Captives: Britain, Empire, and the World, 1600 - 1850

by Linda Colley

In this path-breaking book Linda Colley reappraises the rise of the biggest empire in global history. Excavating the lives of some of the multitudes of Britons held captive in the lands their own rulers sought to conquer, Colley also offers an intimate understanding of the peoples and cultures of the Mediterranean, North America, India, and Afghanistan.

Here are harrowing, sometimes poignant stories by soldiers and sailors and their womenfolk, by traders and con men and by white as well as black slaves. By exploring these forgotten captives - and their captors - Colley reveals how Britain's emerging empire was often tentative and subject to profound insecurities and limitations. She evokes how British empire was experienced by the mass of poor whites who created it. She shows how imperial racism coexisted with cross-cultural collaborations, and how the gulf between Protestantism and Islam, which some have viewed as central to this empire, was often smaller than expected. Brilliantly written and richly illustrated, Captives is an invitation to think again about a piece of history too often viewed in the same old way. It is also a powerful contribution to current debates about the meanings, persistence, and drawbacks of empire.

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

464 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2002

About the author

Linda Colley is Shelby M.C. Davis 1958 Professor of History at Princeton University and a Long Term Fellow in History at the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study in Uppsala. She previously held chairs at Yale University and at the London School of Economics.

Reviews

[David Nichols · Rating 4 out of 5]

Captivity, Linda Colley reports in this engagingly written and lavishly illustrated study, was an influential but understudied element of the British imperial project of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Before the middle of the 1800s, Britain was a small nation with a massively overextended empire, and the experience of capture demonstrated the vulnerability of its subjects and how easily non-Western peoples could thwart Britain's ambitions.

In the seventeenth century, England aspired to dominate the rich trade of the Mediterranean, but “the sea that enticed...could also entrap” (p. 41). Barbary corsairs took and enslaved 20,000 Englishmen by 1800. North African captivity became a unifying event for the English nation, generating fund-raising campaigns for ransom payments and public processions for returned captives. The actual experience of slavery proved less than terrible for most of these captives – slaves under Islam could legally marry and own property – and those who were ransomed brought home a positive view of Muslims, describing them as an urbane people whose faith was less threatening than Catholicism.

The second and third groups of English captives whom Colley studies were Indian captives, in both senses of that adjective: the four or five thousand colonists captured by American Indians in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the 1,700 prisoners-of-war taken by the Mysore kingdom in the Indian subcontinent. Native American captivity induced “panics” in colonial settlements and inspired a popular genre of literature, the Indian captivity narrative. Metropolitan Britons were initially indifferent to colonists' suffering; later, when several thousand British soldiers became French and Indian prisoners during the Seven Years' War, Britons began to produce their own captivity narratives, but with a more nuanced view of Indians than the colonists'. By the 1770s many came to see Native Americans as victims of colonial aggression, and American colonists as people unfairly demanding privileges denied to other imperial subjects. Later in the century, after the American Revolution reduced the British empire to a low ebb of power, the East India Company's isolated holdings in India came under pressure from Tipu Sultan, and during the Mysore Wars of the 1780s and '90s many British soldiers became prisoners. Their narratives emphasized both the vulnerability of the British empire in India and the virtuous perseverance of Britons against a treacherous foe.

CAPTIVES strongly resembles Colley's earlier book, BRITONS, in that both identify similar factors shaping group identity: a large and dangerous external threat (the French Empire, the Muslim world), a belief in the nation's collective virtue and its underdog status, and the use of print culture to spread both ideas. In the volume under review, Colley argues that Britons applied the narrative elements of nationalism to the ideological construction of empire: until the 1850s, Britons viewed their empire more as an exotic domain of peril and suffering than a source of pride and wealth. One might further argue that such an imperial narrative is far more compelling for ordinary people than one that exclusively focuses on military conquests and painting the globe red. One ominous development in Colley's account is the increasing xenophobia of Britons toward their imperial allies and subjects. Before 1800, British captives were able to hold nuanced views of Muslims and Native Americans, but thereafter they tended to view colonial peoples as savage, effete, treacherous, or some combination thereof. Was this change a product or a cause of Britain's shift from an informal commercial empire to a military and administrative one? This is a question worth asking, perhaps in a future book.

[Caroline · Rating 4 out of 5]

As many historians before and since have pointed out, the most remarkable thing about the British Empire was not its size, its diversity or its longevity, but the fact that it existed at all. That such a huge empire, encompassing many millions of square miles, people, cultures and religions, could have been based at its core on such a small island with a limited population and limited resources, seems almost impossible. Of course, that inherent smallness is an intrinsic part of the explanation for the existence of the British Empire - such smallness lent itself to a very centralised state and a precocious sense of national identity, which fuelled the aggressive and acquisitiveness necessary to seek resources and economic markets outside of itself.

However, the smallness at its core, whilst containing the seeds of the Empire itself, also contained the seeds of its downfall. As an island nation England's (and later Britain's) military resources were heavily weighted in favour of its navy - by contrast, the land forces available, drawing on such a small population, were also tiny in comparison to its neighbours like France, Russia or Prussia. This meant that the 'thin red line' between British settlements, colonies, forts, garrisons and the like was often very thin indeed - leading, as the book details, to a great number of situations when Britons were very far from the mythical 'never, never, never shall be slaves'.

Linda Colley focuses on three main theatres of empire - the Mediterranean in the 17th century, with its Barbary pirates operating from North Africa; North America in the 18th century and the conflicts first with Native Americans and later with American Revolutionaries; and Indian in the 19th century, with its soldiery being captive of both Indians princes and its own government. It's a fascinating exploration of a much-neglected topic - Empire being a particularly fraught and controversial era in British history, the issue of British defeats and captivity has either been swept under the rug and ignored or dismissed as some kind of karmic justice. It's an excellent book, impartial and balanced, and it really succeeds in portraying the cohesiveness and full sweep of British imperial history across three centuries.

My one criticism would be that too little of the individual emerges - for all of the talk of this being both micro and macro-history, the individuals mentioned in these pages come across as little more than historical ciphers, serving a purpose in highlighting bigger issues. Their own experiences, day-to-day lives, fates and legacies are little touched on.

[Andrewh · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is one of the best written history books I have ever read, and Colley gives the lie to the fourth line of Rule Britannia in great style. An interesting micro-history that turns traditional imperial history completely on its head - it combines academic excellence with great story-telling and a light touch. I would greatly recommend it - especially if you want to see how fractured and weak the early British empire really was.

[Sydney · Rating 3 out of 5]

"They did not deserve to succeed."

Another Scharff history book from ye Olde Mercyhurst days. Not interesting enough to keep me hooked for long periods of time, but a crazy enough topic to keep me coming back to read more.
People can be really horrible to each other.

[Lisa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Colley’s view of empire is controversial, but I’m not well enough versed on 18th century empire to know exactly why. This book is full of primary sources and demonstrates the ways the British in their early empire were not dominating and felt insecure compared to other empires at the time —including the ones we tend to think of them as dominating—African, Indian and North American. Great stories and illustrations of captivity narratives and how the reality of being captured by others shaped British views of empire.

[Katie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating content, insightful analysis, and excellent writing.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is troubling to me - I can't decide to what degree I like her argument. I guess that's not quite right, I do like her argument, but I don't know if I agree with it. Colley's grand message here is that while we may think of the British Empire as having been big and powerful, the actual Britons who made up that Empire were lowly and weak. On the peripheries of empire, Britons were taken captive all the time. Often, particularly in North Africa, they were enslaved - though as Colley points out, this was not really the same sort of slavery that the Britons were themselves inflicting on West Africans at the same time. The whole point of taking captives for the Islamic North African states was to eventually ransom those captives back.
Colley uses “captive” Britons in three main spheres to provide various lessons in the strengths, weaknesses, and evolving mentalities of the British Empire. Captivity in the Mediterranean world exposes the vulnerability of British subjects when confronted with aggressive Islamic states; Britain’s occasional spectacular, costly failures in the region; and the willingness of the British government to tolerate the captivity and enslavement of their fellow Britons in exchange for growing economic power. Captivity in frontier North America demonstrates the gap in the 17th and 18th century between settlers who considered themselves thoroughly British, and their government, who tended to marginalize them. Furthermore, various captivities in the Revolutionary War era led to critical questions for the British Empire about exactly who counted as “British,” and what the responsibilities were of the crown to these far-flung subjects. Finally, captivity experiences in India and Afghanistan in the late 18th and early 19th century proved to Britons that they remained vulnerable, even as they were consolidating their position as the most powerful empire in the world.
The trouble here is that all this business about the weakness of Britons almost leads one back to the old "an Empire acquired absentmindedly" idea. One starts to wonder how these people managed to subjugate so much of the world if they were so weak. The actual military and economic power that the British used to create the Empire gets very little play here. So while we are all enjoying the captivity narratives, and they are fascinating to read, there is a little nagging voice pointing out that this isn't the whole story.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very good history, and an outstanding example of creative linkage--taking the histories of captives by the "other" (from an English perspective) and using those to illustrate the development of English attitudes towards the "exotic".

[John Newton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I decided to read Captives after finishing The Club by Leo Damrosch, who mentions Colley admiringly several times. Colley complicates any preconceptions readers may have about the British Empire by centering a number of unusual narratives: the accounts of Britons taken captive by other powers—Muslim pirates in the Mediterranean, Native Americans in North America, Americans (during the Revolutionary War) and, finally, Indians (and, in particular, Mysore during the era of Tipu Sultan). Her critical readings of these accounts help explain how the "other" was conceived, the role of propaganda, and views of these other powers shifted and evolved depending on Britain's political interests (this is most clear when she is discussing Native American nations who over time would become valuable allies of the British).

The accounts shed as much (or even more) light on Britain itself and its understanding of empire as it does on the peoples who take these Britons captive. With the exception of British officers captured in India and Afghanistan, most of these captives were poor sailors and settlers, some of whom found the societies of their captors more appealing than their own. A fear that British ties of culture and religion were, in fact, weak underlie many accounts; a concern that Britons will "go native" and adopt the attitudes of rival powers and become sympathetic to those they are supposed to rule haunted much of the imperial project. In place of ideas of the empire being a racist project, which Colley wouldn't deny, she complicates the story when she describes the multi-racial and multi-ethnic nature of support for Britain during America's Revolutionary War or how the empire in India was only possible because of Irish and sepoy soldiers. Her digressions—say on the symbolism of the tiger in British art beginning in the late 18th century—are as fascinating as her main story line.

This is, in the end, an academic book albeit more engaging than many. It requires a fair level of interest in British history to stick with it, but it provides the committed reader with a more nuanced view of the British Empire.

[Debbie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Organised into three locations - the Mediterranean, British America, and India - the book explores the phenomenon of taking British people captive between 1600 and 1850. It is based on a significant amount of primary research, although with a considerable bias towards published narratives, and provides a new and interesting point of focus to the old 'beginnings of empire' debate.

It is not, however, without its faults. The structure, while making sense to an extent, excludes much fascinating source material that falls outside the main chronological narrative (1600-1750-ish for the Med., 1650-1800-ish for America, 1750-1850-ish for India), and can lead to a certain amount of repetition. This adds to the somewhat already repetitive style of writing: there is no need to keep writing 'let me be clear' after three pages of flogging a dead donkey. I also find it extremely irksome that she continues to refer to England's population figures in an amazed fashion, as if this is somehow a decent indicator for how successful a country should be in establishing an empire. This line of argument excludes the fact of the Dutch and Venetian empires, but also in referring to the few tracts that show concern that the population is too low, she ignores the vast swathe of sources that panic that it is too high.

In summary, a good and interesting book providing a new take on empire building, but one that, sadly, often seems to miss the point.

[Stefanie Robinson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book takes a deep look into people held captive in their own lands by the imperialization of the British Empire. This perspective is the antithesis of the traditional education that a lot of us were given during school. The words of the people that experienced imperialism in a negative way are loud and moving. As an American, I am pretty proficient in the history of colonialism here. I also learned a great deal about the British Empire in India. I really appreciated this book and the information it contained about the British Empire in the Mediterranean, which is something I knew very little about. I also really appreciated all of the personal accounts in this book, because the experiences of people on the ground are so valuable to the historical record.

The book read really well. There were a lot of points where it read like a historical fiction book. It was very entertaining, but also very educational. I think most of us are familiar with the colonization of various places during the Age of Imperialism, so this book does not really come as new and shocking information. The biggest takeaway I had from this book was hearing about the effects of colonization from the words of people who were living on the other end of it- the colonized. It was a bit different to the generic "these lands were colonized for these products" type of lesson that we received several times throughout middle school up to college. I really enjoyed this book a lot.

[Santosh Bhat · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a densely researched tome of the stories of British citizenry captured around the world especially in 3 locations - Barbary Coast (North Africa) in the 1600s, North America in the 1700s and India in the 1700s-1800s.
While some may ding this book points for trying to make the colonising British sympathetic, but that is not what the author intends to do. For every captivity narrative which survived for educated individuals, there were 1000s more who never got a chance to document their experiences as they were uneducated. Of course when you consider the sufferings of Africans, Indians, Native Americans under the evils of colonialism and slavery and the untold millions who never got a chance to tell their story, these may seem paltry in comparison.
Nevertheless these histories reveal that history was never black and white, but was in various shades of grey. Not all whites were victors who rode roughshod over other cultures. Many of them actually were captured by the very cultures their countries tried to subjugate and had various experiences in captivity - some horrendous like those in America whose families were tortured and killed or those in Barbary and Mysore who were forcefully assimilated and mutilated in the process; but also others who eventually adopted and thrived in the cultures of their captors.

[Poppy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Colley examines captivity narratives as a way to illustrate the formation of identity and the "Smallness" of the British Empire. Overall, I found her argument compelling. I liked how she demonstrated the national and international significance of captivity, and I liked her endeavors of small microhistories of the individual captives.

One of my biggest critiques of this book, which I'm sure others may agree with, is the way in which the book somewhat excludes non-white Britons, including enslaved individuals, close to 5-6 million "captives". This feels like a limitation of the study. Furthermore, I felt as though their wasn't a lot of discussion about the reciprocal nature of captivity. We hear about the compelling and often shocking captivity stories of Britions in the furtherest spheres of empire, but we don't hear of the Britons who, themselves, were captors. I think this would have been an interesting and compelling story.

Nontheless, a groundbreaking book. I look forward to engaging with it further as a global historian and writing about it in an upcoming final paper. Colley is definitely one of my favourite global historians, and I'm inspired by her work, though I did feel like she did a better job at "the ordeal of Elizabeth Marsh" and prefered that over "Captives".

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating book, well-written and impeccably researched. It takes a very unusual approach to British colonial history and looks at the perspectives of British people held captive (usually as slaves) and attempts to tell their stories and--through that--looks at how British people perceived the rest of the world. If you enjoy books about empire and colonialism, this is definitely an excellent read and looks into parts of history you don't normally see discussed.

[Richard Dennett · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simply fundamental reading, and entirely readable.

[Todd M · Rating 4 out of 5]

Creative, well researched global history

[Tavner Delcamp · Rating 4 out of 5]

'Captives' by the historian Linda Colley relates aspects of the British Empire from 1600-1850 which I believe are unfamiliar to most readers, myself included. I thought I knew a fair amount about the British Empire, but this book enhanced my knowledge by quite a lot. The advance of the British throughout the world beginning around 1600 seemed like an inexorable process given the supremacy of the navy in most areas of the world, especially after the Dutch and Portuguese navies began to decline. But, Colley points out the numerous difficulties Britain faced in trying to establish overseas colonies such as in America or occupations as in India. A relatively low population on a small island (including Ireland later) meant the navy and army had limited manpower. Later, during the first half of the 19th century Britain's population expanded at a rapid rate which allowed further expansionism to several continents to occur. Military victories were accompanied by many defeats resulting in the capture of large numbers of soldiers and civilians. In the first part of her book Colley tells the story of Britain's first major attempt to colonize North Africa in the country of Morocco at the place known now as Tangier. A royal charter issued by Charles II allowed a foothold to be made in 1668. Colley emphasizes that this episode of imperial history has not been subjected to nearly as much study by historians as later ones. Despite spending vast sums of money and sacrificing significant amounts of manpower the Tangier experiment failed miserably. During and afterwards the constant menace of the Barbary Pirates became a large problem for Britain. Ships by the hundreds were captured and passengers, men and women, by the thousands were taken into captivity. Over many years there were numerous impassioned appeals to the British public for funds to offer as ransom which often succeeded. Nevertheless, many persons languished for decades under the control of their Muslim captors. Colley describes how many British and Irish prisoners transformed themselves into Muslims, learning to speak local languages and embracing Islam. It was during this period when many 'tales of captivity' were published and attracted enormous interest from the British public. Whether or not these tales were truthful is difficult to confirm according to the author, yet they offer a view into societies utterly foreign to most inhabitants of Britain at that time. The Ottoman Empire and Christian Europe clashed repeatedly throughout this period, not only involving Britain but other European countries as well. The description of the British colonizing of America is very interesting. Colley relates the numerous 'captivity' narratives which sensationalized the native Americans, describing brutal treatment along with full assimilation into those cultures for some. Once again, written accounts were very popular in Britain. During the American Revolution the captives on both sides illustrated the divided loyalties the American colonists had regarding either wanting to revolt against King George or maintaining loyalty to the Crown. Following these chapters Colley describes the initial unsuccessful attempts of Britain to occupy parts of India by the East India Company. There are descriptions of the dangerous voyage to India and accounts of captivity of numerous passengers. Also, the miserable life experienced by captives in Mysore following a bitter defeat in 1780 resulted in many written narratives. As in North Africa it was not uncommon for prisoners to 'go over' to the other side in order to experience some semblance of freedom. As elsewhere in the Empire the British relied heavily upon local recruits - 'Sepoys' - to man the armies. This allowed the Indian Empire to become well-established by 1800. Colley tells about the complex relationships between the lower class recruits from Britain and Ireland and the upper class officer class. The many differences in outlook caused many of the common soldiers to desert. In joining the Indian Army one basically became a 'captive' since most were forced to serve for decades and often never returned home. Finally, Colley relates the disastrous Afghan campaign of 1841 which resulted in the capture of General Robert Sale. His wife, Florentia Sale penned a famous captivity account that became a bestseller in England. I can highly recommend this book for its wealth of information about the history of the British Empire.

[D.L. Denham · Rating 5 out of 5]

In Captives: Britain, Empire, and the World, 1600-1850, Linda Colley exposes a perspective of the Imperial Britain that goes against traditional history. Although Britain experienced expansion at an unprecedented rate during the late 1600s until the mid-1800s, it had spread itself too thin across the globe. The British navy, its manpower, was unable to effectively control the vast number of territories claimed by the Britain. The money and physical presence was never fully effective at dominating the areas. Instead, these territories often influenced their colonist and government more than traditional historians care to admit.

In Captives, Colley divides her work into three parts. The first concentrates on Britain in the Mediterranean, a costly venture seldom mentioned in British Imperialism. The second third focuses on the relationship between the British and natives in North America and how the fear of captivity influenced those that colonized America for Britain. And India, the country whose rough relationship with Britain both made and destroyed careers.
While the history of African slavery in the West is immense, accounts of British slavery in the Eastern Hemisphere was seldom recorded and receives less research from both older and newer historians. Colley hides no biases as she uncovers a history that she argues is neglected. A history that exposes a dirty secret of the British Empire: that there is an imbalance in the records that exist between the West and the East. Colley suggests that the research is stifled largely because that during this time, it was legal for the English navy, therefore the English government, to enslave their own soldiers who forfeited military service. Slavery was an alternative to execution. Often, they were chained and forced to build fortification and treated like black-skinned folk.

In the Americas, traditional British history of the indigenous population is kept out of the records just as much as in American history. Initially, colonist were highly dependent on local natives, this faded as time brought advanced, steady agriculture and living conditions for the colonists. Oddly, Colley shows how the records reveal English thinking toward the natives as equal to European and not as soulless savages. It was a result of wartime on the North American continent that resulted in captives being taken by the natives, which led to a mingling between the two races. Threatened, the British government forbade their colonist for interacting and living too closely to the indigenous, for it threatened British control.

The super soldier of India, Sarah Shade, spun a new perspective on British Imperialism in 1750. Disguised as a soldier, her adventures and exotic writings sparked an appetite for all things India throughout England. By 1800, India had become the richest sector in the British Empire, having lost the American colonies several decades earlier. Out numbered in India and often out fought, Britain was able to achieve, through direct and indirect rule, power over all of India. Enabling Britain to become both the wealthiest country and free from the fear of captivity, which Colley argues was both real and an allusion.

Well-written and highly entertaining, Captivity sheds new light on a force of nature that changed the world. Using autobiographies, adventure stories, sermons, written accounts of public speeches, and the like, Colley brings to life the fragile truth of British colonization: that Britain was never in full control of her the vast lands she acquired. Its 438 pages captures the big picture of Britain’s expansion throughout the world as well personalizing the journeys of those who lived and died in strange new worlds.

[Filip · Rating 2 out of 5]

Move on, those of you who hoped to read titillating tiles of the white slave trade. No such thing here. The book starts with a relatively short part on British captives in Northern Africa, a second part on settlers in North America (who would occasionally go to live with the Indians, either voluntarily or forcibly), and a rather long and tedious part on conditions of army soldiers in India. These soldiers are called 'military captives', so as not to do too much injustice to the dramatic title (to no avail; it does feel like a dissertation on the military rank-and-file in India was given an garnish of two hastily written overviews of captives in Northern Africa and North America in order to justify the dramatic title). Even within this conceptual inconsistency, the book veers back and forth between general statements and individual stories, but neither are explored to the reader's full satisfaction.
The perspective remains staunchly Britain-centric throughout; little time or sympathy is spent on other captives (eg from other European countries in North Africa, or from France in North America).
The author does a good job of explaining popular sentiment in Britain during the American Revolution and on Indian matters, although it could all have done without the numerous repetitions. All in all, very uneven.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Linda Colley's ''Captives'' examines how self-identification by British captives overseas coloured the way the captives viewed their captors, and how their views changed over time. With help from written sources during overseas captivity that a lot of British servants had to endure, Colley tries to point out how the British rise to global dominance (1600-1850) affected British ideas about the world and it's peoples.

Historiographically, Colleys work falls in line with Edward Saïd's ''Oriëntalism'', yet deliveres a profound critique on one of Saïd's major statements. While Saïd had argued that orientalist mentality had been a tool for imperialism - to make the enemy soft and to strenghten the own ranks -, Colley pointed out that oriëntalist views were more of a result of British national success overseas than the other way around, which is reflected in the narratives of British overseas captives.

It was a stunning read. The work gives a good insight about the current state of the methods of research that are ideally used by historians. Colley masters a wide range of techniques of cultural and global history to construct her arguments. I have read a lot as a history student, but seldomly I was left so amazed by the creative use of sources to create a convincing argument.

[Kathryn Walters · Rating 4 out of 5]

I also had to read this book for my Colonial North America history class, and it actually was better than I expected. My initial expectation was that it would be just about the British slave trade, but I couldn't be more wrong. The central argument of the book - that identity is subjective, not objective - related very well to what we were studying in class. This account of the plight of captives during the rise of the British Empire is divided into three parts: the Mediterranean, North America, and India. Each part details the narratives of captives from all walks of life; British prisoners of war, English settlers taken captive by Native Americans, and Mediterranean sailors take captive by enemy ships, just to name a few. As people become captives, they often assimilate into their new society, and actually find it to be more liberating than the one they were born into. Oftentimes, they did not want to leave, even to be reunited with their families. And even if they did go back to their original society, the captives' identities were changed forever. A great read for anyone interested in world or British history!

[David Cheshire · Rating 5 out of 5]

Historian Linda Colley has a well-deserved reputation for originality. "Britons" showed how the invention of Britishness took place in response to a particular 18th century context. Now she uses the remarkable narratives produced by various "captives" to reflect on the theme of weakness during much of the history of the British Empire. This is unusual enough. But they provide a launch-pad for an even more startling insight about the British empire: that it was born out of an acute awareness of how small and weak Britain actually was. Aggression, she points out, can result as much from a sense of weakness as strength. She also speculates how smallness could actually bring positive advantages, such as national cohesion and single-mindedness among the elite. Also easier communication: the nearness of everywhere to rivers, coal and ports, helps explain why we took so well industrialisation. This is surely a whole new take on "small is beaufiful": small, it seems, is also aggressive and powerful! It is rare for an historian to come up with such a simple yet excitingly original insight. Whatever next?

[Kathryn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have mixed feelings about this book.

On the positive side, the premise of this book and it's themes are extremely interesting. It is well researched, and includes a lot of not so well known information. I also really liked how unbiased Colley was about the subject matter.

However, on the negative side, Colley's writing style is very dry and boring. I had a hard time making it through this book for that reason. It was kind of disappointing, because although I was interested in the ideas, I still found myself dreading having to pick the book up to read.

If this subject is something you are interested in, I would recommend giving this book a try, as it really is a lot of good themes. But if you are not so big on history, or this subject, I would recommend skipping it and saving yourself the headache.

[mary · Rating 3 out of 5]

Colley examines captives' stories and uses them to illustrate the complexities behind British imperial expansion in the period 1600 to 1850. She looks at three areas in particular, the Mediterranean and North Africa, America and India. One of her points is that, with such a small home base, Britain had to rely heavily on others, including the "captured", to maintain her primacy; on the Islamic powers in North Africa to hold her possessions in the Mediterranean; on Native Americans against the rebel settlers in America and on Irish Catholic soldiers and Indian sepoys to hold India.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely engaging. Colley is a remarkable historian, which is not only exhibited in her display of research, but in the narrative she delivers.

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't recommend the Kindle ebook. It totally lacks internal formatting- no chapter divisions, no hyperlinked footnotes, nothing.

[Nicholas · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was hoping for much more from this book. Very little is learned about captives of any kind. The author restates her thesis dozens of times and shows little ability with narrative.

[Marsha · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant look at empire and false history. Foucaultian in nature.

[Simon Farrow · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best history books I have ever read and as a student of history I have read an awful lot.