Den korte historie om england

Shortest History

by James Hawes, Anders Juel Michelsen (Translator)

Englands historie er præget af markante skillelinjer og splittelser internt i det egenrådige ørige samt et markant internationalt udsyn. I "Den korte historie om England" fortæller James Hawes om de mest afgørende øjeblikke i Englands historie, og om landets dybe og truende splittelse, som både manifesterer sig fysisk og geografisk men også kulturelt, politisk og økonomisk. Det er en velfortalt og overraskende historisk gennemgang af Englands historie, som tager os med helt tilbage til Cæsars invasion af landet og op til det verdensomspændende britiske imperium, Englands afgørende roller i de to verdenskrige og op til nutidens Brexit.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, British Literature, Politics, Historical, European History, Scotland

295 pages

First published September 1, 2019

Reviews

[Maziyar Yf · Rating 3 out of 5]

اگر دوریم اگر نزدیک
بیا با هم بگرییم ای چو من تاریک
ایران#


تاریخ فشرده انگلستان ، کتابی ایست از جیمز هاوز ، نویسنده و مورخ بریتانیایی ، کتاب او نگاهی بسیار خلاصه است به تاریخ انگلستان از زمان هجوم سزار و تسخیر و اشغال انگلستان تا قرن معاصر ، بریگزیت و جدایی انگلستان از اتحادیه اروپا . نویسنده در کمتر از 300 صفحه کوشیده تا انبوه حوادث تاریخی انگلستان را شرح داده یا دست کم نام برد .
نخستین ایرادی که به نسخه فارسی کتاب هاوز می توان گرفت بی سلیقگی همراه با اشتباه نشر مرکز در طراحی جلد کتاب است ، کتاب هیچ نشانی از یونیون جک ، پرچم انگلستان ندارد و رنگهای کتاب بیشتر یاد آور پرچم روسیه هستند . به ویژه در اشتباهی آشکار ، عطف یا شیرازه کتاب ، کاملا پرچم روسیه را نشان می دهد .
تاریخ انگلستان ، شاید میان خوانندگان فارسی زبان ، چندان شناخته شده نباشد . علت آنرا احتمالا بتوان منفور بودن انگلستان و تاریخ استعماری آن ، میان ایرانیان دانست . اما در بازه نسبتا طولانی تاریخ انگلستان ، حوادث بسیار جالبی رخ داده که احتمالا در تاریخ جهان ، یگانه و منحصر به فرد هستند . برای نمونه تصویب مگنا کارتا یا قانون با شکوه در قرن سیزدهم و داشتن نوعی دموکراسی نسبی برای قرن ها متمادی ، تلاش و اتحاد اشراف برای کاستن قدرت پادشاه ، جنگهای صد ساله با فرانسه ، جدایی از کلیسا و پروتستان شدن ، تبدیل به یک قدرت دریایی و سپس استعماری ، انقلاب صنعتی ، تلاش برای محاصره کردن هر قدرت اروپایی چه ناپلئون و چه آلمان در اوایل قرن بیست ، پیروز در در جنگ جهانی اما خسته و ورشکسته ، از دست دادن امپراتوری وسیع و سرانجام برگزیت و جدایی از اتحادیه اروپا ، تنها بخش هایی از تاریخ انگلستان هستند که نویسنده کوشیده تنها در چند سطر آنها را شرح دهد .
در میان این حوادث ، مگنا کارتا را باید در تاریخ جهان یگانه دانست ، مگنا کارتا سندی تاریخی و بسیار مهم است که در قرن سیزده در انگلستان به تصویب رسید. این منشور که به زبان لاتین نوشته شده، توافق‌نامه ای بین پادشاه انگلستان ، و گروهی از بارون‌های شورشی بود. در واقع، بارون‌ها به دلیل سیاست‌های ستمگرانه و مالیات‌های سنگین پادشاه، او را مجبور به امضای این سند کردند تا قدرت او را محدود کنند. برای اولین بار، این سند به وضوح بیان کرد که حتی پادشاه هم بالاتر از قانون نیست و قدرت او محدود است. این اصل، پایه‌ای برای مفهوم حکومت قانون شد؛ یعنی همه، حتی حاکمان، باید از قانون تبعیت کنند. اگرچه مگنا کارتا در ابتدا بیشتر به حقوق بارون‌ها و اشراف می‌پرداخت، اما برخی از مفاد آن به مرور زمان به اصول کلی‌تری برای حقوق افراد آزاد تبدیل شد .

با محدود کردن قدرت پادشاه، مگنا کارتا راه را برای توسعه نهادهای نمایندگی مانند پارلمان هموار کرد. این سند به مرور زمان به عنوان نمادی از مبارزه مردم برای آزادی در برابر قدرت خودسرانه شناخته شد و الهام‌بخش بسیاری از جنبش‌های آزادی‌خواهانه و تدوین قوانین اساسی در آینده گشت. در مجموع، مگنا کارتا افزون بر یک سند تاریخی مهم در انگلستان ، باید آنرا سنگ بنای آزادی‌های مدنی و محدودیت قدرت پادشاه در تاریخ جهان هم دانست .
هاوز کوشیده تا بیشتر حوادث تاریخی انگلستان در یک بازه زمانی بسیار طولانی را در چند سطر شرح دهد . اما کوتاه و خلاصه بودن بیش از اندازه مطالب و ناتوانی نویسنده در حفظ ارتباط و پیوستگی حوادث در بستر تاریخ انگلستان ، به کتاب او ضربه زده است .

[Robert O'Malley · Rating 1 out of 5]

It always feels wrong to give a book one star but as it is the only negative (and not just ambivalent) option, I don't feel I can rate it in any other way.

My rating is somewhat harsh in one respect: my knowledge of early English history is shallow and so I somewhat enjoyed the first half of this book for its fast paced and coherent narrative which taught me a number of basic facts of early England in a memorable way.

Despite this, on reaching the era of which I do have some experience, I quickly found Hawes' history superficial bordering on negligent. One particularly egregious example is the embrace of a "Britain as benevolent coloniser" narrative, i.e. "The Navy ruled the waves so completely that even while still at war with Napoleon, Britain was able to worry about making the world a better place".

Such outdated and misguided takes might at least be understood through an ideological lens; another shocker is the wholly unconvincing claim that amidst great social upheaval Attlee's emphatic election victory of '45 was down to his being the "small-c conservative choice". Much less comprehensible is the complete absence of any mention of the women's suffrage movement. To be clear, Hawes not only omits from his narrative an analysis of the fearless activism and sociotemporal factors and that lead to women being partially enfranchised in 1918, but in fact entirely neglects to mention that the event at all! Failing to address near half the population being given the vote, and the factors that can account for this, is just simply absurd.

I could go on as there are far too many further examples, but in short if any of the above seems peculiar to you I would suggest not reading this "history". If there had been a little more attention paid to the above and a little less on the sporting pastimes of private schoolboys this book would be much more worth everyone's time.

[Victor Sonkin · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Shortest History of Germany was even better; here, perhaps, the author was treading waters that were too close to home, which resulted in some messiness of the general picture. This said, it's also brilliant as a very short history. Like the book on Germany, this one is driven by a single burning idea; unlike the German one, it is quite unremarkable and non-unique; on the contrary, everyone is sporting it this way or the other: it's the North/South divide and the eternal enmity and problems that derive from it. The book ends with a very gloomy Brexit/coronavirus picture, and it's quite unclear what (generally or in the author's view) could come out of it.

[Lucas Podesta · Rating 1 out of 5]

The Shortest History of England takes as its main argument that the North/South divide is the driving force of social and political change in the country. Hawes attempts to demonstrate how this divide is agricultural, geological, social and cultural and has been part of the island's culture since before the Roman invasion up to the present day.

I particularly enjoyed the first couple of chapters about medieval England. I also thought the description of the destruction of English peasant culture through land partitioning was impressively well developed and interesting writing on such a small word budget. The parts about English nationalism vs. English imperialism were fascinating and incisive, especially in how the porous nature of the English upper classes helped contribute to their stunning resilience. I also loved the tracing of how English cultural divides, especially in regards to language and accent, came about and how these divides have moved English history since the Normans to today. This book is full of fascinating facts about English history and is a very fun read.

The North/South divide is clearly a massive factor in English culture but it is also certainly overstated in this book and often comes at the expense of discussions around other important turning points in English history, especially the external effects of Empire. There is almost nothing about how unequal trade with the Spanish colonies helped create British manufacturing, or about the transatlantic slave trade or later Imperial adventures in the Indian Subcontinent and Africa, as well as the development of the Welfare state. These are glaring omissions, without which England today is impossible to understand.

It does feel like this book was written in response to Brexit along the usual liberal lines of the outcome of the 2016 referendum being the result of self-harm valence voting along ancient grievances, casting the tribal divides in England as just part of the nation's destiny. Hawes in this way creates an England that is reactionary, divided and politically irrational (something which may well be true).


Another minor point is that the source material tends to be non-academic and is usually secondary. When there are quotes, they tend to be from history magazines or popular historians. There is some great use of primary source material such as German pamphlets teaching young Germans how to act like English gentlemen. Unfortunately this is rare and is limited to small graphics and illustrations. There is almost zero critical engagement with primary or secondary material. There are a lot of these graphs, tables and maps which help the reader understand more easily some of the trickier concepts in the book. These tend to be good, although a few are a bit weirdly drawn and confusing.

The length of the book also makes it very difficult for Hawes to defend his argument effectively, with points being left unexplained and unevidenced, the reader is expected to take the author's word for it. If Hawes had a larger word budget I think the arguments could be fleshed out better and would become less flimsy. I think that it is always easy to crtiticise a book like this too harshly. Inevitably there will massive sacrifices if you wish to condense over a thousand years of history into 200 pages or so but, again, the picture does feel incomplete.

I think it is an impressive feat to condense England's history so much as well as present a thesis for English historical development. However, the underlying assumption reduces the complexity of English history and social relations and the author's politics, instead of adding interesting interpretation to English history, simplify and distort it. The problem with writing an overview of English history with such a clear narrative argument for its development is that what inevitably happens is only the stories that support this narrative are told, the rest are ignored despite their importance thus sacrificing the very point of writing an overview.

[Eoin McGrath · Rating 4 out of 5]

Got this one done just in time to have a thrilling discussion in case it 'comes home' jk jk. That aside, great read. I am a big fan of the format since reading the Germany book - it did feel slightly messier though. 3.5 stars.

[Oliver Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

James Hawes' 'The Shortest History of England' does exactly as it says on the tin, which is, no doubt, a monumental task for any historian. James' Hawes pulls it off, but only just.

Why you might ask? Well, this book is short (272 pages of text + crap tons of illustrations to tell the whole story; from Roman times to now), and because of that he's having to skim over much of the story for the sake of this being the 'shortest history of England'. This is good for keeping the pace of the book fast but, due to the sheer complexity of the some of the events told, I was sometimes left with more questions than answers and other times only tentatively understanding what was actually going on.

In addition, I found the book a much easier read when getting on to those parts of English history I had previous knowledge in, namely the 1500s onwards (I'll admit I haven't the biggest interest in medieval history).

That said, I was able to follow the overall narrative well, and was impressed by how seamlessly Hawes took me through the various eras of English history and for it to all seem so natural a progression; going from one era to the next, till our present day.

Hawes' conclusions about the state of England and the future of the UK are - if your a bloody unionist like I am - rather disquieting. He predicts the break up of the union - he doesn't say it explicitly, balkanisation for him is a given - and that England, left to her own devices, will experience a reckoning between those 'elites' who predominately live in London and the home counties, and those left behind by the further centralisation of wealth to that of London and the home counties.

Quite the bold prediction wouldn't you say? You'd be surprised by how much sense it makes by the end of the book. I recommend this book to everyone living in the UK. With the events and divisions currently ripping us apart, the history of England has never been more relevant.

[Ana · Rating 3 out of 5]

I got a bit carried away again........



On the cover of my copy, Phillip Pullman has described ‘The Shortest History of England’ as ‘sharp and vivid and extremely persuasive’. This is funny because towards the end of the book Hawes describes Pullman’s writing as having ‘revitalised Britlit’. However, Pullman isn’t wrong- ‘TSHE’ is a fascinating read.

The line taken by Hawes is that England is defined by division. It is a country that has been split along geographical lines since Ancient times. The geography informed the economy- the South was more prosperous due to favourable soils for growing crops. The economy informed the culture- Southerners became the national ‘elite’, and it was those who partook in the culture of the elite that got ahead. After the Norman conquest, that culture was essentially French. The English elite was never English at all, but French. This, Hawes argues, is our ‘national trauma’.

It makes sense. Our language is an amalgamation of Germanic (Saxon) and Norman origin words. The North, the poor, and the downtrodden are far more likely to use the Germanic language, while the South, the rich, and the elite use the Norman language. Shakespeare was able to cross this divide by treading a ‘linguistic tightrope’ during the ‘post-armada rush of unity’. Dickens was only able to speak to both the rich and the poor during the industrial revolution when the North’s prosperity was increased and ‘the English were getting jumbled together as never before’. Churchill inspired the masses by appealing to them using only the Germanic language. He appealed to the rich South because he was, like them, a member of the elite. The Brexit referendum went the way it did because of an ancient longing for independence from the continent played on and manipulated for votes.

Everything, for Hawes, comes down to the linguistic, economic, and geographical North-South divide. This is where I believe many of the intricacies of history are lost. Empire, for example, is put down to the essentially non-English interests of the Norman-descended elites. It is implied that England itself has essentially been a colony ever since 1066 and that it was not the English but the quasi-European elite which colonised the world. It was persuasively argued, and Hawes had a point, but the atrocities of the Empire cannot be excused nor the blame pushed away by an invasion that took place nearly 1000 years before. Likewise, the English role in the subjugation of the Irish is downplayed if not ignored.

A book as short as this cannot possibly capture every intricacy of the atrocities committed by England. It has to take an angle, and the angle Hawes takes is the North/South divide and its exacerbation by the Conquest. It is therefore misleading to call the book ‘The Shortest History of England’ (which implies a responsibility to elaborate on Englands role in global suffering), and it should perhaps be titled ‘The Shortest History of the North-South Divide’. Even so, as he sweeps seamlessly through a history that previously, for me, existed in unconnected pockets, Hawes creates an extremely convincing guide to why England is the way it is.




*edit*
I've just read Robert O'Malley's (https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/1...) review and was a bit ashamed not to have noticed that Hawes fails to even mention women's suffrage! An event at which half the population receives the vote is certainly not an event to be ignored.

As a history of the North/South divide- 5*
As a history of England- 2*

[Michael Sweeney · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book starts well. In a fast moving narrative it covers ground from the Celtic origins of the British Isles to the Norman Conquest and makes this murky, confusing period relatively intelligible. He does go on about the North/South divide in England at great length, and the South’s (Tory) predominance in our island story.

Some of it is interesting. Much is just a rant. For most of England’s history it’s northern and western areas were thinly populated and difficult to navigate. I enjoyed his colourful explanation of the French nature of English kings until Henry VII. After that it increasingly becomes an incoherent polemic against ‘elites’ and hostility to Brexit. Disappointing.

[Emma Harris · Rating 1 out of 5]

Really it’s zero stars - this is not a history book but a political piece on Brexit. Hawes’ own political biases make this evident (in particular his anti-Irish sentiments, horrible takes on colonialism and failure to acknowledge racism).

It’s written well in some parts and an interesting take, but it’s not what I wanted and misses out a lot of important history (e.g suffrage, racism in 60s/70s, slavery and colonialism is only lightly touched on, royal family after Queen Victoria, Mosley, the Troubles).

[Hesam Mousavi · Rating 1 out of 5]

حقیقتا باید بگم کتاب اصلا خوب نبود
به بهونه فشرده کردن فقط پرش داشت و هیچ اطلاعات مفیدی نداشت!

[Farah Mendlesohn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hawes has a thesis and its that England is an Empire based in the South East of England and created by the Normans. All of the rest of England, then Wales then Scotland, then Ireland, are the Outer Lands of Empire. (Towards the end he cited the study earlier this century that demonstrated that yes, we really are still ruled by the Norman conquest), and the techniques used there are then exported overseas when land conquest gives way to sea borne conquest. He’s rather good on the decline of Empire as well, and argues that there is a decent chance that when the nation breaks apart, England will be the land in crisis (I think he’s correct but I think some of the language a wing of the Scottish Independence movement is using may spur local independence movement’s; ie if “Independence is Natural”, what;s the argument against an Independent Orkney or fife?)

Following on from that, he argues that we can understand pre Union and post Union History, but particularly pre Union history, through the entrenchment of the North South divide created by the Norman conquest.

Also following on from the Norman conquest he argues that we can see the entrenchment of French-Latin as the languages of the upper classes and of education (and by this he does not mean the two language, French and Latin, only, but the Frenchified and Latinate speech of the educated) and argues is still a divide today.

I found the book up to 1620 very convincing. Then I hit the problem that he tried to force the British Civil Wars into this. The problem was that he doesn’t seem to realise the Scots had their own agenda and it wasn’t always about England, that some places in the North were Parliamentarian, that cities could side with one side and their hinterlands with another, and that the Irish were fighting (at minimum) on three sides. And as for his description of Cromwell’s actions! Well we are forewarned when he calls him a dictator, but honestly, you’d get a more accurate summary from Peach’s Ladybird books, and that, as I noted yesterday, means I now can’t be sure that his (fascinating) exploration of the Wars of the Roses as a North + Wales v South analysis is worth listening to.

Hawes is also rather good on the resource map of England, and overall, his maps, diagrams and tables are excellent contributors to the book, showing in the 19th and 20th centuries the degree to which first past the post has entrenched the North/South divide.

His analysis of Brexit rhetoric is interesting as well: he suggests that one of the differences between the two campaigns is that Leave used English origin words and Remain used French-Latinate language ie the difference between “do you want a steak?" And “boef bourbon on is on the menu”. He also links it to Henry VIII/Cardinal Wolsey’s campaign to leave Rome which apparently (specialists please chime in) did something very similar, including arguments that, the money we send to Rome can be spent on the poor! (A promise which has since been demonstrated to be as hollow as the Brexit promises, by archaeologists studying the bones of the poor.)

So on the whole: a great read, a really interesting take on the construction of “Britain”, maybe a bit too much argument about “special cases”

—
NB: John Smith has been utterly disappeared yet his untimely death is one of the great What Ifs affecting the story he tells.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

I don't know how he's done it, but James Hawes has managed to twist, bend, contort, England's tortured history and stuff it into a tin can labelled, 'The North-South Divide'. It all began with the Romans. A map of Roman villa estates shows over 95% are below a line from the Humber to the Severn estuary. Above the line, the Briton tribes were subdued, but perhaps never won over to the benefits of a more prosperous and fulfilling life as a subject of Rome. Was the national character forged and mapped in this moment?
Hawes builds a frenetic , nay compulsive, argument for all political sticking points, conflicts and moments of high emotion emanating from the bitter relationship and rivalry between those unfortunates living in the harsh north, and those nasty elitist living in the beautiful south.
William the Conqueror was exasperated by the north's resistance to his conquest, giving them chance after chance, but they kept on killing his men. So, in frustration and rage, he simply slaughtered them and laid the land waste in 'the harrowing of the North'. Fast forward to 1979, and Margaret Thatcher's new Conservative government did something very similar in the Miner's Strike civil War of the early 80s. Trade Union leader, Arthur Scargill, moved the union's HQ from London to Sheffield, and battle lines were drawn. There are dozens of similar incidents over the intervening years, described in gruesome relish. Our history, it seems, is doomed to repeat itself in this pattern. A fascinating and engaging read - recommended (mainly to British islanders and their scattered descendants).

[Kai · Rating 2 out of 5]

Jetzt bin ich im Bilde

[Dropbear123 · Rating 2 out of 5]

2/5, would not recommend. Will not be keeping.

Got it new on clearance, if I had paid full price for it I would be very annoyed. I know it is a short pop-history book but it has a lot of flaws. No listed sources or even sources for economic/number graphs for things like for amount of gold paid to the Danes or aircraft production before WWII. The only source I saw was with a graph was about the ethnic makeup of the American colonies vs the makeup of the British army. It also misses out a lot of details, for example it mentions the Mayflower ship and just says the group wanted to be away from royal control, no mention of puritans or religion at all. There are a lot of simple maps and diagrams, the kind that would be on a powerpoint presentation. The main argument of the book is basically the north-south divide and the (often foreign or at least more Europeanised in culture) elites vs the poorer native English, rather than focusing on major events or political policies. The author also argues that English (and broader British) history is basically a power stuggle between London+ the South East vs the rest of England+the other celtic areas. There is a point to it but the author takes it way too far (I don't entirely disagree with him but I wanted more history, less political argument). The medieval bit is just a long rant of oppressive Norman colonisers and the suppression of the English. The more modern stuff is basically another rant about how the north-south divide and the culturally different elites led to Brexit (which the author clearly opposes, but that is politics not history). Years ago I read Hawe's 'Shortest History of Germany' and liked it, but now I'm thinking less of it as his book about my own country was so lacking in detail so what did he get wrong about another country?

[Bo Schutte · Rating 3 out of 5]

Id rather give this a 3,5 but its a 3 for now.
It was an interesting read, lots of info about how the land developed over time, I missed some topics that were not spoken about, which is unfortunate.
After the reign of King George the First it all becomes very political, I don't mind it but I wanted to read about Edward VIII and the death of Princess Diana, things like that. It just skipped some very interesting subjects which is too bad.

I learned a lot about how the England came to be the country that it is today and the struggles it has had since 1066, I really liked that.
I wanted a bit more info on the later Royalty and Pop Culture but I only got about 3 sentences.

[Ben Pearman · Rating 2 out of 5]

Could have been even shorter.

Yet for all its tedious detail (an excessive focus on the north/south divide), notably, it left out some (IMO) basic stuff: Stonehenge, William Wallace, medieval & renaissance English literature/drama (except a smidge of Shakespeare), the former American colonies (except a perfunctory reference to “The Mayflower”), Henry Hudson, the War of 1812, the Tube, the British Museum and its (plundered) antiquities, and more.

Also, lots of British colloquialisms made it a tiresome read for a simple-minded American. 😊😉

[Carolyn Whitzman · Rating 4 out of 5]

When you are sick, comfort food reading is the order of the day. This is an excellent introduction to English history, with a decent central thesis: from the dawn of written history (the Roman conquest), England has been dominated by the southeast, and there is little that the North, let alone Wales or Scotland or Cornwall or Ireland, can do about it. Hawes uses maps, quotes and sometimes irritating italics to whip through 2000 years very efficiently. David picked it up in a little library and it was just what I needed.

[miss.mesmerized mesmerized · Rating 4 out of 5]

Den Brexit haben die Menschen auf dem Kontinent teils fassungslos, teils kopfschüttelnd betrachtet. Wie konnte es zu so einer gravierenden (Fehl-)Entscheidung kommen? Man hat den Eindruck die Briten nicht mehr zu verstehen, vielleicht aber auch nie verstanden zu haben. Tausende Jahre Geschichte sind es, die das Land zu dem gemacht haben, das diese folgenreiche Abstimmung herbeiführte. Doch kann man einen so langen Zeitraum prägnant und gut lesbar zusammenfassen? James Hawes ist dies gelungen. Von Caesars Eroberung über zahlreiche Kriege bis hin zur Entstehung des Empire und dessen Niedergang im 20. Jahrhundert, ein letztes Aufbäumen durch popkulturelle Erfolge kurz vor der Jahrtausendwende und schließlich die Absage auf ein gemeinsames Europa. Mit zahlreichen historischen Dokumenten, Karte und prägnanten Schaubildern untermauert er die Tatsache, dass die Nation nicht erst im Brexit ihre tiefe Spaltung zeigte, tatsächlich war sie nie wirklich vereint.

James Hawes ist Germanist, der an verschiedenen Universitäten im Vereinigten Königreich lehrte. In den 1990ern war er mit zwei Romanen recht erfolgreich, seine Abriss über die Geschichte Deutschlands wurde in seiner Heimat mit sehr positiven Kritiken aufgenommen, was vermutlich auch zur Entstehung seines aktuellen Werkes beigetragen hat. „Die kürzeste Geschichte Englands“ hält, was der Titel verspricht. Anhand des roten Fadens der Spaltung leitet den Autor durch 2000 Jahre Geschichte, die notwendigerweise reduziert, aber gleichsam zielgerichtet und leicht verständlich wird.

Mit der britischen Geschichte grundlegend vertraut, hat mich Hewes‘ Buch dennoch gereizt, weil man gerade wegen der politischen Entwicklungen der letzten Jahre anfing zu zweifeln, ob man das Land und seine Bewohner wirklich kennt oder ob es nicht doch tiefergehende Faktoren gibt, die man übersehen hat. Geschichte ist nicht linear und eindimensional, sondern vielschichtig und unterschiedliche Faktoren überlagern sich. Trotz der Kürze arbeitet der Autor dies immer wieder heraus. Sprache, soziale Schicht, Geografie, Glaube – weder lassen sie sich trennen noch genügen sie einzeln zu erklären, weshalb an unterschiedlichsten Stellen Risse, Brüche und tiefe Gräben existieren, die zwar gelegentlich gekittet den Anschein einer vereinten großen Nation erweckten, unter der Oberfläche jedoch ein vielfach zerfasertes Gebilde beherbergten.

Das etwas andere Geschichtsbuch, das nie den Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit und Ausführlichkeit legt, sondern zielgerichtet einen anderen Blick auf Großbritannien wirft und leider auch kein besonders optimistisches Fazit zieht.

[Jacob Stelling · Rating 2 out of 5]

Perhaps because I’m more familiar with English history than German history, I’m inclined to judge this work more harshly than its predecessor. My main issue with the German work was that it focused too much on an arbitrary dividing line which a grand narrative was constructed around, and the same occurs here.

Hawes seems determined to argue that the north-south divide has been around since pre-history, even predating the Romans, and ever since has been the fundamental force shaping English history. Whilst I don’t disagree that it has had an impact, it felt at times like separate conflicts were coloured by a north-south element, even when this was shoehorned in.

Whilst a very commendable attempt at distilling the history of a country into a small number of pages, perhaps the academic historian in me recoils at the slight reordering of events and the oversimplification at work here. However, that is perhaps the point and therefore I may simply just be the wrong audience for this book.

[Al · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author at the end of this book talks about brexit and the working class. He makes his opinion clear that the working class are easily duped, not very intelligent and therefore voted for Brexit - something the author was clearly very against. I don’t mind authors putting in their opinion into what is a factual book but this was a clear attack on anyone who has a different opinion to the author. He also states he doubts anyone under 25 vote conservative and therefore it’s the older generation who have ‘ruined’ the country. Wrong, I’m under 25, vote conservative and voted Brexit. I therefore can’t recommend a book whose author clearly hates me

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

There’s a lot of ground to cover and James Hawes does it reasonably well. I liked the graphics and the maps; certainly the maps were very useful. I thought that the text was somewhat opinionated, especially as I reached the current time period. I would have preferred more objectivity. While the writing style is conversational, I did not find it as pleasing as the writing in “The Shortest History of China”. Overall, though, it was a worthwhile read. Thank you to Netgalley and The Experiment for the advance reader copy.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

My problems with this book are twofold. Firstly the writer is obsessed with both the North / South divide and the French influence on Southern England and I think he is too often trying to shoe-horn the events of history to fit these contentions. Secondly I think many of the graphics are unclear, partly because of their small size in the paperback edition and partly because many of them seem devised to accompany a PowerPoint presentation rather than a full text. So, whilst I enjoyed the read, I was often irritated and not convinced by his central arguments.

[Zack Quinn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bought this on a whim in the airport and while it took a while to read (focused on fiction instead) it’s a great look into our history. Recent bits I knew but the first 70% of the book being mainly pre 1500’s was super interesting, especially learning about our Roman/Celtic/Scandinavian/French invasions and is all laid out in easy digestible ways

[Lynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. It’s a short history of Britain but it’s so much bigger than I thought it would be. There are are plenty of facts that I never knew and a perspectives I’ve never heard of before. So valuable in so many ways.

[Bernie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not bad, though sometimes Hawes doesn’t provide enough context - some sentences/paragraph are therefore not 100% crystal clear.

[Ben · Rating 1 out of 5]

In some ways I could have given this a good rating. As a mystery, which builds up the character and story of various central characters (principally the popular and elite classes of England's southeast, North, and adjacent UK nations). It definitely kept my attention (except for some of the messier episodes of fratricidal feudal kings). What would be the twist at the end - who is the villain, who is the gritty English hero when we get to the final episode, looking at Blair and Johnson and Brexit? (I would add Corbyn, the most interesting figure in British politics in decades, but Hawes isn't even willing to name him, instead looking to Sir Keir Starmer as the herald of the future - I suspect he will be sore disappointed there).

But in reality this isn't a mystery, nor an opinion essay on the future of Britain - well, it's not meant to be, it's meant to be a short history. I'm not a historian but I can be fairly sure this history is a bad one. It takes cherry-picked stories, with the author's simple (and unreferenced) assertions as to their meaning, and weaves them into its narrative. That narrative is all about England, despite the enormous impact of England on the wider world, but also, of the wider world's impact on England mediated through the contact afforded by Empire. I could suggest a couple of other more appropriate titles - The Narrowest, or Most Insular history. It's not that Britain's empire, and cruelty, are not mentioned. They are there, but only very briefly as if the real motor of England's history was just the conflict between it's north and south and the various elites and popular classes of each region. And some of the brief mentions are woeful - like the White Saviour narrative of Britain ridding the world of slavery.

When the account reached the industrial era, that I'm somewhat more familiar with, I started to realise a lot of the interpretation given to figures and events is not much more than a series of historical "hot takes" - in the Merriam-Webster dictionary's sense, ie "a quickly produced, strongly worded, and often deliberately provocative or sensational opinion or reaction". I don't know about the earlier history. I would have at least appreciated a more neutral account of history - neutral in that it should acknowledge various interpretations of history, rather than just pushing the author's view.

So this is a mercenary, liberal-centrist view of history. It's urbane, readable, polemical, it might even be thought-provoking for some; but it's too opinionated, simplistic, unbalanced, and frankly unreliable to pass as good history. If the author had written it as polemical essay, I would have enjoyed it more, but calling it a history risks that someone might take it as a good introduction to history and come out at the end of it having just reached the first peak of the Dunning-Kruger curve (the peak named Mount Stupid).

[Sammy Giles · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oh look I read a non-fiction book 💁‍♀️ This is a 4.5 star book really but gets the benefit of the doubt.

This book does exactly what it says on the tin. Covers thousands of years of history concisely and just gives you the main headlines with a little explanation behind them. I learnt lots and my disjointed understanding of English history feels like the missing jigsaw pieces have been put in place. Biggest takeaway for me was how historical the north south divide is, all from so long ago! So interesting I bought a DNA kit 😂

For me, it would have got another 0.5 stars if there was a little more info on the poor, as it’s understandably elite and politics heavy. I don’t mean a paragraph either, just a little fact like ‘ 19 oh-whatever - divorce legalised and women able to divorce husbands’ or ‘17 something or other - this cool new farm device is invented and people’s life expectancy increases’ for a bit of balance.

Great book.

[Brandon D · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Shortest History of England is a highlight real through centuries of history that would otherwise take an entire lifetime to cover. It is a fascinating journey through the lifecycle of one of the world’s most storied nations. Page after page, it tells the tale of a nation coming of age, developing and growing and then grappling with internal and external strife. It covers periods of empire and globalization, including the positive and negative consequences that result from such endeavors. In these pages, you not only learn a short history of England but also read a blueprint filled with cautions. History often repeats itself. As I read this book, I reflected a lot on the path my own country has taken and the path the lies ahead. Change the dates and names, and the story is eerily similar. I truly enjoyed this read and found myself devouring page after page! I’m already looking forward to my next Shortest History endeavor!

[Matt Wheeler · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great short popular history for those among who may consider also Saxon (or otherwise an enthusiast of the English subcontinent). Amused to see grown adults humiliating themselves giving one star reviews citing a lack of depth for a popular history book which is by no stretch of the imagination an academic text - it doesn’t even have an index you should probably grow up and stop taking yourself so seriously. If this is your reading level for academic purposes you should probably spend some more in primary school. The book puts forward an interesting proposition that almost all of the major turning points in English history can be viewed as strongly influenced by a historic and pervasive north/south divide. This is an interesting and compelling argument although often seems to contradict itself. That said, keeps the narrative consistent and therefore more easily digestible and fun. I enjoyed it - would recommend to a friend (provided they weren’t a pillock).

[Brett Roberts · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book as it is easy to read, in plain language, and didn’t get too bogged down in detail. The argument of the north-south divide in England is fascinating to trace including its implications for my own country. I don’t think I necessarily agree with his whole premise and he left the book in a really dark spot. My complaint compared to The Shortest History of German is that the East-West divide in Germany had its ultimate moment in 1991 and could be considered true history. I think this book falls toward the political commentary chapter with a long historical introduction. Absolutely recommend as a starting point on English history and politics though.