What do you think?
Rate this book
Victoria's Wars: The Rise of Empire
In the early part of Queen Victoria's reign, the British Empire was well on the way to becoming the greatest empire the world had ever seen. This is the story of how it happened and the people who made it happen. In a fast-moving narrative ranging from London to the harsh terrain of India, Russia and the Far East, Saul David shows how Britain ruthlessly exploited her position as the world's only superpower to expand her empire. Yet little of this territorial acquisition was planned or sanctioned by the home government. Instead, it was largely the work of the men on the ground, and to those at home it really did seem that the empire was acquired in a 'fit of absence of mind'. Saul David creates a vivid portrait of life on the violent fringes of empire, and of the seemingly endless and brutal wars that were fought in the name of trade, civilization and the balance of power.
503 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
29 people are currently reading
582 people want to read
About the author
Saul David
54 books175 followersSAUL DAVID was born in Monmouth in 1966 and educated at Ampleforth College and Edinburgh and Glasgow Universities (History MA and PhD).
An expert in the wars of the Victorian period, he began writing his first history book when he was twenty-five and has since completed eight more. They include: The Homicidal Earl: The Life of Lord Cardigan (1997), a critically-acclaimed biography of the man who led the Charge of the Light Brigade; The Indian Mutiny:1857 (2002), shortlisted for the Westminster Medal for Military Literature; Zulu: The Heroism and Tragedy of the Zulu War of 1879 (2004), a Waterstone's Military History Book of the Year; and the bestselling Victoria's Wars: The Rise of Empire (2006). In 2007 he signed a three book deal with Hodder & Stoughton to write a series of historical novels set in the late Victorian period. The first, Zulu Hart, was published on 5 March 2009 to critical acclaim with The Times describing it as a 'rattling good yarn' with 'a compelling, sexy hero who could give Cornwell's Sharpe a run for his money'. He is currently writing a history of the British Army.
An expert in the wars of the Victorian period, he began writing his first history book when he was twenty-five and has since completed eight more. They include: The Homicidal Earl: The Life of Lord Cardigan (1997), a critically-acclaimed biography of the man who led the Charge of the Light Brigade; The Indian Mutiny:1857 (2002), shortlisted for the Westminster Medal for Military Literature; Zulu: The Heroism and Tragedy of the Zulu War of 1879 (2004), a Waterstone's Military History Book of the Year; and the bestselling Victoria's Wars: The Rise of Empire (2006). In 2007 he signed a three book deal with Hodder & Stoughton to write a series of historical novels set in the late Victorian period. The first, Zulu Hart, was published on 5 March 2009 to critical acclaim with The Times describing it as a 'rattling good yarn' with 'a compelling, sexy hero who could give Cornwell's Sharpe a run for his money'. He is currently writing a history of the British Army.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
October 30, 2025
Victoria’s Early Wars
Victoria’s Wars: The Rise of Empire by Saul David is an excellent introduction into the early wars of Queen Victoria’s reign, the main premise being that the conflicts of in the first 24 years of the Victorian era were very different to those of the latter 40. This is not just a military history, but a ‘top down view’ of the British Empire’s military expansion from 1837-1861, in context of the politics and culture of the time, therefore painting a vivid picture of both the British Empire and Victorian society. David shows how this period marks a crucial era when Britain’s imperial ambitions were solidified through a series of foreign wars that spanned India, Afghanistan, China, and Africa.
Throughout the book, David is able to humanise the complex and often brutal military campaigns. He brings to life key figures such as George Eden, 1st Earl of Auckland, James Broun-Ramsay, 10th Earl of Dalhousie, and Sir Charles Napier, while offering deep insight into the mindsets and motives of British military leaders. The narrative does not shy away from critiquing the hubris and overconfidence that often defined British imperial ventures, particularly during disasters like the First Anglo-Afghan War (1839-42), which ended in a humiliating retreat for British forces. The author's balanced approach avoids glorifying imperial conquest, acknowledging the human cost and the moral ambiguities of empire-building.
A huge strength of Victoria’s Wars: The Rise of Empire is David’s ability to contextualise these conflicts within broader imperial ambitions. He shows how technological advances, such as the steamship and the telegraph, helped Britain extend its reach globally, creating an unprecedented military power. The book also sheds light on how the military engagements abroad were closely linked to events at home, particularly the Victorian ideals of duty, honor, and progress, which were often used to justify expansionist policies. It is important to point out that these wars were generally not sanctioned by the government who saw the colonial expansion as a burden and they mostly held very little public interest. However, with the colossus Indian Mutiny (1857-8) this all changed.
Throughout, David’s writing is clear, engaging, and accessible to both military history enthusiasts and general readers. The chapters are structured around specific conflicts, giving the book a cohesive narrative while allowing readers to understand the broader consequences of each war. His descriptions of key battles are vivid, and his analysis of strategy and tactics is insightful without being overly technical. One minor critique is that while David thoroughly covers the British perspective, there is less emphasis on the experiences and perspectives of the indigenous populations who were often the victims of British aggression. While the book does acknowledge the suffering inflicted on local populations, a deeper exploration of their voices and resistance would have added a richer dimension to the narrative.
Overall, Victoria’s Wars: The Rise of Empire is a solid examination of the early military campaigns of the Victorian Empire. Saul David skillfully captures the drama, heroism, and folly of British imperial warfare, offering a compelling account of how these conflicts shaped the trajectory of British global dominance. My final point is that each war requires a deeper dive to fully understand the background and campaigns. David does not mean for the reader to only read this book on this subject. Instead he provides a platform for those to dip their toe. A good addition to anyones book collection. I recommend it.
Victoria’s Wars: The Rise of Empire by Saul David is an excellent introduction into the early wars of Queen Victoria’s reign, the main premise being that the conflicts of in the first 24 years of the Victorian era were very different to those of the latter 40. This is not just a military history, but a ‘top down view’ of the British Empire’s military expansion from 1837-1861, in context of the politics and culture of the time, therefore painting a vivid picture of both the British Empire and Victorian society. David shows how this period marks a crucial era when Britain’s imperial ambitions were solidified through a series of foreign wars that spanned India, Afghanistan, China, and Africa.
Throughout the book, David is able to humanise the complex and often brutal military campaigns. He brings to life key figures such as George Eden, 1st Earl of Auckland, James Broun-Ramsay, 10th Earl of Dalhousie, and Sir Charles Napier, while offering deep insight into the mindsets and motives of British military leaders. The narrative does not shy away from critiquing the hubris and overconfidence that often defined British imperial ventures, particularly during disasters like the First Anglo-Afghan War (1839-42), which ended in a humiliating retreat for British forces. The author's balanced approach avoids glorifying imperial conquest, acknowledging the human cost and the moral ambiguities of empire-building.
A huge strength of Victoria’s Wars: The Rise of Empire is David’s ability to contextualise these conflicts within broader imperial ambitions. He shows how technological advances, such as the steamship and the telegraph, helped Britain extend its reach globally, creating an unprecedented military power. The book also sheds light on how the military engagements abroad were closely linked to events at home, particularly the Victorian ideals of duty, honor, and progress, which were often used to justify expansionist policies. It is important to point out that these wars were generally not sanctioned by the government who saw the colonial expansion as a burden and they mostly held very little public interest. However, with the colossus Indian Mutiny (1857-8) this all changed.
Throughout, David’s writing is clear, engaging, and accessible to both military history enthusiasts and general readers. The chapters are structured around specific conflicts, giving the book a cohesive narrative while allowing readers to understand the broader consequences of each war. His descriptions of key battles are vivid, and his analysis of strategy and tactics is insightful without being overly technical. One minor critique is that while David thoroughly covers the British perspective, there is less emphasis on the experiences and perspectives of the indigenous populations who were often the victims of British aggression. While the book does acknowledge the suffering inflicted on local populations, a deeper exploration of their voices and resistance would have added a richer dimension to the narrative.
Overall, Victoria’s Wars: The Rise of Empire is a solid examination of the early military campaigns of the Victorian Empire. Saul David skillfully captures the drama, heroism, and folly of British imperial warfare, offering a compelling account of how these conflicts shaped the trajectory of British global dominance. My final point is that each war requires a deeper dive to fully understand the background and campaigns. David does not mean for the reader to only read this book on this subject. Instead he provides a platform for those to dip their toe. A good addition to anyones book collection. I recommend it.
August 5, 2016
'Victoria's Empire: Rise of Empire' deals with the wars of Empire fought by Great Britain from the accession of Queen Victoria on 20th of June 1837, to the death of her consort Prince Albert on December 14th, 1861. In the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, Britain was left ascendant as the sole superpower on the world stage. Her navy sailed unchallenged throughout the world's oceans, while her army, despite remaining somewhat outdated and backwards in certain practices, had gained a formidable reputation. Forgoing her traditional preoccupation with continental Europe's balance of power politics (no European country would be able to pose a serious threat to British hegemony for much of Victoria's early reign), the British turned to expand her empire throughout the known world, engaging with less 'civilized' and technologically inferior societies outside of Europe.
The wars covered by Saul David's book is diverse in both the colorful array of enemies the British would encounter, as well as the far flung and exotic regions where they would campaign in. The book starts in the foothills of Afghanistan, where an army of the Raj would face annihilation during a disastrous retreat from Kabul. Following this, the book proceeds to the dusty plains of the Punjab, the thick malarial-infested jungles of Burma, the viciously cold front in Crimea, and the huge expanse of northern and central India, where a bloody mutiny had broken out by dissatisfied sepoys. The book ends with the Second Opium War, where a joint British and Franco alliance would advance to the Chinese imperial capital of Peking, burning the fabled Summer Palace down in retribution for the mistreatment of British envoys. Throughout this book the British would fight enemies ranging from Afghan tribesmen armed with deadly and accurate jezail rifles, the tough and frugal Burmese who preferred to fight behind wooden stockades, to the Eight Banner Army of the Qing Empire and their fearsome Tartar cavalrymen.
David is able to explain many of the key battles which took place during these campaigns in detail, the particular regiments and companies which took part, the key leadership of both armies, the weaponry utilized (with a key insight into the technological changes affecting the British Army at the time), the organization of logistics and medical support, the strategies and tactics applied, and the larger political context that concerned these wars. David succinctly explains how the British were able to successfully improvise when dealing with new enemies and new threats. Maps are provided which allow readers to follow the campaigns and battles with more ease.
If I have one minor complaint about this book, its that David often distracts the reader from the wars on hand by focusing on political developments back in Britain, as well as the personal life of Queen Victoria. Granted, since wars are generally political in nature, it would make sense to understand the political dynamics back in London which influenced them. However, since this book markets itself as a military history, it arguably makes little sense for David on focus on the relationship between Albert and Victoria, her personal habits as monarch, Parliamentary debate on the Corn Laws, the formation of the Liberal Party during Italian unification etc. Often times reading this, one can be forgiven for thinking one is reading a political history of Victorian Britain rather than a military history. I feel that this focus on the former had meant that Saul was forced to skim through other wars mentioned in the book, such as the First Anglo-Burmese War, the First Opium War, the Anglo-Persian War etc, which could have been interesting reads as well.
Overall, a good read on the so-called 'small wars' fought by Great Britain for much of Queen Victoria's early reign. Recommended for military history buffs.
The wars covered by Saul David's book is diverse in both the colorful array of enemies the British would encounter, as well as the far flung and exotic regions where they would campaign in. The book starts in the foothills of Afghanistan, where an army of the Raj would face annihilation during a disastrous retreat from Kabul. Following this, the book proceeds to the dusty plains of the Punjab, the thick malarial-infested jungles of Burma, the viciously cold front in Crimea, and the huge expanse of northern and central India, where a bloody mutiny had broken out by dissatisfied sepoys. The book ends with the Second Opium War, where a joint British and Franco alliance would advance to the Chinese imperial capital of Peking, burning the fabled Summer Palace down in retribution for the mistreatment of British envoys. Throughout this book the British would fight enemies ranging from Afghan tribesmen armed with deadly and accurate jezail rifles, the tough and frugal Burmese who preferred to fight behind wooden stockades, to the Eight Banner Army of the Qing Empire and their fearsome Tartar cavalrymen.
David is able to explain many of the key battles which took place during these campaigns in detail, the particular regiments and companies which took part, the key leadership of both armies, the weaponry utilized (with a key insight into the technological changes affecting the British Army at the time), the organization of logistics and medical support, the strategies and tactics applied, and the larger political context that concerned these wars. David succinctly explains how the British were able to successfully improvise when dealing with new enemies and new threats. Maps are provided which allow readers to follow the campaigns and battles with more ease.
If I have one minor complaint about this book, its that David often distracts the reader from the wars on hand by focusing on political developments back in Britain, as well as the personal life of Queen Victoria. Granted, since wars are generally political in nature, it would make sense to understand the political dynamics back in London which influenced them. However, since this book markets itself as a military history, it arguably makes little sense for David on focus on the relationship between Albert and Victoria, her personal habits as monarch, Parliamentary debate on the Corn Laws, the formation of the Liberal Party during Italian unification etc. Often times reading this, one can be forgiven for thinking one is reading a political history of Victorian Britain rather than a military history. I feel that this focus on the former had meant that Saul was forced to skim through other wars mentioned in the book, such as the First Anglo-Burmese War, the First Opium War, the Anglo-Persian War etc, which could have been interesting reads as well.
Overall, a good read on the so-called 'small wars' fought by Great Britain for much of Queen Victoria's early reign. Recommended for military history buffs.
September 30, 2017
Very readable telling of several wars of the British Empire in the first decades of Victoria's reign. The narrative often gets excessively bogged down in tactical details about specific engagements and jumps haphazardly between strategic decisions and tactical minutiae. As I was familiar with many of the conflicts covered from previous (and more in depth) books, I think this one is best seen as a broad introduction to the topic. All in all, I can't help think that this book bites off more than it can chew.
May 19, 2007
Who needs Flashman when you can have the historial truth behind George MacDonald Fraser's Flashman novels? Well, obviously me but the thing is David Saul gives amusing historial facts behind Flashman's swaggering derring do!
August 1, 2021
Saul David has written a good book about the wars that took place in the first part of Victoria's reign (up to the death of the Prince Consort, Albert). He has taken an approach of looking at these conflicts not just frm a military point of view but also a political point of view, which makes this a stronger book then it could have been otherwise. During this period we get wars in Afghanistan, the Punjab, China, Russia, Burma and then the Indian Mutiny which scarred the British consciousness with regards to India and the Indians. We end the novel with the death of Prince Albert and the affect it had on Victoria, the monarchy and British foreign policy, arguing that his death had a profound impact and lessened the monarchy in England into a ceremonial role, where before they still had impact on the government.
The book follows a chronological order, written as a narrative history tha also uses exerts of letters and notes from some of the participants, which help to illuminate and add flavor to key moments and help to make the wars become more real to us. This is a good book, but the tittle is very misleading, the ater half of the reign could have been looked at to give the title a sense of completness.
The book follows a chronological order, written as a narrative history tha also uses exerts of letters and notes from some of the participants, which help to illuminate and add flavor to key moments and help to make the wars become more real to us. This is a good book, but the tittle is very misleading, the ater half of the reign could have been looked at to give the title a sense of completness.
January 6, 2023
In this book, the author brings us along in exploring British Empire's military exploits, which always hand in hand with territorial expansions, during at least early part of the great Queen Victoria's reign. Throughout the pages we were served with redcoats military actions, triumphs and catastrophes in events such as the doomed retreat from Kabul, Second Anglo-Sikh War, Second Anglo-Burma War, Crimean War, Indian Rebellion of 1857, and Third Opium War.
In the background, it was stressed that the British Army was in dire need for reform, yet its continuous victory allowed it to become complacent, while the British resources were continuously overstretched, more so after it took over the administration of The Raj from Honourable East India Company. Also, various colourful personalities had their part in this book, from military leaders to foreign monarchs and statesmen, yet the spotlights would be centered on the royal couple: Queen Victoria and Prince-consort Albert.
By the end of this book, I came to conclusion that 'Albert's Wars' would be a more fitting title for this book, for Albert was probably the brain, who formulated policies, tried his hands at reforming the military, and even drafted Victoria's proclamations and letters. After losing Albert, probably to stomach cancer, Victoria was never the same again (nor as effective as a ruler). The failure to reform the military earlier was going to cost the Brits dearly, as later events such as The Boer Wars shown.
In the background, it was stressed that the British Army was in dire need for reform, yet its continuous victory allowed it to become complacent, while the British resources were continuously overstretched, more so after it took over the administration of The Raj from Honourable East India Company. Also, various colourful personalities had their part in this book, from military leaders to foreign monarchs and statesmen, yet the spotlights would be centered on the royal couple: Queen Victoria and Prince-consort Albert.
By the end of this book, I came to conclusion that 'Albert's Wars' would be a more fitting title for this book, for Albert was probably the brain, who formulated policies, tried his hands at reforming the military, and even drafted Victoria's proclamations and letters. After losing Albert, probably to stomach cancer, Victoria was never the same again (nor as effective as a ruler). The failure to reform the military earlier was going to cost the Brits dearly, as later events such as The Boer Wars shown.
July 2, 2019
It's about military campaigns of the early Victorian period (1837-1860ish) which include Afghanistan, the Opium wars, the conquest of Sindh and Punjab (the Sikh Wars), the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny. These parts were a good mixture of the stories of individiuals with not too much focus on tactical movements/"this regiment moved over there" which can be very dull. It also goes into detail about the local politics behind the wars.
The main problem is that it talks too much about the politics in Britain, even when they aren't relevant to the wars.
The main problem is that it talks too much about the politics in Britain, even when they aren't relevant to the wars.
February 13, 2022
A bit of an odd one. Firstly, the book only covers wars up,to the death of Albert (surely Albert’s Wars). Secondly, the wars covered are the larger wars that are very well documented in standalone books. Thirdly, there is a mix of the royal perspective and parliamentary politics with the minutiae of various actions within the wars.
It’s a lively read and the consideration of Victoria and Albert’s involvement is interesting. Contemporary sources are well used. Overall, it’s interesting enough, but it’s a strange mix of the political, strategic and tactical.
It’s a lively read and the consideration of Victoria and Albert’s involvement is interesting. Contemporary sources are well used. Overall, it’s interesting enough, but it’s a strange mix of the political, strategic and tactical.
January 30, 2012
This book should have been titled "Victorian Wars" because there wasn't much of Victoria in either the wars or the book. David visits her periodically at the beginning and ending of chapters but otherwise her role is negligible. Most of the book is about strategy, tactics and battles. Really only for military history buffs.
February 2, 2020
What happened to the rest of the book?
Considering that this was only 99p, I suppose I shouldn't really complain.
But, if my knowledge of history is correct then Queen Victoria's reign lasted until 1901.... So why does the book end very abruptly after the death of Prince Albert?
It's called Victoria's wars not Prince Albert's wars.
Considering that this was only 99p, I suppose I shouldn't really complain.
But, if my knowledge of history is correct then Queen Victoria's reign lasted until 1901.... So why does the book end very abruptly after the death of Prince Albert?
It's called Victoria's wars not Prince Albert's wars.
July 13, 2013
brilliantly written, entertaining to read, what more can one ask of a work of history?
Want to read
February 10, 2017Seeing as I haven't read this whole book, I feel that it would be unfair for me to rate it or write a full review, but there was one aspect of this book that made me hang my head in disappointment and prevented me from picking it up and reading the entire thing. I was especially disappointed seeing as it was Saul David, who was responsible for this particular 'blunder' in writing history. I haven't really read any of his work in full but from what I have seen he has written some very well received titles and has even gone on to teach military history at the University of Buckingham. This is what makes this all the more frustrating for me.
It appears on David's section concerning the infamous Charge of the Light Brigade which in my opinion panders to the populist demographic and is full of contradictions. It's also full of many misconceptions about the personality and motivations of one of my favourite historical figures so I hope you understand if I get a little 'defensive' on my side of the fence. Forgive me if this turns into a bit of a rant but I think this particular piece is particularly notable as well as relevant since it was recently recycled in an issue of BBC History Magazine, some of it reading word to word. The Tory press was naturally all over it claiming that the Maxse letter was brand new when it has clearly been available for at least a decade as David used it in this book. They also claim that the idea of Nolan being the prime culprit is 'a new revelation' when in reality he has been blamed since day one. Seeing the comments in the Daily Fail was particularly hilarious, basically revolving around, 'Nolan was to blame because the movie told me so!'
Basically Saul David claims that Nolan is primarily responsible for the disaster since he, according to the author, uttered the words 'attack' on his own initiative. I'm in the unpopular minority but I have some problems with this theory, mostly because, as mentioned by Terry Brighton in his much more in depth study on the charge, there were witnesses upon the Sapoune heights who saw Raglan shout the verbal order, 'Tell Lord Lucan the Cavalry is to attack immediately'. David denies Raglan uttered these words since it went against the written order, however historians such as Brighton, Allan Mallinson and David Buttery also agree that Raglan did not intend the brigade to conduct a full frontal attack, yet they don't automatically deny those who saw him shout those words. I wouldn't be surprised if Raglan did make that mistake, he was an inexperienced commander who was almost senile and had a terrible track record throughout the Crimean campaign. Raglan's mentor Wellington had also never lost a gun so wanting to follow his example it seems plausible in my view that those words may have slipped out in the midst his desperation as Nolan rode down the slope towards the valley, although as Brighton mentions his emphasis most likely fell upon the word 'immediately' rather than 'attack'. As well as that the author fails to mention that although it's content is unknown, Raglan had a brief discussion concerning the order with the Captain, mentioned by Raglan's nephew, Calthrope, likely implying that he had the terms of the order carefully explained to him. It's certainly a possibility that Nolan really did know what Raglan's order intended, before his commanding officer's sudden verbal order of 'attack immediately' conflicted the matter.
I find it highly unlikely that Nolan tampered with the order. Frustrated with the light brigade's performance as he was, he was an ambitious man and not someone who previously went against his own professional interest. I'm not convinced that he would have been willing to throw away his hard earned career for an act of petty revenge against Lord Lucan. I don't even think he would risked uttering the word 'attack' in a more subtle way, assuming that Lucan would understand Raglan's real intention and link the fourth order to the third, because of his previous unwavering experience as an aide de camp. He was known before the day of the charge to be 'radical' for his time but not a callous man so I also doubt he was willing to throw away lives just to 'prove' the effectiveness of cavalry. Unless he was confused by the order or became too excited to absorb the message properly (which I as well as Buttery doubt) I don't think he would have deliberately misquoted an order, he nothing to gain from it but a court martial and shame after all, something which Nolan had no good reason to risk. What's more David dismisses the witnesses on the Sapoune heights yet is willing to accept sources claiming that Nolan asked Cardigan if the light brigade was afraid, although these particular sources were too far away from Nolan and Cardigan to actually hear the conversation. Buttery who searched quite thoroughly for a supporting primary source agrees it was most likely malicious gossip. Cardigan himself was never known to bring up this allegation against the Captain and was surprisingly sympathetic towards him after the disaster. It would have looked bad on Nolan's resume too, who, lacking the appropriate class and financial barriers, could not risk being responsible for such a scandal.
Saul David contradicts himself when he implies that even if the order went according to plan, an attack or even just a threatening cavalry demonstration (as he mentions later in his article) along the causeway heights would have resulted in a disaster, or at least high casualties. Therefore Raglan's order was unnecessary and stupid in the first place, not to mention horribly written. The Russians even later denied that they were taking the guns that day. By this logic, Raglan should bear a large, perhaps the biggest portion of the responsibility but David still regards Nolan as 'chiefly responsible'. I also love how he, despite giving good reason for him to also bear a significant portion of the responsibility, gives Lord Lucan merely a slapped wrist. Despite the fact that he in his position of authority had the military and moral responsibility to query such an ambiguous order, especially one that had the potential to send many to their doom, many still claim he was scapegoated for the charge. It was not an infallible order as many Lucan apologists like to claim, in reality he did not have to blindly follow orders. Regardless of whether Nolan used the word 'attack' on his own initiative, Lucan should have done his job and put the captain in his place. It should also be considered that he somehow did not connect the order with his previous message which was to take any opportunity to recapture the heights. This fact is especially peculiar when you consider that Lucan was actually quite a competent soldier. David doesn't bring this crucial factor up much in his final verdict. What's most shocking however, and something which many historians including David simply brush off, is that he knew that charging at the guns at the end of the valley was ridiculous but instead of questioning Nolan further or even sending another man to Raglan to clarify, he decided to go along with it anyway.
Although I don't see Nolan as entirely innocent on the day, he certainly should have better clarified the order since Lucan couldn't see where he was supposed to attack but considering the much greater positions of power of the other two suspects involved, I believe he shares the smallest portion of the blame and made the least impact overall. A.L. Berridge makes a fitting theory, although I disagree with her that Nolan misunderstood the order, she believes his death made a convenient cover up of the 'real' question, why Lord Raglan got the brilliant idea to come up with such an order in the first place? I'm becoming more convinced of this theory by the day, as Berridge states, 'Now that really IS a mystery', although Saul David will probably brand us both 'revisionists' as a result. The 'revisionist' in question was Clive Ponting (make of that what you will) who David criticised in the Torygraph for 'virtually ignoring' the role played by Lucan in the charge, despite the fact that he more or less did this in his BBC article over a decade later. Raglan and Nolan get whole paragraphs compared to Lucan's measly two sentences, and David doesn't bring up his 'extraordinary conclusion' at all. David explains it much better in this book but in a way that makes his argument that Nolan was to blame even worse.
I honestly get the impression that David hates Captain Nolan since he seems to have fallen for the 'impulsive, quick tempered junior officer' image most popular in film and fiction. Firstly if Nolan was really a bad tempered individual or had such an excitable nature that it affected his ability to think straight as many 'pop' historians claim, he would have made a terrible horseman. Horses generally respond better to a calm collected approach, hence the words from Nolan's book 'Horses should be taught not by harshness but by gentleness'. I know this from having worked with horses myself! It should also be noted that in reality Nolan actually kept most of his sentiments towards his superiors, including Lucan in a private journal, had previously displayed no signs of being insubordinate and was not known to be someone who held everyone in contempt. Even with the assumption that he did use the word 'attack' on his own initiative, most likely in a subtle way if he did and not out of malicious intent, I highly doubt he was as nasty as Saul David depicts him. For example Buttery agrees that Nolan probably gave a heated response, but the idea that he actually taunted his commanding officer was most likely exaggerated drivel. It should be taken into account that many who knew him particularly those from his 15th Hussars regiment would often describe him as quite the opposite to the Devil's Incarnate seen in most popular depictions, some who met him such as the famous army wife Mrs Fanny Duberly even regarded him as a gentleman. Also Mr. David, Nolan's grudge against Lucan didn't come out of the blue as you imply, it came because the Captain had come back from a long, somewhat perilous journey to collect horses for the army and Lucan gave him nothing but crap for it.
David puts his blame on Nolan I guess because despite, in my opinion the much more damning evidence on Raglan's and Lucan's end, the Maxse letter says all the cavalry blamed him. However many in the Crimea most likely blamed Nolan because if they openly blamed anyone higher up they would probably get into trouble. It should also be noted that Nolan was half Irish, not particularly wealthy, one of those 'horrid radicals', an intellectual and dead, a convenient scapegoat indeed. Just because one man lay his blame on the Captain does not make it true. I'd highly recommend to Mr. David and to anyone else interested in this debate to actually read about Captain Nolan for information on the real man's career, personality and life (Buttery's Messenger of Death is a great place to start), before simply 'shooting the messenger'.
However if Nolan delivered the order to 'Lucas', as stated in a highlighted quote from the article, then I can wholeheartedly agree that he was responsible for any disaster that followed. We don't need another terrible Charge of the Light Brigade film, let alone one directed by Lucas.
Is the rest of the book decent? I dunno, it could be great for all I know, but do you really expect me to take it seriously after a professional military historian like Saul David demonised an already historically vilified figure, and took such a simplistic and amateurish approach to such a complex event with complex characters? Understandably for Mr David, Messenger of Death was not around at the time of publication, yet here we are ten years later with his account rehashed in a BBC History magazine. Unless he was under pressure to get out something quickly to 'celebrate' the charge, it's pretty evident he has not picked it up during those intervening years or has read anything else concerning the Captain which challenges his more mythical depictions, which is sadly still common in non fiction books concerning the charge today. I have also seen some reviews which say the title itself is contradictory since it only talks about the wars up to Prince Albert's death! As well as this, other reviewers have gone on to say that this book has a tendency at times to waffle on about British politics and the personal life of Victoria, which I am sure make great reads on their own but considering this is a military history book, some of that could have been easily cut to fit in greater detail concerning other wars. Again these gripes were from other reviewers but that's what I've heard. I would like to know if this book is worth reading despite the issues I talked about but right now I'm not very convinced that it is worth my time, from what I have seen from this book, especially David's section on the Crimea, it seems like I have read all this before. What's more after all the problems I encountered with just one section of the book, I fear the same tabloidesque problems will be present within the rest of the text. Again I could be wrong, please inform me if I am.
It appears on David's section concerning the infamous Charge of the Light Brigade which in my opinion panders to the populist demographic and is full of contradictions. It's also full of many misconceptions about the personality and motivations of one of my favourite historical figures so I hope you understand if I get a little 'defensive' on my side of the fence. Forgive me if this turns into a bit of a rant but I think this particular piece is particularly notable as well as relevant since it was recently recycled in an issue of BBC History Magazine, some of it reading word to word. The Tory press was naturally all over it claiming that the Maxse letter was brand new when it has clearly been available for at least a decade as David used it in this book. They also claim that the idea of Nolan being the prime culprit is 'a new revelation' when in reality he has been blamed since day one. Seeing the comments in the Daily Fail was particularly hilarious, basically revolving around, 'Nolan was to blame because the movie told me so!'
Basically Saul David claims that Nolan is primarily responsible for the disaster since he, according to the author, uttered the words 'attack' on his own initiative. I'm in the unpopular minority but I have some problems with this theory, mostly because, as mentioned by Terry Brighton in his much more in depth study on the charge, there were witnesses upon the Sapoune heights who saw Raglan shout the verbal order, 'Tell Lord Lucan the Cavalry is to attack immediately'. David denies Raglan uttered these words since it went against the written order, however historians such as Brighton, Allan Mallinson and David Buttery also agree that Raglan did not intend the brigade to conduct a full frontal attack, yet they don't automatically deny those who saw him shout those words. I wouldn't be surprised if Raglan did make that mistake, he was an inexperienced commander who was almost senile and had a terrible track record throughout the Crimean campaign. Raglan's mentor Wellington had also never lost a gun so wanting to follow his example it seems plausible in my view that those words may have slipped out in the midst his desperation as Nolan rode down the slope towards the valley, although as Brighton mentions his emphasis most likely fell upon the word 'immediately' rather than 'attack'. As well as that the author fails to mention that although it's content is unknown, Raglan had a brief discussion concerning the order with the Captain, mentioned by Raglan's nephew, Calthrope, likely implying that he had the terms of the order carefully explained to him. It's certainly a possibility that Nolan really did know what Raglan's order intended, before his commanding officer's sudden verbal order of 'attack immediately' conflicted the matter.
I find it highly unlikely that Nolan tampered with the order. Frustrated with the light brigade's performance as he was, he was an ambitious man and not someone who previously went against his own professional interest. I'm not convinced that he would have been willing to throw away his hard earned career for an act of petty revenge against Lord Lucan. I don't even think he would risked uttering the word 'attack' in a more subtle way, assuming that Lucan would understand Raglan's real intention and link the fourth order to the third, because of his previous unwavering experience as an aide de camp. He was known before the day of the charge to be 'radical' for his time but not a callous man so I also doubt he was willing to throw away lives just to 'prove' the effectiveness of cavalry. Unless he was confused by the order or became too excited to absorb the message properly (which I as well as Buttery doubt) I don't think he would have deliberately misquoted an order, he nothing to gain from it but a court martial and shame after all, something which Nolan had no good reason to risk. What's more David dismisses the witnesses on the Sapoune heights yet is willing to accept sources claiming that Nolan asked Cardigan if the light brigade was afraid, although these particular sources were too far away from Nolan and Cardigan to actually hear the conversation. Buttery who searched quite thoroughly for a supporting primary source agrees it was most likely malicious gossip. Cardigan himself was never known to bring up this allegation against the Captain and was surprisingly sympathetic towards him after the disaster. It would have looked bad on Nolan's resume too, who, lacking the appropriate class and financial barriers, could not risk being responsible for such a scandal.
Saul David contradicts himself when he implies that even if the order went according to plan, an attack or even just a threatening cavalry demonstration (as he mentions later in his article) along the causeway heights would have resulted in a disaster, or at least high casualties. Therefore Raglan's order was unnecessary and stupid in the first place, not to mention horribly written. The Russians even later denied that they were taking the guns that day. By this logic, Raglan should bear a large, perhaps the biggest portion of the responsibility but David still regards Nolan as 'chiefly responsible'. I also love how he, despite giving good reason for him to also bear a significant portion of the responsibility, gives Lord Lucan merely a slapped wrist. Despite the fact that he in his position of authority had the military and moral responsibility to query such an ambiguous order, especially one that had the potential to send many to their doom, many still claim he was scapegoated for the charge. It was not an infallible order as many Lucan apologists like to claim, in reality he did not have to blindly follow orders. Regardless of whether Nolan used the word 'attack' on his own initiative, Lucan should have done his job and put the captain in his place. It should also be considered that he somehow did not connect the order with his previous message which was to take any opportunity to recapture the heights. This fact is especially peculiar when you consider that Lucan was actually quite a competent soldier. David doesn't bring this crucial factor up much in his final verdict. What's most shocking however, and something which many historians including David simply brush off, is that he knew that charging at the guns at the end of the valley was ridiculous but instead of questioning Nolan further or even sending another man to Raglan to clarify, he decided to go along with it anyway.
Although I don't see Nolan as entirely innocent on the day, he certainly should have better clarified the order since Lucan couldn't see where he was supposed to attack but considering the much greater positions of power of the other two suspects involved, I believe he shares the smallest portion of the blame and made the least impact overall. A.L. Berridge makes a fitting theory, although I disagree with her that Nolan misunderstood the order, she believes his death made a convenient cover up of the 'real' question, why Lord Raglan got the brilliant idea to come up with such an order in the first place? I'm becoming more convinced of this theory by the day, as Berridge states, 'Now that really IS a mystery', although Saul David will probably brand us both 'revisionists' as a result. The 'revisionist' in question was Clive Ponting (make of that what you will) who David criticised in the Torygraph for 'virtually ignoring' the role played by Lucan in the charge, despite the fact that he more or less did this in his BBC article over a decade later. Raglan and Nolan get whole paragraphs compared to Lucan's measly two sentences, and David doesn't bring up his 'extraordinary conclusion' at all. David explains it much better in this book but in a way that makes his argument that Nolan was to blame even worse.
I honestly get the impression that David hates Captain Nolan since he seems to have fallen for the 'impulsive, quick tempered junior officer' image most popular in film and fiction. Firstly if Nolan was really a bad tempered individual or had such an excitable nature that it affected his ability to think straight as many 'pop' historians claim, he would have made a terrible horseman. Horses generally respond better to a calm collected approach, hence the words from Nolan's book 'Horses should be taught not by harshness but by gentleness'. I know this from having worked with horses myself! It should also be noted that in reality Nolan actually kept most of his sentiments towards his superiors, including Lucan in a private journal, had previously displayed no signs of being insubordinate and was not known to be someone who held everyone in contempt. Even with the assumption that he did use the word 'attack' on his own initiative, most likely in a subtle way if he did and not out of malicious intent, I highly doubt he was as nasty as Saul David depicts him. For example Buttery agrees that Nolan probably gave a heated response, but the idea that he actually taunted his commanding officer was most likely exaggerated drivel. It should be taken into account that many who knew him particularly those from his 15th Hussars regiment would often describe him as quite the opposite to the Devil's Incarnate seen in most popular depictions, some who met him such as the famous army wife Mrs Fanny Duberly even regarded him as a gentleman. Also Mr. David, Nolan's grudge against Lucan didn't come out of the blue as you imply, it came because the Captain had come back from a long, somewhat perilous journey to collect horses for the army and Lucan gave him nothing but crap for it.
David puts his blame on Nolan I guess because despite, in my opinion the much more damning evidence on Raglan's and Lucan's end, the Maxse letter says all the cavalry blamed him. However many in the Crimea most likely blamed Nolan because if they openly blamed anyone higher up they would probably get into trouble. It should also be noted that Nolan was half Irish, not particularly wealthy, one of those 'horrid radicals', an intellectual and dead, a convenient scapegoat indeed. Just because one man lay his blame on the Captain does not make it true. I'd highly recommend to Mr. David and to anyone else interested in this debate to actually read about Captain Nolan for information on the real man's career, personality and life (Buttery's Messenger of Death is a great place to start), before simply 'shooting the messenger'.
However if Nolan delivered the order to 'Lucas', as stated in a highlighted quote from the article, then I can wholeheartedly agree that he was responsible for any disaster that followed. We don't need another terrible Charge of the Light Brigade film, let alone one directed by Lucas.
Is the rest of the book decent? I dunno, it could be great for all I know, but do you really expect me to take it seriously after a professional military historian like Saul David demonised an already historically vilified figure, and took such a simplistic and amateurish approach to such a complex event with complex characters? Understandably for Mr David, Messenger of Death was not around at the time of publication, yet here we are ten years later with his account rehashed in a BBC History magazine. Unless he was under pressure to get out something quickly to 'celebrate' the charge, it's pretty evident he has not picked it up during those intervening years or has read anything else concerning the Captain which challenges his more mythical depictions, which is sadly still common in non fiction books concerning the charge today. I have also seen some reviews which say the title itself is contradictory since it only talks about the wars up to Prince Albert's death! As well as this, other reviewers have gone on to say that this book has a tendency at times to waffle on about British politics and the personal life of Victoria, which I am sure make great reads on their own but considering this is a military history book, some of that could have been easily cut to fit in greater detail concerning other wars. Again these gripes were from other reviewers but that's what I've heard. I would like to know if this book is worth reading despite the issues I talked about but right now I'm not very convinced that it is worth my time, from what I have seen from this book, especially David's section on the Crimea, it seems like I have read all this before. What's more after all the problems I encountered with just one section of the book, I fear the same tabloidesque problems will be present within the rest of the text. Again I could be wrong, please inform me if I am.
September 18, 2022
The prose itself is very hit or miss, with some long stretches of the story being rather dully presented. Other than these, the book offers a plethora of well-selected first hand accounts that help keep the book engaging and a vivid description of the wars. There is also a wealth of references, sources, maps and breath-taking pictures. The author truly lets his fascination for the British Empire and military History shine through, and I, as a reader, found myself profoundly contaminated by it. There are also plenty of worthy discussions on colonialism and imperialism, especially in the wonderful Epilogue, that help clear up some modern misconceptions about this relevant topic of World History.
Victoria’s Wars includes plenty of explanations on weapons and machinery, as well as how these developed across time and allowed the British to have the upper hand in many of the conflicts they were involved in, but these would have been much simpler to understand if there were some figures on the side identifying the components being referenced in these explanations. As someone who (regrettably) knows far too little about this kind of technology, I found it difficult to keep up with these without external sources that could have easily been included in the book, and would have been a good complement to the set of maps and pictures already to be found.
Of the two main points Saul David seems to be making here (1. that the Queen, and the King, played a central role on British foreign affairs, and 2. that, despite appearances, there was little British ambition to build a global empire), it seemed only the second was clearly presented and brought home. As for the first, at points even the opposite (i. e., that the Queen’s practical influence was negligible) seemed to be the case. An amusing example where the Queen had little influence (on internal affairs, this time, not foreign policy) was when she couldn’t even change the name of the military honor named after herself:
Overall, this was a solid book. It piqued my interest in British History and was good enough to make me want to investigate Saul’s other writings. However, the previously mentioned flaws prevent it from being the masterpiece it could have been.
Victoria’s Wars includes plenty of explanations on weapons and machinery, as well as how these developed across time and allowed the British to have the upper hand in many of the conflicts they were involved in, but these would have been much simpler to understand if there were some figures on the side identifying the components being referenced in these explanations. As someone who (regrettably) knows far too little about this kind of technology, I found it difficult to keep up with these without external sources that could have easily been included in the book, and would have been a good complement to the set of maps and pictures already to be found.
Of the two main points Saul David seems to be making here (1. that the Queen, and the King, played a central role on British foreign affairs, and 2. that, despite appearances, there was little British ambition to build a global empire), it seemed only the second was clearly presented and brought home. As for the first, at points even the opposite (i. e., that the Queen’s practical influence was negligible) seemed to be the case. An amusing example where the Queen had little influence (on internal affairs, this time, not foreign policy) was when she couldn’t even change the name of the military honor named after herself:
But her suggestion that holders should use BVC (Bearer of the Victoria Cross) after their names rather than VC - on the grounds that ‘no one could be called a Victoria Cross’ - was not taken up.
Overall, this was a solid book. It piqued my interest in British History and was good enough to make me want to investigate Saul’s other writings. However, the previously mentioned flaws prevent it from being the masterpiece it could have been.
September 27, 2021
This is an excellent history of the wars of aggression in the first part of Queen Victoria's reign which consolidated NW India, opened China and conquered Burma. It also covers the needless incompetence that resulted in army reforms after the problems relating to the Crimean War. Very readable in a Boty's own sort of way. Shame it ended with the death of Prince Albert.
January 17, 2024
A good book that covers a selection of the wars in which Great Britain engaged during the 19th century, including wars in Afghanistan, China, Crimea, Burma, and, of course, India. The book is a good introduction to each of the wars and may lead me to read more detailed accounts of specific wars.
Well worth reading.
May 13, 2025
This is a solid overview of Britain's imperial wars from Victoria's coronation through the death of her beloved husband, Prince Albert. It is not a comprehensive story of the wars of her entire reign. I was a bit fooled by the title into thinking the African wars of the late 1800s would also be featured, but alas, they are not. However, I did learn a great deal about the Afghan and Crimean wars.
December 17, 2020
A fascinating exploration on a vast range of forgotten conflicts during the greta Queen Victoria's reign, also diving into some aspects of Victoria's life as well as the nature of British society at the time.
January 5, 2021
Great book, covers a variety of conflicts (including Crimea & India) whilst also focusing on Queen Victoria from the start of her reign to the end. Covered many of the major battles very well. I was impressed by this book and it kept me engaged right to the end.
January 10, 2024
A great book, covering off the various imperial wars of Victoria's reign, up to the death of Prince Albert. It includes the better known campaigns of the Crimean War and Indian Mutiny, as well as less well known ones in Burma, Afghanistan, China and the Punjab.
June 8, 2024
It’s a fascinating read with some interesting points on the politics surrounding the wars and also the reign. It is very detailed in parts regarding the wars (yes I suppose you’d expect that given the title) it just became a little too absorbed at those points for me. Glad I read it though!
May 31, 2018
A good non fiction book about all the wars and battles endured by the soldiers of Victorias reign
January 2, 2020
I found it very engaging.
December 28, 2020
Interesting stuff.
January 23, 2024
a good read that was well researched and far from being a dusty retelling of the wars that was fought in the the first half of victoria reign.
August 16, 2025
good, but kind of dull
July 7, 2021
Stick with Flashy
December 11, 2012
As a fan of the Flashman novels - as is Mr David - I've been fascinated by Britain's colonial wars. This book gives the facts behind the fiction, whether from Flashman or 'popular history'. Full of detail, I found it a little dry. It is the tiny details, I thought made the book. Surprises, there were a few. Top three:
That the British democratic system didn't always lead to a two party system - during the Victorian era sometimes there were five or so large parties that danced in and out of coalitions.
The youngest VC winner - during the third China war - was only 15 years old and 3 months.
Prince Albert was significant is stopping Britain getting sucked into the American civil war.
If you know you're Victorian history probably not for you. If you want to lean about the era read the Flashman novels then use this for a little more depth.
That the British democratic system didn't always lead to a two party system - during the Victorian era sometimes there were five or so large parties that danced in and out of coalitions.
The youngest VC winner - during the third China war - was only 15 years old and 3 months.
Prince Albert was significant is stopping Britain getting sucked into the American civil war.
If you know you're Victorian history probably not for you. If you want to lean about the era read the Flashman novels then use this for a little more depth.
March 16, 2014
A very interesting book about the various wars fought all over the globe by the formidable armed forces of the British Empire under the rule of Queen Victoria
The book covers several wars including the Indian Mutiny, Opium Wars, the (first) Afgan war, the war against the Sikhs etc but also has some very interesting facts about the life of Queen Victoria herself, her views and stances of the wars of her people and, of course, the life and death of the popular and much-loved Prince Albert whose untimely death drove Victoria into a depression that didn't lift for 40 years.
A very interesting read, its a lengthy book but doesn't drag at all. I'll definately read it again some day
The book covers several wars including the Indian Mutiny, Opium Wars, the (first) Afgan war, the war against the Sikhs etc but also has some very interesting facts about the life of Queen Victoria herself, her views and stances of the wars of her people and, of course, the life and death of the popular and much-loved Prince Albert whose untimely death drove Victoria into a depression that didn't lift for 40 years.
A very interesting read, its a lengthy book but doesn't drag at all. I'll definately read it again some day
February 22, 2013
A good description of the wars of the first half of Victoria's reign, as much describing the evolution of the British army from a bunch of bungling toffs into something vaguely professional as the evolution of British imperial policy. Sadly it ends with Albert's death and doesn't explore the Victorian expansion into Africa and the conversion of a commercial hotch-potch into an ideological and propaganda concept.
Overall I enjoyed the book, Saul David keeps key characters such at the fore and demonstrates the sheer bravery of individuals in Victoria's armies; the triumph of guts over brains. I would like to read a description of the remainder of Victoria's reign.
Overall I enjoyed the book, Saul David keeps key characters such at the fore and demonstrates the sheer bravery of individuals in Victoria's armies; the triumph of guts over brains. I would like to read a description of the remainder of Victoria's reign.
July 21, 2016
An excellent series of battle narratives framed around the life of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. Only a 3 star because it doesn't add an enormous amount beyond the obvious, but if you only want to read one book about these conflicts (first brit afghan war, sepoy mutiny, punjab, 1st burma war, opium war) this book is excellent, but there are better books available about each individual conflict. What this book does do is offer some information about the reform of the british army and equipment over time, but it was hardly comprehensive. I came away wanting to read a biography of the duke of wellington
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews