What do you think?
Rate this book
Imperios. Cinco regímenes imperiales que moldearon el mundo.
The empires of the past were far-flung experiments in multinationalism and multiculturalism, and have much to teach us about navigating our own increasingly globalized and interconnected world. Until now, most recent scholarship on empires has focused on their subject peoples. Visions of Empire looks at their rulers, shedding critical new light on who they were, how they justified their empires, how they viewed themselves, and the styles of rule they adopted toward their subjects.
Krishan Kumar provides panoramic and multifaceted portraits of five major European empires--Ottoman, Habsburg, Russian/Soviet, British, and French--showing how each, like ancient Rome, saw itself as the carrier of universal civilization to the rest of the world. Sometimes these aims were couched in religious terms, as with Islam for the Ottomans or Catholicism for the Habsburgs. Later, the imperial missions took more secular forms, as with British political traditions or the world communism of the Soviets.
Visions of Empire offers new insights into the interactions between rulers and ruled, revealing how empire was as much a shared enterprise as a clash of oppositional interests. It explores how these empires differed from nation-states, particularly in how the ruling peoples of empires were forced to downplay or suppress their own national or ethnic identities in the interests of the long-term preservation of their rule. This compelling and in-depth book demonstrates how the rulers of empire, in their quest for a universal world order, left behind a legacy of multiculturalism and diversity that is uniquely relevant for us today.
Krishan Kumar provides panoramic and multifaceted portraits of five major European empires--Ottoman, Habsburg, Russian/Soviet, British, and French--showing how each, like ancient Rome, saw itself as the carrier of universal civilization to the rest of the world. Sometimes these aims were couched in religious terms, as with Islam for the Ottomans or Catholicism for the Habsburgs. Later, the imperial missions took more secular forms, as with British political traditions or the world communism of the Soviets.
Visions of Empire offers new insights into the interactions between rulers and ruled, revealing how empire was as much a shared enterprise as a clash of oppositional interests. It explores how these empires differed from nation-states, particularly in how the ruling peoples of empires were forced to downplay or suppress their own national or ethnic identities in the interests of the long-term preservation of their rule. This compelling and in-depth book demonstrates how the rulers of empire, in their quest for a universal world order, left behind a legacy of multiculturalism and diversity that is uniquely relevant for us today.
653 pages, Unknown Binding
Published January 1, 2018
23 people are currently reading
398 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
October 25, 2017
The sun never sets...
Kumar begins this wide-ranging review of past empires by speculating why interest in empires seems to be growing again. He suggests that firstly, enough time has passed to allow the more recent ones to be assessed more objectively. But secondly, issues such as globalisation and climate change are causing people to question what is the best way to govern – is the nation state really the answer that it seemed to be when the age of empires ground to a halt? Kumar doesn't directly set out to answer this question. Instead, he looks at five of the most significant recent empires, considering how they were ruled, what were the objectives of the rulers, and what effect being the “load-bearing” part of an empire had on the national spirit of the ruling nations. He also considers the idea that, since most nations are a kind of empire, having won their territory out from an original centre, then perhaps the converse is also true – that empires can seen be seen as a form of nation.
Before he looks at the five recent empires, Kumar starts with a short chapter on Rome, on the grounds that all the later empires were to some degree influenced by its aims and methods of governance. He discusses the importance of citizenship and the use of religion – in Rome's case, Christianity – to homogenise the different peoples that came under its sway. These are themes he returns to in each of his five chosen empires, showing how they mirrored or differed from Rome in these aspects.
The five main empires covered in the book are the Ottoman, the Habsburg, the Russian (later USSR), the British and the French. In each case he starts with a run through of their development and spread – which territories they colonised. These were the least interesting parts for me, and I felt a real need for more and better maps than the book provides. After that, however, I found each chapter became more interesting as Kumar began to look at the methods of rule each empire put into place, showing how this usually arose out of the way the empire developed. So he draws a distinction between those empires which were basically land empires, such as the Russian, with all territories spreading out contiguously from a centre, and overseas empires like the British.
In each case, he then looks at what the rulers saw as the purpose of their empire. Obviously, for some, a major purpose was to do with generating wealth, but beyond that Kumar looks at, for example, the Spanish mission to protect and spread Catholicism, or the French desire to spread their Enlightenment ideals to the territories they controlled. He takes a rather positive view, suggesting many subject territories felt a considerable loyalty to their empire, citing many examples of where they willingly fought in the wars of the central nations. This is a book about rulers, so there's not much here about how the 'ordinary' people may have felt about empire, but certainly he makes a good case for the benefits that often accrued both to the central nations and the subject territories, in terms of both economic and cultural trade.
In his concluding chapter, Kumar looks at the difficulties the central nations have had in rediscovering their own identities following the collapse of their empires. He also discusses neocolonialism and the empire-like status of the superpowers – America, China, and the EU, which he suggests some see as the Habsburg empire resuscitated. And finally he discusses the growth of supranational bodies which take on some of the aspects of empire – the UN, International Courts, even global NGOs.
Overall, I found the book interesting and informative. It is rather academic in style but not enough so to make it inaccessible to the casual reader like myself. What caused me a little more difficulty is Kumar's assumption of a level of prior knowledge. This isn't a criticism – the book is clearly aimed at people with an existing interest in empire, or people who are formally studying the subject, and it would be impossible to cover such a wide range if every reference had to be explained in depth for newcomers to the subject. However, the result was that I found the chapters on empires I know something about – Habsburg, Russian and, of course, especially the British – were easier to read and absorb, and I took more away from them. The French Empire (oddly) I know little about and so struggled more as Kumar referred to historical events of which I had no real knowledge. But the worst for me was the section on the Ottoman Empire – my knowledge of that one is almost non-existent and I found the chapter hard work to get through and didn't feel at the end of it as if I had gained much. I would suggest, therefore, that this certainly isn't a 'starter' book for someone wanting an introductory history to the various empires.
However, for anyone with an existing interest in some or all of the empires discussed, it's a thought-provoking and interesting read – clearly written, informative, and I found Kumar's arguments convincing. Despite my struggles at some points, I found it an enjoyable read – one that passes over the simple and now somewhat out-dated wholesale condemnation of empire in favour of a more nuanced look at the various forms and degrees of rule and co-operation between the states and territories that made up these ever-shifting entities. 4½ stars for me, so rounded up.
NB This book was provided for review by the publisher, Princeton University Press.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
Kumar begins this wide-ranging review of past empires by speculating why interest in empires seems to be growing again. He suggests that firstly, enough time has passed to allow the more recent ones to be assessed more objectively. But secondly, issues such as globalisation and climate change are causing people to question what is the best way to govern – is the nation state really the answer that it seemed to be when the age of empires ground to a halt? Kumar doesn't directly set out to answer this question. Instead, he looks at five of the most significant recent empires, considering how they were ruled, what were the objectives of the rulers, and what effect being the “load-bearing” part of an empire had on the national spirit of the ruling nations. He also considers the idea that, since most nations are a kind of empire, having won their territory out from an original centre, then perhaps the converse is also true – that empires can seen be seen as a form of nation.
Before he looks at the five recent empires, Kumar starts with a short chapter on Rome, on the grounds that all the later empires were to some degree influenced by its aims and methods of governance. He discusses the importance of citizenship and the use of religion – in Rome's case, Christianity – to homogenise the different peoples that came under its sway. These are themes he returns to in each of his five chosen empires, showing how they mirrored or differed from Rome in these aspects.
The five main empires covered in the book are the Ottoman, the Habsburg, the Russian (later USSR), the British and the French. In each case he starts with a run through of their development and spread – which territories they colonised. These were the least interesting parts for me, and I felt a real need for more and better maps than the book provides. After that, however, I found each chapter became more interesting as Kumar began to look at the methods of rule each empire put into place, showing how this usually arose out of the way the empire developed. So he draws a distinction between those empires which were basically land empires, such as the Russian, with all territories spreading out contiguously from a centre, and overseas empires like the British.
In each case, he then looks at what the rulers saw as the purpose of their empire. Obviously, for some, a major purpose was to do with generating wealth, but beyond that Kumar looks at, for example, the Spanish mission to protect and spread Catholicism, or the French desire to spread their Enlightenment ideals to the territories they controlled. He takes a rather positive view, suggesting many subject territories felt a considerable loyalty to their empire, citing many examples of where they willingly fought in the wars of the central nations. This is a book about rulers, so there's not much here about how the 'ordinary' people may have felt about empire, but certainly he makes a good case for the benefits that often accrued both to the central nations and the subject territories, in terms of both economic and cultural trade.
In his concluding chapter, Kumar looks at the difficulties the central nations have had in rediscovering their own identities following the collapse of their empires. He also discusses neocolonialism and the empire-like status of the superpowers – America, China, and the EU, which he suggests some see as the Habsburg empire resuscitated. And finally he discusses the growth of supranational bodies which take on some of the aspects of empire – the UN, International Courts, even global NGOs.
Overall, I found the book interesting and informative. It is rather academic in style but not enough so to make it inaccessible to the casual reader like myself. What caused me a little more difficulty is Kumar's assumption of a level of prior knowledge. This isn't a criticism – the book is clearly aimed at people with an existing interest in empire, or people who are formally studying the subject, and it would be impossible to cover such a wide range if every reference had to be explained in depth for newcomers to the subject. However, the result was that I found the chapters on empires I know something about – Habsburg, Russian and, of course, especially the British – were easier to read and absorb, and I took more away from them. The French Empire (oddly) I know little about and so struggled more as Kumar referred to historical events of which I had no real knowledge. But the worst for me was the section on the Ottoman Empire – my knowledge of that one is almost non-existent and I found the chapter hard work to get through and didn't feel at the end of it as if I had gained much. I would suggest, therefore, that this certainly isn't a 'starter' book for someone wanting an introductory history to the various empires.
However, for anyone with an existing interest in some or all of the empires discussed, it's a thought-provoking and interesting read – clearly written, informative, and I found Kumar's arguments convincing. Despite my struggles at some points, I found it an enjoyable read – one that passes over the simple and now somewhat out-dated wholesale condemnation of empire in favour of a more nuanced look at the various forms and degrees of rule and co-operation between the states and territories that made up these ever-shifting entities. 4½ stars for me, so rounded up.
NB This book was provided for review by the publisher, Princeton University Press.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
October 21, 2025
I am only giving this book one star because it is not simply a tale of how five empires influenced the world but a defense, even a paean, to the idea of empire and to seek a relevance in today's global and interlinked societies in the ideas of empires past. The result is a book that ends up excusing or overlooking the sins of empires as well as rewriting certain parts of history so that Mr. Kumar can pretend to make comparisons between such utterly dissimilar states as the dynastic 'Austrian empire'* and the British and French empires.
He also seeks out continuities in the way the Russians in the Imperial and Soviet periods handled their minorities but it is a tremendous stretch. The dissimilarities are almost impossible to bridge between the vision of a Russian 'Orthodox' empire and the Soviet one. Similarly while he makes great play about the revival of interest in the 'Ottoman' empire in Turkey he doesn't bother to notice that none of the former Ottoman territories in North Africa, Egypt, Arabia or the Middle East have displayed even a passing interest in their 'imperial' past.
My biggest gripe is with the section on the British Empire and the way he constantly plays around with facts and information. Although at one point he admits that nothing was more guaranteed to empty the House of Commons then a debate or discussion on 'Imperial' affairs he spends most of his time discussing various theories of 'empire' promoted by various groups, idealists or bores. The fact that none of them had any purchase on public or political opinion seems unimportant. That they were 'ideas' and 'discussions' of empire seems to be all that matter. Certainly the fact that they had absolutely no influence on how any part of the empire was governed is of no concern to Mr. Kumar.
He spends a great deal of effort in playing around with the term 'Great Britain' and 'British' trying to prove that these were terms that were clearly and deliberately used to recognise parts and people of the Empire as not 'English'. As anyone from the Celtic fringes of the UK (Scotland, Wales, Ireland) knows Britishness is a way of allowing the English to claim all the good from their subject provinces and deny what they didn't want or like. It was a habit they practised on an even larger scale with the rest of the empire. It was rather like the way in the old Soviet Union places like Ukraine or Mongolia had seats in the UN and were supposed to be independent countries but everyone knew that Moscow called the shots. So it was with the 'UK' and the empire; the changing use of terms like Dominions and Commonwealth instead of, or alongside, Empire were just words, the expectation was that they would jump to London's call. Churchill's incandescent rage (which was still evident and made plain in his VE day broadcast, one of the nastiest post victory broadcasts ever made - one that is almost never mentioned or quoted by Churchill's sycophantic admirers) over the Irish Free State's refusal to go to war in 1939 shows how little real independence any of these so called 'Dominions' were supposed to exercise in reality. Nor does Kumar acknowledge the betrayal that Australians and others felt when they were left in the lurch when threatened by invasion from Japan, the 'Empire' was there to support the survival and prosperity of the UK not the other way round. As for India and the rest? They didn't even have a choice, the UK, through its various imperial legates, declared war without asking.
With his constant pat on the back that he gives Britain and the extraordinary massaging of figure (he refers to 'thousands' dying during the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947**) it comes as no surprise that one of his favorite authors is Nirad Chaudhuri.*** What is more tiresome is his constant repetition of praise for Britain managing it's with drawl from empire without the bloodshed of France in Algeria or Belgium in the Congo; aside from the millions dead in India in 1947 it doesn't cross his mind that the post independence debacles in Nigeria, and other places had a great deal to do with the way Britain withdrew, throwing in the towel and scarpering just quick enough to avoid responsibility for the ghastly mess that they had made of things in their empire.
As an Irishman I have an in built bull shit detector when it comes to authors who try and soft soap empires. Mr. Kumar makes clear in his introduction that his book will be a view of empires from the 'top' and 'centre' were power is concentrated, it is rare to read any book that so comprehensively avoids any connection with, or understanding of what it might have been like to be a 'member' of one of these empires. It inevitably skewers his viewpoint - I could go on as long again about the way he portrays France's imperial adventure but will restrict myself to his bizarre discussion of the violence of the pied noir/colons in Algeria were he points out that the 'other side' committed 'just as many' atrocities. I would suggest that you (as well as Mr. Kumar) read up on the Seth and Guelma massacres in 1945. A wrong does not justify violence but sometimes you can't just turn the other cheek.
A really poor and pointless book.
*Discussion of the empire which was proclaimed in 1804 without really understanding Hapsburg rule in Spain and over the Holy Roman Empire or the immediate Napoleonic circumstances makes for tendentious history and though Kumar acknowledges that an 'Austrian' empire only came into existence in 1917 he ignores this and tries to back date it even though such an entity would have been meaningless and anathema to Franz Josef who ruled that empire for the largest period of its existence between 1848-1916.
**If you don't know why I find that figure grotesque then please at least read the Wikipedia entry on the subject.
***Again I suggest you do some reading in the obvious places.
He also seeks out continuities in the way the Russians in the Imperial and Soviet periods handled their minorities but it is a tremendous stretch. The dissimilarities are almost impossible to bridge between the vision of a Russian 'Orthodox' empire and the Soviet one. Similarly while he makes great play about the revival of interest in the 'Ottoman' empire in Turkey he doesn't bother to notice that none of the former Ottoman territories in North Africa, Egypt, Arabia or the Middle East have displayed even a passing interest in their 'imperial' past.
My biggest gripe is with the section on the British Empire and the way he constantly plays around with facts and information. Although at one point he admits that nothing was more guaranteed to empty the House of Commons then a debate or discussion on 'Imperial' affairs he spends most of his time discussing various theories of 'empire' promoted by various groups, idealists or bores. The fact that none of them had any purchase on public or political opinion seems unimportant. That they were 'ideas' and 'discussions' of empire seems to be all that matter. Certainly the fact that they had absolutely no influence on how any part of the empire was governed is of no concern to Mr. Kumar.
He spends a great deal of effort in playing around with the term 'Great Britain' and 'British' trying to prove that these were terms that were clearly and deliberately used to recognise parts and people of the Empire as not 'English'. As anyone from the Celtic fringes of the UK (Scotland, Wales, Ireland) knows Britishness is a way of allowing the English to claim all the good from their subject provinces and deny what they didn't want or like. It was a habit they practised on an even larger scale with the rest of the empire. It was rather like the way in the old Soviet Union places like Ukraine or Mongolia had seats in the UN and were supposed to be independent countries but everyone knew that Moscow called the shots. So it was with the 'UK' and the empire; the changing use of terms like Dominions and Commonwealth instead of, or alongside, Empire were just words, the expectation was that they would jump to London's call. Churchill's incandescent rage (which was still evident and made plain in his VE day broadcast, one of the nastiest post victory broadcasts ever made - one that is almost never mentioned or quoted by Churchill's sycophantic admirers) over the Irish Free State's refusal to go to war in 1939 shows how little real independence any of these so called 'Dominions' were supposed to exercise in reality. Nor does Kumar acknowledge the betrayal that Australians and others felt when they were left in the lurch when threatened by invasion from Japan, the 'Empire' was there to support the survival and prosperity of the UK not the other way round. As for India and the rest? They didn't even have a choice, the UK, through its various imperial legates, declared war without asking.
With his constant pat on the back that he gives Britain and the extraordinary massaging of figure (he refers to 'thousands' dying during the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947**) it comes as no surprise that one of his favorite authors is Nirad Chaudhuri.*** What is more tiresome is his constant repetition of praise for Britain managing it's with drawl from empire without the bloodshed of France in Algeria or Belgium in the Congo; aside from the millions dead in India in 1947 it doesn't cross his mind that the post independence debacles in Nigeria, and other places had a great deal to do with the way Britain withdrew, throwing in the towel and scarpering just quick enough to avoid responsibility for the ghastly mess that they had made of things in their empire.
As an Irishman I have an in built bull shit detector when it comes to authors who try and soft soap empires. Mr. Kumar makes clear in his introduction that his book will be a view of empires from the 'top' and 'centre' were power is concentrated, it is rare to read any book that so comprehensively avoids any connection with, or understanding of what it might have been like to be a 'member' of one of these empires. It inevitably skewers his viewpoint - I could go on as long again about the way he portrays France's imperial adventure but will restrict myself to his bizarre discussion of the violence of the pied noir/colons in Algeria were he points out that the 'other side' committed 'just as many' atrocities. I would suggest that you (as well as Mr. Kumar) read up on the Seth and Guelma massacres in 1945. A wrong does not justify violence but sometimes you can't just turn the other cheek.
A really poor and pointless book.
*Discussion of the empire which was proclaimed in 1804 without really understanding Hapsburg rule in Spain and over the Holy Roman Empire or the immediate Napoleonic circumstances makes for tendentious history and though Kumar acknowledges that an 'Austrian' empire only came into existence in 1917 he ignores this and tries to back date it even though such an entity would have been meaningless and anathema to Franz Josef who ruled that empire for the largest period of its existence between 1848-1916.
**If you don't know why I find that figure grotesque then please at least read the Wikipedia entry on the subject.
***Again I suggest you do some reading in the obvious places.
April 11, 2023
Se trata más bien de un ensayo sobre la idea del imperio y la naturaleza de estos que de una historia al uso de cada régimen imperial concreto. No lo considero un buen libro para iniciarse al estudio de ninguno de los estados que se discuten, pero si se viene con unas nociones básicas nos resultará un estudio muy estimulante.
En general creo que, además de aportar claves para entender el contexto de los diversos espacios post imperiales moldeados por estos, da algunas ideas interesantes para pensar sobre el futuro del estado-nación en un mundo cada vez más marcado por entidades supranacionales.
la única pega de importancia que le puedo poner es la escasa atención que dedica al caso de la Monarquía Hispánica pese a su importancia relativa para el contexto global.
En general creo que, además de aportar claves para entender el contexto de los diversos espacios post imperiales moldeados por estos, da algunas ideas interesantes para pensar sobre el futuro del estado-nación en un mundo cada vez más marcado por entidades supranacionales.
la única pega de importancia que le puedo poner es la escasa atención que dedica al caso de la Monarquía Hispánica pese a su importancia relativa para el contexto global.
January 31, 2022
The sun maintains a somewhat delicate if not occasionally volatile balance between the pull of gravity, drawing gas inwards, and the outward push of pressure from hot gases. In the case of an empire, the pull is represented by forces of nationalism - colored by ethnicity or religious affiliation or a dangerous mix of both - & the push represented by the forces of imperialism - whereby tolerance, if not acceptance of differences, is a must to lubricate the gears of imperial administration. It goes without saying that the notion "empires" has long been controversial & is generally expressed in negative discourses marked by the taint of colonialism & racism. What Krishan Kumar proposes in this book is that empires aren't really the boogeyman it's been made out of & deserves a degree of introspection, and if one may dare say, respect.
In this extraordinary telling of the making & unraveling empires, the focus is on the policy-making (usually on the fly), perception (shared by the ruling elites across space & time), & political philosophy (generally after the fact) of the ruling elites as grappled with empire-building & its attendant maintenance. An unusual degree of synchronicity runs though the five empires examined herein as they struggled to embrace, or at least engage, with their multi-ethnic & multi-religious nature of their empires. What is apparent that the ruling class co-opted the elites of the subjugated & welcomed them into their inner circles of power to ensure a relatively smooth functioning of their empires.
Likewise, as their decline & fall are hastened by both external events & internal weaknesses, an unusual degree of synchronicity - as the core ruling elite are left with the reality of a truncated rump state of an "empire" - is apparent as Ottomans begins to assert themselves as Turks, the former citizens of the Habsburg empire claim themselves as either Austrians or Hungarians, and so on & so forth. Nationalism, it seems, compensated in large for the loss of imperial holdings & its attendant grandeur. Suddenly, in an instant, the qualification to rule and the right to citizenship devolves into & rests upon, crudely put, "tribal" terms.
It's fair to say that the history of empires & the nationalist forces unleashed upon their dismemberment still plays large roles in the modern-day nation states that has chosen to either claim or struggle with their past imperial mantles. Present-day Turkey under Erdoğan hearkens the Turks to the glories of its Ottoman past. One can discern how much or little of Filofei of Pskov's prophecy in his 1523 letter & that of Count Sergei Uvarov's 1833 formulation plays a role in Putin's politics of revanchism for present-day Russia. An argument can be made that the fragmentation of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s wouldn't have occurred - much less contemplated - if the Austro-Hungarian empire held together in one form or another.
It's worth noting that many of the defunct empires have by far lasted longer, centuries in fact, than the conceit of the nation-state - arguably a decades-old notion that can be dated back to the end of WWII for most of the modern-day countries in existence - as of 2020. It seems unlikely that the history of empires - the end of history? - now only needs a footnote or some touching-up but to save a few blank chapters to chronicle their continuing stories.
In this extraordinary telling of the making & unraveling empires, the focus is on the policy-making (usually on the fly), perception (shared by the ruling elites across space & time), & political philosophy (generally after the fact) of the ruling elites as grappled with empire-building & its attendant maintenance. An unusual degree of synchronicity runs though the five empires examined herein as they struggled to embrace, or at least engage, with their multi-ethnic & multi-religious nature of their empires. What is apparent that the ruling class co-opted the elites of the subjugated & welcomed them into their inner circles of power to ensure a relatively smooth functioning of their empires.
Likewise, as their decline & fall are hastened by both external events & internal weaknesses, an unusual degree of synchronicity - as the core ruling elite are left with the reality of a truncated rump state of an "empire" - is apparent as Ottomans begins to assert themselves as Turks, the former citizens of the Habsburg empire claim themselves as either Austrians or Hungarians, and so on & so forth. Nationalism, it seems, compensated in large for the loss of imperial holdings & its attendant grandeur. Suddenly, in an instant, the qualification to rule and the right to citizenship devolves into & rests upon, crudely put, "tribal" terms.
It's fair to say that the history of empires & the nationalist forces unleashed upon their dismemberment still plays large roles in the modern-day nation states that has chosen to either claim or struggle with their past imperial mantles. Present-day Turkey under Erdoğan hearkens the Turks to the glories of its Ottoman past. One can discern how much or little of Filofei of Pskov's prophecy in his 1523 letter & that of Count Sergei Uvarov's 1833 formulation plays a role in Putin's politics of revanchism for present-day Russia. An argument can be made that the fragmentation of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s wouldn't have occurred - much less contemplated - if the Austro-Hungarian empire held together in one form or another.
It's worth noting that many of the defunct empires have by far lasted longer, centuries in fact, than the conceit of the nation-state - arguably a decades-old notion that can be dated back to the end of WWII for most of the modern-day countries in existence - as of 2020. It seems unlikely that the history of empires - the end of history? - now only needs a footnote or some touching-up but to save a few blank chapters to chronicle their continuing stories.
March 19, 2021
Una revisión de los principales imperios recientes, o al menos, alguno de los principales, que nos recuerda que este no es un fenómeno tan del pasado como algunos quieren creer y que, con sus penas y glorias, no fue todo lo negativo que algunos desearían, aportando soluciones o intentos de solución a problemas a los que ahora se enfrentan los estados-nación sin lograr superarlos o mostrar soluciones mejores de las que aportaron aquellos. Con todo, a veces el libro se queda en el plano más teórico, si bien ya lo advierte el autor.
Desde mi punto de vista, también se deja fuera el estudio, o al menos la mención, a los actuales imperios, solo lo hace con el estadounidense, que al no ser europeos no despiertan tanta animadversión, como lo es el chino, y la posible conexión o evolución del nacionalismo hacia el imperialismo que se pudo ver en el caso de Serbia en la guerra de los Balcanes y se ve con otros países en Europa o fuera de ella.
Desde mi punto de vista, también se deja fuera el estudio, o al menos la mención, a los actuales imperios, solo lo hace con el estadounidense, que al no ser europeos no despiertan tanta animadversión, como lo es el chino, y la posible conexión o evolución del nacionalismo hacia el imperialismo que se pudo ver en el caso de Serbia en la guerra de los Balcanes y se ve con otros países en Europa o fuera de ella.
July 12, 2018
This book gives a much needed revitalisation to the idea of empire as we conclude the first quarter of the 21st century.
Just as we are at a time when nation-states of the post war consensus are grappling with their identity under increased globalisation, it is good to revisit the old Imperial orders that predate the nation state view of the world.
Kumar looks at 5 empires who stretched roughly from the 16th century until the 20th - the Ottoman, the Habsburg, the Russian, the French, the British - and delves into their civilisational raison d’etre with careful balance. (The infantile “Star Wars” perception of empire so dominant on university campuses is thankfully not present)
It works well as an introductory source to the imperial mind-frame - from Roman legacy to current affairs. How did they deal with diversity? What was their perception of hierarchy? To what extent were their falls destined, if at all?
In a world where the US is entering a weaker phase of its global power, and a self-confident China parades in East Asia, understanding the world view and legacy of these 5 empires, both in their pomp as well as their rump forms today, is pivotal to have a fully fleshed understanding of our world. Kumar’s tone delivers in accordance with the tradition of respecting greatness, whether it be an adversary or an ally.
Just as we are at a time when nation-states of the post war consensus are grappling with their identity under increased globalisation, it is good to revisit the old Imperial orders that predate the nation state view of the world.
Kumar looks at 5 empires who stretched roughly from the 16th century until the 20th - the Ottoman, the Habsburg, the Russian, the French, the British - and delves into their civilisational raison d’etre with careful balance. (The infantile “Star Wars” perception of empire so dominant on university campuses is thankfully not present)
It works well as an introductory source to the imperial mind-frame - from Roman legacy to current affairs. How did they deal with diversity? What was their perception of hierarchy? To what extent were their falls destined, if at all?
In a world where the US is entering a weaker phase of its global power, and a self-confident China parades in East Asia, understanding the world view and legacy of these 5 empires, both in their pomp as well as their rump forms today, is pivotal to have a fully fleshed understanding of our world. Kumar’s tone delivers in accordance with the tradition of respecting greatness, whether it be an adversary or an ally.
February 20, 2019
Very good book for persons who are used to reading history. Not a book that I would recommend to anyone who is not a history geek.
Book is kind of hard to read because the author has chosen to put his citations in the reading area. Would be a better read if citations were in listed as footnotes or notes at end of book
Book is kind of hard to read because the author has chosen to put his citations in the reading area. Would be a better read if citations were in listed as footnotes or notes at end of book
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews