fall of communism, while clearly happening in Germany he attributes much more to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism supported by the US and the resulting distraction and diversion of Soviet resource into Afghanistan).
The book concludes with a list of questions at what he sees as a critical juncture for Europe in 2012 and posits that perhaps only an external threat can draw Europe together. Overall not an enjoyable read (as the book is simply too dry and the deluge of facts/names/wars/political alliances overwhelming) but a very worthwhile and intelligent one.
The book has a small number of chapters – each covering decades or sometimes centuries of history and each with a helpful introduction and conclusion covering the meta-theme of the period.
The book has a very clear and explicit theme – that of the central tension between centralisation and independence and more particularly of the critical role of the Germanic area over 500 years, : another key theme is the obsession of both central and more outlying players with maintaining the balance of power on the Continent (which often lead to periodic changes of alignments as if for example France was too heavily supported to counter Austro-Hungary, the reverse was almost certainly necessary a little later); the book also takes it as read that foreign policy dictates domestic policy rather than the other way round (social advancements and debates about optimal forms of society are routinely explained as being based around increasing the ability to fund and raise war.
At times the author’s keenness to make it clear that all major historical events, even those in the US or those popularly believed to have a much more obvious cause originate in some policy decision about Germany, is almost comical.
He argues for example that: Germany was the cause of the great depression rather than a victim (based on an argument around an Austrian bank the French allowed to fail to thwart a German-Austrian union and which tipped the US over the edge); that the English Civil war was fought because Charles was seen as not protecting German princes.
He never misses an opportunity to quote a contemporary reference to the importance of Germany, while not ever acknowledging that there may be lots of references saying the opposite. (Interestingly the fall of communism, while clearly happening in Germany he attributes much more to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism supported by the US and the resulting distraction and diversion of Soviet resource into Afghanistan).
The book concludes with a list of questions at what he sees as a critical juncture for Europe in 2012 and posits that perhaps only an external threat can draw Europe together. Overall not an enjoyable read (as the book is simply too dry and the deluge of facts/names/wars/political alliances overwhelming) but a very worthwhile and intelligent one.
January 20, 2026
Talvez o melhor livro que li este ano. A todos os títulos soberbo, abarca 500 anos de história, desde a queda de Constantinopla até aos nossos dias, descrevendo a luta pela supremacia na Europa, tendo sempre a Alemanha(nas suas variadas formas estaduais ou supra-estaduais) como o centro dessa luta. Desde o Sacro Império Romano à união Prussiana, da primeira à segunda guerra mundial, a Alemanha foi sempre, no dizer do autor: demasiado grande para a Europa, mas não suficientemente grande para o mundo.
Com um largo escopo, muito bem fundamentada. História, relações internacionais, construção de Estado.
Brilhante.
Com um largo escopo, muito bem fundamentada. História, relações internacionais, construção de Estado.
Brilhante.
April 24, 2020
An excellent account of over 500 years of European history from the fall of the Byzantium to the Ottomans in 1453 to the vicissitudes of European integration. Focusing on Central Europe as the fulcrum of European struggle for dominance and hegemony, this account looks at both strategic-geopolitical and ideological reasons and conditions from the Renaissance through the Reformations, revolutions and world wars to postwar modernity. The Holy Roman Empire of Charles V, hegemonic designs of Louis XIV, the ascendancy of Prussia, the Napoleonic Wars, the age of revolutions and unifications, the balance of power in the 19th century, the breakup of the eastern Empires, the totalitarian utopias of the 20th century; the Cold Wars, the postwar integration and interdependence, the breakup of the Soviet empire and the emergence of Islamist terrorism and economic upheaval as the greatest challenges of recent years - it’s a comprehensive survey of the struggles for security, power, liberty and survival. The so-called “German Question” in Europe has again emerged and become central to the future of the EU.
August 3, 2023
If you re looking for the continuation of the European history after the crusades and the complete fall of the byzantine empire to the ottomans this is a good book that delivers the backbone of the major and even some minor events that shaped the face of Europe as it is today, but half of it is about the twentieth century.
So after the crusades and the advancement of the Ottoman empire further in the balkans, we have Europe with three basic major powers that keep the balance of power, one of them is France, Britain, and the Hapsburg empire (which later became Austria) Germany as we know it today didn't exist at those times, it was the several German states like Prussia, Saxony, Pomerania, Frankfurt, Prague and many others in Central Europe that constitute the Holy Roman Empire and which later after Bischmark united at 1872 and became the modern German state.
Throughout the book we constantly read about the balance of Power and the danger of encirclement, for instance France in 15th century had hostile relations with Britain, on East with the Holy Roman Empire and on the West the Spanish monarchy, all of those empires were directly and indirectly influenced by the crown of the Holy Roman Empire though (the most prestigious crown in Europe) in any possible way, religiously, politically and sometimes economically, the Holy roman empire for instance was supplying troops to the Spanish empire atleast until the beginning of the 16th century, later on the Russian empire enters with force in the game but through the centuries it seems to be more of a corrupted slow almost backwards country depended almost primarily to a militarized cruel state for it's cohesion than anything else, I m sure the number of the victims of Stalin are above anything Hitler ever did.
Meanwhile constantly European powers fought each other over dominance but none could subdue the other, this almost eternal conflict had two major outcomes, the externalization of the conflict lead Britain, Spain and France to seek further economic advancement overseas and create colonies in further regions of the globe, yes colonisation was the result of internal struggle between the European countries, even the wars those three powers fought each other overseas was a result of the internal conflicts between them in Europe, and of course the creation of the British Empire, the largest empire that ever existed.
The big star of the show though, despite it's progressiveness (German states were the most advanced in Europe) haven't matured yet, they couldn't unite and even undermined on that cause by the other powers, because by the beginning of the book till the end the author repeatedly makes it clear to the reader that for some vague reason which is not fully explained all nations fear the unification of the German states, it's almost like a universal Horror! Even Russia after a while fears the unification of Germany, my personal opinion is that this excuse has no much merit other than to unite the people of every state internally by finding an external bogus enemy.
The external bogus enemies appear constantly in the politics and internal affairs of almost every state, every one of them has atleast one, they have to invent one if there is not any, America after a while has communism and with that pretext invades far away countries like Korea and Vietnam, only Britain stands still and honest till the end for the last few remansts of her Empire and do not seek legitimacy by fake pretexts to make a war against Argentina over the Falkland islands because it doesn't need to, also major military reformations on every state is the major cause for political and economic reformation and not the other way around, basically when they need troops they apply a reformation to pacify the masses internally and use the external bogus enemy to drive them out.
So the major events that shaped Europe and a large part of the globe since the fifteenth century till the twentieth are, the war of the Spanish succession which was about who will inherit the Spanish crown because all major players had a saying on that, after a while we have the war of the Austrian succession which more or less is about the same inheritance issue, the thirty years war, which was a "religious" war between the German states that ended up into the treaty of Westphalia which the first modern state in the history of Europe (or maybe the world) was born, there are the nine years war between France and the grand alliance (Holy Roman empire and it's allies), the seven years wars which if I remember correctly was between France and Britain and their allies (more of a world war before the official world wars), the hundred years war (again between France and Britain) the rise of the first British Empire, the French revolution which imo is the biggest event in human history (Viva La France!) the revolutionary wars, also in France, and the Napoleonic wars.
A few words about Napoleon here, financially he was backed up by the bank of London! (who could imagine that) and basically he was the one who undermined the revolutionary wars by leading the people of France to "external" enemies (instead of internal) yes Napoleon lead the same people who did the French revolution, very suspicious fella to say the least!
and of course the Unification of German states in 1872, surely there are some that I might forgot, but I ll come back to it, then later we have the two major world wars, which in short is the struggle of Germany to get a foothold overseas and expand and the severe consequences losing those wars ended up to almost completely disarming the whole country, socially and economically of course we have the industrial revolutions and I believe even renaissance has its part, but the author does not write even a small paragraph about them, it's only geopolitics, the balance of power and wars.
In the end the final and only victims are the people under all those kings, dukes and prince's which are countless .
So after the crusades and the advancement of the Ottoman empire further in the balkans, we have Europe with three basic major powers that keep the balance of power, one of them is France, Britain, and the Hapsburg empire (which later became Austria) Germany as we know it today didn't exist at those times, it was the several German states like Prussia, Saxony, Pomerania, Frankfurt, Prague and many others in Central Europe that constitute the Holy Roman Empire and which later after Bischmark united at 1872 and became the modern German state.
Throughout the book we constantly read about the balance of Power and the danger of encirclement, for instance France in 15th century had hostile relations with Britain, on East with the Holy Roman Empire and on the West the Spanish monarchy, all of those empires were directly and indirectly influenced by the crown of the Holy Roman Empire though (the most prestigious crown in Europe) in any possible way, religiously, politically and sometimes economically, the Holy roman empire for instance was supplying troops to the Spanish empire atleast until the beginning of the 16th century, later on the Russian empire enters with force in the game but through the centuries it seems to be more of a corrupted slow almost backwards country depended almost primarily to a militarized cruel state for it's cohesion than anything else, I m sure the number of the victims of Stalin are above anything Hitler ever did.
Meanwhile constantly European powers fought each other over dominance but none could subdue the other, this almost eternal conflict had two major outcomes, the externalization of the conflict lead Britain, Spain and France to seek further economic advancement overseas and create colonies in further regions of the globe, yes colonisation was the result of internal struggle between the European countries, even the wars those three powers fought each other overseas was a result of the internal conflicts between them in Europe, and of course the creation of the British Empire, the largest empire that ever existed.
The big star of the show though, despite it's progressiveness (German states were the most advanced in Europe) haven't matured yet, they couldn't unite and even undermined on that cause by the other powers, because by the beginning of the book till the end the author repeatedly makes it clear to the reader that for some vague reason which is not fully explained all nations fear the unification of the German states, it's almost like a universal Horror! Even Russia after a while fears the unification of Germany, my personal opinion is that this excuse has no much merit other than to unite the people of every state internally by finding an external bogus enemy.
The external bogus enemies appear constantly in the politics and internal affairs of almost every state, every one of them has atleast one, they have to invent one if there is not any, America after a while has communism and with that pretext invades far away countries like Korea and Vietnam, only Britain stands still and honest till the end for the last few remansts of her Empire and do not seek legitimacy by fake pretexts to make a war against Argentina over the Falkland islands because it doesn't need to, also major military reformations on every state is the major cause for political and economic reformation and not the other way around, basically when they need troops they apply a reformation to pacify the masses internally and use the external bogus enemy to drive them out.
So the major events that shaped Europe and a large part of the globe since the fifteenth century till the twentieth are, the war of the Spanish succession which was about who will inherit the Spanish crown because all major players had a saying on that, after a while we have the war of the Austrian succession which more or less is about the same inheritance issue, the thirty years war, which was a "religious" war between the German states that ended up into the treaty of Westphalia which the first modern state in the history of Europe (or maybe the world) was born, there are the nine years war between France and the grand alliance (Holy Roman empire and it's allies), the seven years wars which if I remember correctly was between France and Britain and their allies (more of a world war before the official world wars), the hundred years war (again between France and Britain) the rise of the first British Empire, the French revolution which imo is the biggest event in human history (Viva La France!) the revolutionary wars, also in France, and the Napoleonic wars.
A few words about Napoleon here, financially he was backed up by the bank of London! (who could imagine that) and basically he was the one who undermined the revolutionary wars by leading the people of France to "external" enemies (instead of internal) yes Napoleon lead the same people who did the French revolution, very suspicious fella to say the least!
and of course the Unification of German states in 1872, surely there are some that I might forgot, but I ll come back to it, then later we have the two major world wars, which in short is the struggle of Germany to get a foothold overseas and expand and the severe consequences losing those wars ended up to almost completely disarming the whole country, socially and economically of course we have the industrial revolutions and I believe even renaissance has its part, but the author does not write even a small paragraph about them, it's only geopolitics, the balance of power and wars.
In the end the final and only victims are the people under all those kings, dukes and prince's which are countless .
November 26, 2013
Brendan Simms provides a good overview of the history of Europe of the last 500 years, mainly from a geopolitical perspective, with Germany right at the centre of his narrative. It is Germany that was at the centre of World War I and II and, long before that, at the centre of the Wars that raged across the continent in the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th centuries in the form of the Holy Empire first, although with Vienna as its heart, and Prussia and the other German states afterwards. It is also Germany that lies at the centre of the European Union, binding its members together or pushing them apart. After all, the struggle for supremacy was not a fight over a whole continent, but one over the heart of Europe.
October 11, 2015
This book deserves 10 stars. It is one of the best history books I have ever read as it ties all the others together and makes a common focus to the over-all foreign policy implicit in each of them - the control of Central Europe, in particular that regions which eventually became Germany.
Chapter 2 in particular illustrates the thesis of another great book Why Did Europe Conquer the World? as nations constantly changed sides, fighting each other to prevent both the unification of the German states and their dominance by any one state.
Chapter 2 in particular illustrates the thesis of another great book Why Did Europe Conquer the World? as nations constantly changed sides, fighting each other to prevent both the unification of the German states and their dominance by any one state.
June 18, 2017
Magisterial in size, yet misleading as to the quality of its scholarship. Unsustainable claims regarding processes of the early modern period, application of simplistic paradigms, elaborated to synthesize the Napoleonic era, over much more complex phenomena of the twentieth century and overall, a uselessly open vision of the immediate future, which we are experiencing at present. Still, a good reminder that military force and international politics matter.
December 21, 2021
I’ll be honest, this is NOT a book on a history of Europe from 1453-present, exactly. This book is a thesis of the importance of Germany to world (and European) politics since 1453 to present. It focuses almost only on Europe when Germany is involved and doesn’t stray from that the entire book. I liked the book once I realized it’s true purpose.
April 15, 2016
This was an interesting primer history of the Holy Roman Empire & Germany within the geopolitics of European history from the 16th century to the present. A little flat and unfocused at times it nonetheless does what it sets out to.
Neutral Recommendation.
Neutral Recommendation.
December 28, 2016
It is a very interesting book to read at the current troubled times over Europe. The five centuries covered enable an informed perspective over the subject and a more weighed balance of the evolution, distinguishing fads from real trends.
December 4, 2014
This would be more properly titled, "Germany" or "Germany in Europe", but it was an invaluable book for giving context to many events you may have studied individually over the last 500 years or so.
May 6, 2018
During the 500 years of bloody European history this is, in essence, what was going on :
"A" & "B" join force to weaken "C", who has with time become too big - and thus too threatening. Then "C" motivates "D" (who sees an opportunity for looting) to attack "A", thus weakening the coalition between "A" & "B". This gives the opportunity for "B" to become stronger than "A", which inspires "A" & "C" to forget their ancient enmities and to join the forces against "B", who now offers "D" an alliance. "D" is not interested until it realizes that "A" has become too strong, which at the end unifies all the sides against it. But as soon as "A" is beaten up, "B" realizes that this the perfect time to resolve some old disputes with "E". However, "D" cannot stand aside doing nothing - it breaks the union with "B" and helps "E", who will have to make some territorial concession - as a sign of gratitude - to "D". "F", who in essence disdain "E", is afraid that the fall of "E" would bring "B" to close to its territory, so it also enters the war. Still, since the win of "E" is not in interest of "A", once more "A" creates an alliance with "B", and so on, and so on...
So, whoever has some - even very reasonable - doubts regarding the meaning of the existence of EU, he should revisit the past of the Old Continent through this excellent book.
"A" & "B" join force to weaken "C", who has with time become too big - and thus too threatening. Then "C" motivates "D" (who sees an opportunity for looting) to attack "A", thus weakening the coalition between "A" & "B". This gives the opportunity for "B" to become stronger than "A", which inspires "A" & "C" to forget their ancient enmities and to join the forces against "B", who now offers "D" an alliance. "D" is not interested until it realizes that "A" has become too strong, which at the end unifies all the sides against it. But as soon as "A" is beaten up, "B" realizes that this the perfect time to resolve some old disputes with "E". However, "D" cannot stand aside doing nothing - it breaks the union with "B" and helps "E", who will have to make some territorial concession - as a sign of gratitude - to "D". "F", who in essence disdain "E", is afraid that the fall of "E" would bring "B" to close to its territory, so it also enters the war. Still, since the win of "E" is not in interest of "A", once more "A" creates an alliance with "B", and so on, and so on...
So, whoever has some - even very reasonable - doubts regarding the meaning of the existence of EU, he should revisit the past of the Old Continent through this excellent book.
December 23, 2019
The first 40% or so of the book that cover European history from 1453 to the French Revolution are incredibly hard to follow. There is great depth and a lot of erudition on display but unless one is already reasonably well-versed with the empires/wars/power politics of that period, it is pretty much impossible to make any sense of these pages. I am glad I persisted past that point though because it gets significantly more engaging and interesting (possibly because I have more familiarity with 19th/20th century history). Still, it was instructive to read the history of Europe as one continuum and appreciate how each of the seminal events in European history has their genesis in an earlier conflict. The primacy of Germany, both geographically and metaphorically, is critical to all that the book discusses but I felt that Simms carries it a little too far at times. Every event (Great Depression, Suez crisis etc.) is presented as being driven by an ulterior motive to control Germany and while that might have been true up until the mid 19th century, it is surely less so in modern globalized times.
Overall, a tough but moderately rewarding read.
Overall, a tough but moderately rewarding read.
December 27, 2017
Basically a chronology of all the wars that took place or involved Europe from the middle of the 15th century to the present day - the beginning of the imperial conquests of modern European nations to the Arab spring - with a fair dollop of the politics and sociology thrown in. On the one hand, that's a great thing to have in a single book, and a book that's readable and seems reliable at that. On the other, I feel like I'd have benefited more from more analysis, a variety of angles, different stresses and emphases, etc. The English and French revolutions were covered almost without me noticing (I'm exaggerating, but only a little). I finished it, and had to go back to re-read the factors that led to WWI, to German unification and the conquest of the new world. No doubt partly that's due to the sheer extent of my ignorance going in, and my dodgy memory, but still. I guess I'll have to reread the whole thing again some time...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews