Niall Ferguson is a young, brilliant, prolific and rather controversial Professor of History who steps outside conventional academic thinking and argues convincingly for a more enlightened and overarching appreciation of historical events. He is a true original, a great writer and communicator who brings a fresh perspective to make us re-think history and appreciate the past in a new light.

The subject of this book, one of his best - and they're all good - is a new historical examination of the British Empire. The full title is 'The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power' which indicates the author's ambition. Ferguson argues convincingly that between about 1750 and 1945, and expecially so in the 1800s, this unique institution which brought together a quarter of the world's population and spanned every continent was 'the nearest thing Planet Earth has ever had to a global government.' This he sees, overall, as A Good Thing, so firmly places himself amongst modern thinkers in the 'controversial' camp.

It has been claimed that the British acquired their enormous global Empire 'in a fit of absence of mind' and though Ferguson does not agree with this memorable line he does illustrate with some humour that there was never any intention to end up owning 25% of the world. In the 1500s and 1600s the Brits just didn't want to be marginalised into a second-rate power by the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Dutch who at that time were striding the globe and claiming vast areas of land in the Caribbean, the Americas and the East Indies. the Brits were Johnny-come-lately and almost got left behind, initially resorting to piracy on the Spanish to try and claim a small piece of the action. From this robbery-on-the-high-seas in the 1500s came possession of islands in the Caribbean, outposts in North America and West Africa and later involvement in the transatlantic slave trade in the 1700s.

Each chapter introduces a new theme and all-in-all the narrative is racy, informative and crammed with astounding facts, like the details of the examination which prospective bright young men from Britain were obliged to pass before being considered for a posting to the Indian civil service. There are pages of graphs and charts, economic data a-plenty and the book (the hardback edition) is beautifully and lavishly illustrated.

The chapter on the American War of Independence convincingly explains the conflict as a civil war/family quarrel. Against the more conventional revisionist modern American narrative of 'freedom' and 'independence' Ferguson points out the 'revolution' was more about colonial plantation owners ruthlessly promoting their own financial interests. The government in Britain was half-hearted about keeping the 13 colonies and more interested in India, a perspective which looks odd from our time but made absolute sense in 1776 (India looked like a much bigger prize and far more important). The necessary resources were never committed and so Britain lost the then-insignificant American colonies but ended up administering not only India but Canada.

Ferguson does not play down the less benign aspects of the Empire, whether the slave trade (learned by British sea captains from the Spanish, Portuguese and West Africans who taught them how to be successful at it), famines in India and Ireland caused by mismanagement and neglect, the penal colonies of Australia or hordes of Zulus being mown down by Maxim guns. There's enough gory statistics here to keep any unreconstituted liberal or left-inclined activist foaming with indignation.

However, that's not the whole story. Ferguson demonstrates that the British Empire was a huge net exporter of capital, and that the economic and social differences in the heyday of the Empire between the British Isles and the colonies were consequently far less than between the 'first world' and the 'developing world' in the 21st century. Roads, railways, educational and government institutions were built throughout the Empire with the transfer of vast sums of money earned from British industrial manufacturing out to the colonies, all administered (in stark contrast to modern times) by a virtually incorruptible and principled civil service. There were no 'failed states' in the days of the Empire: in contrast investment, progress and growth were the order of the day, and universally taken for granted. It was, for example, the British Empire which first connected up the world with undersea telegraph cables leading, eventually, to our current global telephone system (and to the www and the internet - the author refers to the global undersea telegraph network as the 'information superhighway' of its day).

Other legacies of the Empire include the global dominance of the English language, the acceptance of democratic parliamentary institutions, the whole Anglo-Saxon concept of human and civil rights and free trade and movement of peoples.

As other reviewers have pointed out, Ferguson's analysis of the Empire's eventual demise centres on Britain deciding to commit to fight and defeat the powerful but less benign empires of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, struggles which effectively bankrupted Britain and forced imperial dissolution. The Empire was expensive to run: after 1945, Britain was broke and could no longer afford the vast subsidies and drain on capital necessary to sustain it. He also demonstrates that until the 1920s there was virtually no appetite for 'independence' from the peoples of the Empire. On the contrary they thought they had a good thing: it was in all cases anglicised, British-university educated middle-class elites from the colonies who embraced quintessentially western liberal ideas of 'independence' following WW1, and went on to sieze power in the new 'independent' nations.

A final and relevant question asked by the author is: without the British Empire, what would the world have had instead? Would the available alternatives have produced a similar end-result, or something far worse?

Whether you embrace the author's mainly positive attitude to the idea of a benign global hegemony in place of (according to him) the present-day reality of a fragmented world of 180+ squabbling/warring nation states with mainly corrupt and unelected rulers, the book is a great read: lively, literate, occasionally funny and thought-provoking. The reader can't fail to be impressed by Ferguson's achievement even if he rejects the author's self-confessed bias: 'How Britain made the modern world' really is not an overstatement. It's a rollicking good read and I defy any open-minded reader not to enjoy the experience and learn more than a few things in the process. The prose is first-rate, it's a can't-put-it-down page-turner, and the vast amounts of economic data (which the author always makes interesting and relevant) alone are so enlightening they are worth the price of the book.

Sometimes it's good to be mildly controversial, if accompanied by intelligence and original thought. Recommended unreservedly.

A truly fascinating account of the British Empire from it's infancy to it's undoing. I can say that I honestly enjoyed this read from cover to cover. Rather than a dull historical account, the author writes in a manner that puts the reader in a front row seat of the Empire's evolution; there were times when I was literally on the edge of my seat. As an American, it was especially intriguing to read of our "fight for independence" from the British perspective. Ferguson closes with a thought provoking analysis of contemporary America and her responsibilities as an emerging modern-empire. The book has drastically changed how I view the British Empire - for the better I might add.

Book title - - EMPIRE: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order & the Lessons for Global Power, by Niall Ferguson.
As the title suggests this is not a book for a light read on the plane to the holiday hotel. Nevertheless, for those interested in the 'politics of power' at a global level then this tome certainly touches the core elements of the amazing success that was the international economic-financial British Empire.
The jacket blurb makes claims about it being insightful for the present situation the USA finds itself in, but frankly I think that is a tad far-fetched. Whilst the USA is indeed the global superpower of the the start of the 21st Century it is a long, long way from being the mega-power that was Britain at the zenith of its imperial might.
The demise of the British Empire is well explained although there are no new or unique insights, but again the decline is not really a lesson for the USA for all the author's attempts to make it seem so.
Our World has changed beyond all recognition from Kitchener's machine-gun army crushing the Madhi's hordes at Omdurman: Anyone who considers the USA's Afghanistan or Iraq campaigns of the last decade will recognise the differences. Similarly, the World has emerging global powers soon to be on a par with the USA in economic-financial terms which the British Empire to a large extent only had to deal with after WW1.
Then if we consider the Internet communication to which this is penned the predicament of the 2010 USA compared to the 'steam-boat' and 'telegraph' of old is highlighted even more.
All that said, this is a thoroughly readable, informative and evocative book about the often unheeded hazards and dangers of imperialism and whilst the USA is surely not condemned to repeat or experience them all there are salutary lessons for the Obama White House on what are the positives and negatives of trying to maintain a global presence when your backyard infrastructure is crumbling and under siege from within and without.

The sun never set on the British empire, was the popular saying. This book traces the evolution of that empire, the economic underpinnings and the evolution of mercantilism and trade barriers.
This book is a serious economic historical account of the events that lead to the rise of the British Empire and how Britania came to rule the waves. I was most amused to see the reproduction of the portrait of King Neptune relinquishing his sea kingdom to Britannia. Also I found a similar parallels when the sugar, caffeine, spice, opium and calico rush lead to the outflow of British Gold that lead to the creation of mercantilism leading to the East India Company and the British Empire. I found similarities in this book to the Mercantilism and the East India Trade, in the account of the silver and gold being demanded in Indian trade.

If you read more than the introduction, you will realize that Empire is not simply an "apology" or a "British" view of history. Ferguson has told the story of the British Empire without worrying about the ignorant political correctness of the day. While it may be fashionable to think that the British were savage rulers in red coats, it's simply not true on the whole.

I agree with Ferguson's history of the British Empire on three major points:

1. The British Empire, overall, more than any other power during the time, imposed, yes imposed, the Rule of Law on the world.

2. The British Empire facilitated the transfer of capital to the developing world, thereby beginning the process of globalization, opening up markets to competition, and overall, raising the standard of living for millions of people.

3. The British Empire, in a time of empires, prevented far more savage nations (Japan, Germany, etc) from subjugating the world.

As other reviewers have said, however, nothing is perfect. There were disasters, near-genocides, and corrupt politicians along the way. That's what happens in the real world. Empires and nations are forged by the sword if need be. The true test of any empire or nation is how it treats the conquered after the battle or coup.

The British Empire, with many exceptions and problems along the way, was a benevolent master. Critics like to say that the best path would have been one in which there were no empires or colonizers. This is an irrelevant critique, similar to claiming that life would be better without the existence of cancer. It's wishful thinking.

Portugal, France, Spain, Germany, Japan, and Russia have all, at one time or another, whether they admit it or not, been partakers of the great game known as Empire Building. I would choose to be a subject of the British Empire a thousand times over before I would choose any of the others. This is not a false dilemma. If the British Empire didn't colonize the world, one of the other powers most certainly would have.

Finally, the British have left a legacy of stable, industrial, first-world countries in their wake. Canada, the United States, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand spring to mind, not to mention the fact that Britain chose to oppose Germany rather than placate her in the second World War, which prevented countless atrocities from occurring. Former British Colonies are bastions of stability and law in a world that is anything but stable and law-abiding. What other conquering power has done so much?

It's easy to focus on one point or another (and admittedly there are many to chose from: Boer War, slave trade, etc.) and use that to damn the entire history of the British Empire; however, that is the type of sloppy thinking that belongs in coffee shops and meetings of the Young Campus Communists.

Looking at the broad sweep of history shows that the British Empire was not an evil entity, hell-bent on bringing misery to colonized peoples. Overall, the British Empire was a force for good, bringing light, law, order, free markets, progress, and yes, freedom to her peoples, both foreign and domestic.

This was an absolutely wonderful read! Niall Ferguson, author of this book's sequel, "Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire," gives his readers a crash-course in British imperial history starting with the English privateering raids on the Spanish empire and ending with the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956. Ferguson's main point is that, all things considered, the British Empire was a good thing for the world. And, it must be said, he makes a very strong case for this using economic, political and historical analysis to bolster his case along with some thumping good tales. But this is not a jingoistic or details-oriented book. Quite the opposite in fact! This book was written with the general reader in mind and is the most accessible book on British history I have ever read. Also, rather than avoid the empire's darker incidents, he uses them as evidence that when the British did bad things, bad things happened not just to the native people (tragic enough as that is), but to the empire as a whole. A reasonable point to make when one considers how poor policies in Iraq nearly screwed the U.S. over internationally as well as domestically (read Thomas Ricks' "Fiasco" for details). There were a few nit-picky issues I have with him, but I feel that this is great book that makes a far better case for, weird as it may sound, a Liberal American empire than his sequel to this book does.

Historian Niall Ferguson is known for releasing a number of books that have stirred some controversy, and "Empire" is perhaps the biggest culprit. The biggest accusation that many people have made about this book is true; Niall Ferguson is indeed a big fan of the British Empire. This, however, does not diminish the merits of Ferguson's book. Ferguson provides an overview of the origins and evolution of the Empire, from its humble origins as a loose network of trade outposts to its peak as the biggest empire the world has ever seen. Contrary to what many reviewers imply, Ferguson does not blindly support the Empire. In fact, he describes a lot of British atrocities for what they were. He does however, set the Empire into its historical context, which, while they don't justify colonialism, do at least explain it. Also, Ferguson's positive views on the British Empire are mostly confined to the last few pages of the book and, even if his arguments don't convince you, they can at least raise a few questions that undermine the currently popular notions that view imperialism as pure evil. Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power

As a former Brit who grew up in England ,lived through WW2 in London after which I wanted to see the world,eventually living in the USA marrying,becoming a citizen,working as a nurse and raising a family of two sons with my husband. Most recently becoming aware that some of my very educated friends had very little knowledge of British History and when one said to me "British Empire, I did not know Britain had an Empire" I thought it time to add to their education and that of my two sons ! This book was the most concise and readable book that even opened my eyes and mind so I bought four copies,one for each son to read and share and I will do the same with my copies.This is excellent writing showing lessons to be learned for my new country the USA.

Niall Ferguson's "Empire" is a great and often provokative introduction to the study of the rise and demise of the British Empire. While there are some issues and opinions expressed in the book I disagree with, the overall book is great. "Empire" is not only for those who study history; instead, it will fully engage any reader, keeping her/him interested throughout the book.

I read one review that bewailed the advantage taken by British soldiers, of less well armed adversaries. How silly is that, if I were fighting I should request, nay, demand, any advantage over the enemy.(Compare the War in Iraq) We are a silly generation...Empire was good and bad,, mostly, the positive benefits have come from the British form...so swallow that if you can get it past your pc spot-a-meter. This book does redress the 'orientalism' garbage of recent years but it has its flaws too. Still, worth reading. 'Defending the West' is worth reading in tandem with Ferguson.

Niall Ferguson is a decent writer but a lousy historian. There are some interesting and colorful bits... British agents disguised as Buddhist monks, "measuring the distances between places with the aid of worry beads... and concealing the maps they surreptitiously drew in their prayer wheels." However, Ferguson has a dogmatic attachment to the notion that anything that happened in British colonies was, if not good and ultimately beneficial, then at the very least better than the alternative in the form of Spanish, Japanese, German, Italian or Belgian occupation. Where the British Empire has been abusive, Ferguson acknowledges and apologizes but with the understanding that the British was the best empire and the least cruel. Indians for example, needed "only to look at the way the Japanese conducted themselves in China, Singapore and Thailand to see how much worse the alternative before them was." The British Empire it seems, "had some conception of human rights," compared to other empires. Ferguson does not question that India should have expected to be colonized and as such would have chosen the best of the colonizing lot.

Ferguson further dismisses any accusations of the negative impact of British colonization and especially eschews the idea that the abject poverty faced today in former colonies, particularly in Africa is in any way related to the legacy of British colonialism. Using the example of Zambia, Ferguson asserts that "the British empire encouraged investors to put their money in developing economies" thereby making such investment less risky than it is today. Further, in the period immediately following colonization "the differential between British and Zambian incomes was [much] less." Since the end of British colonization however, "the gap between colonizer and the ex-colony has become a gulf." Therefore, Ferguson concludes, "there is good evidence that the imposition of British-style institutions has tended to enhance a country's economic prospects." Whaaa????

Ferguson's Empire ends abruptly in a wake-up call for the U.S. to assume its destiny as the inheritor of British-style imperial greatness. The United States must unabashedly take the reigns, as Ferguson implies the British Empire did, and govern the world. Ferguson worries that the U.S. is not ready for this important responsibility, describing the U.S. as "an empire that lacks the drive to export its capital, its people and its culture to those backward regions which need them most urgently and which if they are neglected, will breed the greatest threats to its security. It is an empire, in short, that dare not speak its name. It is in empire in denial.

There may yet be a thesis that clearly articulates how British Empire is single-handedly responsible for the creation of the modern world. Niall Ferguson's Empire is not it. This is instead a call for a return to unabashed empire building - a justification essentially for the post September 11th global war on terror. But if Ferguson is right, if the British Empire is responsible for the making the modern world, a world that Ferguson describes as breeding threats to security in its neglected and backwards parts, why does Ferguson suggest a solution that is more of the same?

Niall Ferguson is a decent writer but a lousy historian. Understanding this at the outset, you can be free to get lost in Ferguson's recounting of the battles, personalities, architecture, anecdotes and gossip Ferguson has chosen to spin his version of the British Empire.

There are some interesting bits... British agents disguised as Buddhist monks, "measuring the distances between places with the aid of worry beads... and concealing the maps they surreptitiously drew in their prayer wheels." There is the revelation that "the supreme hymn of evangelical redemption" still popular today, Amazing Grace, was written by John Newton the captain of a succession of slave ships personally responsible for shipping hundreds of Africans into slavery after his religious awaking. There is the relationship between Cecil Rhodes and the Rothschilds, upon which Rhodesia, The De Beers diamond fortune (Ferguson does not choose to elaborate on what this legacy of empire has meant for Africa) and Rhodes Scholarships of today can all be traced. That there are lasting legacies of empire and that these legacies are worth thinking about Ferguson makes clear.

Ferguson's tale, unburdened by citations, nearly lulls the reader into forgetting the premise upon which this vivid story is unwinding. This accessible popular history however is less benign than Ferguson's casual style intimates. Beneath this well told tale, runs a deep cultural myth, careless interpretations, omniscient assumptions and in the end a very messy thesis that stuns the reader not only with its crudeness but also with its pretense that what preceded the 16 page conclusion was 363 pages of clear supporting evidence for Ferguson's final thesis.

Ferguson states early on that, "England had a religious duty to build a Protestant empire to match the `Popish' empires of the Spanish and Portuguese" and that the "English conception of empire was thus formed in reaction to that of her Spanish rival." But these two ideas could in fact be considered exclusive. There is plentiful evidence that especially early in the process that only later became known as empire building, British actions were fueled to a large extent by its relationship with Spain. However, there is little evidence, that this in fact translated into a consensus within Britain for a rival religiously based British Empire.

There are other ideas that Ferguson is not alone among empire enthusiasts in putting forward - the strength of the British Navy and firepower, a respect for liberty, a Protestant work ethic and a respect for the free market - but these are instruments and tools of empire, that became so only in the end, after historians looked back and said, "look what has been created." Of other ideas and circumstances throughout history that played a role, battles that were not forgone conclusions and ideas that also shaped the modern world, Ferguson neglects or mentions them derisively. Describing Sir Stafford Cripp, Labour politician and Chancellor of the Exchequer following WWII, Ferguson remarks that he was "as dogmatic a Marxist as only a millionaire can be." And that's it for Marxism, an idea that Ferguson apparently deems otherwise largely irrelevant in shaping the modern world.

Ferguson also disarms all the modern movements for autonomy and all efforts to throw off British colonization as mostly irrelevant. "The principle threats - and most plausible alternatives - to British rule," Ferguson asserts, "were not national independence movements, but other empires." Following history more carefully one can clearly see not only evidence to support internal and external factors in the fight for independence in former colonies but also many ways in which such struggles shaped the British Empire and continue to shape the modern world. Whether or not these struggles alone would ever have been strong enough to undermine the British occupiers, the impact of the occupied on the British Empire was and continues to be felt.

What is most nefarious about Ferguson's thesis is his dogmatic attachment to the notion that anything that happened in British colonies was, if not good and ultimately beneficial, then at the very least better than the alternative in the form of Spanish, Japanese, German, Italian or Belgian occupation. Where the British Empire has been abusive, Ferguson acknowledges and apologizes but with the understanding that the British was the best empire and the least cruel. Indians for example, needed "only to look at the way the Japanese conducted themselves in China, Singapore and Thailand to see how much worse the alternative before them was." The British Empire it seems, "had some conception of human rights," compared to other empires. Ferguson does not question that India should have expected to be colonized and as such would have chosen the best of the colonizing lot.

Ferguson further dismisses any accusations of the negative impact of British colonization and especially eschews the idea that the abject poverty faced today in former colonies, particularly in Africa is in any way related to the legacy of British colonialism. Using the example of Zambia, Ferguson asserts that "the British empire encouraged investors to put their money in developing economies" thereby making such investment less risky than it is today. Further, in the period immediately following colonization "the differential between British and Zambian incomes was [much] less." Since the end of British colonization however, "the gap between colonizer and the ex-colony has become a gulf." Therefore, Ferguson concludes, "there is good evidence that the imposition of British-style institutions has tended to enhance a country's economic prospects."

As Ferguson tells it, former British colonies were better off not only during and because of the British Empire, they have suffered in the post-colonial period precisely because it is the post-colonial period. The fine British institutions and the benefits conferred by British style law-making etc. have only mitigated this suffering. If there is any proof of this, Ferguson does not provide it with this loose chain of causality.

Ferguson notes that the British, "robbed the Spaniards, copied the Dutch, [beat] the French and plundered the Indians." He also makes it clear that most of the early ex-pats of empire were Scots and Irishmen, hoping to fare better than they did as the minority at home. And yet, even as Ferguson describes the complicated interplay within and between cultures - the sharing and stealing of information, financial systems, weapons, religion and philosophies, in the end Ferguson still somehow concludes that all of this complicated interaction proves only that one of the players, the one that had accumulated the most colorful map of empire, made the modern world.

Ferguson's Empire ends suddenly in a wake-up call for the U.S. to assume its destiny as the inheritor of British-style imperial greatness. The United States must unabashedly take the reigns, as Ferguson implies the British Empire did, and govern the world. Ferguson worries that the U.S. is not ready for this important responsibility, describing the U.S. as "an empire that lacks the drive to export its capital, its people and its culture to those backward regions which need them most urgently and which if they are neglected, will breed the greatest threats to its security. It is an empire, in short, that dare not speak its name. It is in empire in denial.

There may yet be a thesis that clearly articulates how British Empire is single-handedly responsible for the creation of the modern world. Niall Ferguson's Empire is not it. There is certainly widespread evidence for the impacts of the British Empire in terms of parliamentary institutions, language and religion, which Ferguson does not succinctly summarize in his conclusion. Empire instead looks back more broadly on British imperialism, casting its abuses as relative and its impacts as a largely favorable mostly one-way street, in terms of the modern world. Ferguson then uses this to justify what is needed - a return to unabashed empire building - a justification essentially for the post September 11th global war on terror. But if Ferguson is right, if the British Empire is responsible for the making the modern world, a world that Ferguson describes as breeding threats to security in its neglected and backwards parts, why does Ferguson suggest a solution that is more of the same?

Niall Ferguson is a decent writer but a lousy historian. Ferguson's Empire, read critically though, is a decent read - a bit of a romp through history - seen through the eyes of a true anglophile. Perhaps one should not fault Ferguson for his prejudicial perspective as the title of his book makes it clear there will be no attempt to hide it. The reader, understanding this from the outset, should be free for the most part to get lost in Ferguson's recounting of the battles, personalities, architecture, anecdotes and gossip Ferguson has chosen to spin the tale of the British Empire.

And Ferguson can tell a story. There are British agents disguised as Buddhist monks, "measuring the distances between places with the aid of worry beads... and concealing the maps they surreptitiously drew in their prayer wheels." There is the revelation that "the supreme hymn of evangelical redemption" still popular today, Amazing Grace, was written by John Newton the captain of a succession of slave ships personally responsible for shipping hundreds of Africans into slavery after his religious awaking. There is the relationship between Cecil Rhodes and the Rothschilds, upon which Rhodesia, The De Beers diamond fortune (Ferguson does not choose to elaborate on what this legacy of empire has meant for Africa) and Rhodes Scholarships of today can all be traced. That there are lasting legacies of empire and that these legacies are worth thinking about Ferguson makes clear.

Ferguson's style brings this history to the masses. Rather than a dry and overly scholarly tale Ferguson tells the British story in a colorful and even a bit cheeky way. The early fortunes of the British Empire he asserts were "built on a huge sugar, caffeine and nicotine rush." And highlighting the difference between early settlers in North America and those that came later, he quips that their reason for crossing the Atlantic was "not God but cod."

And this accessibility, this enjoyable every man's history of the British Empire, unburdened by citations, should be a great thing. In fact, Ferguson's tale nearly lulls the reader into forgetting the premise upon which this vivid story is unwinding. This accessible popular history however is less benign than Ferguson's casual style intimates. Beneath this well told tale, runs a deep cultural myth, careless interpretations, omniscient assumptions and in the end a very messy thesis that stuns the reader not only with its crudeness but also with its pretense that what preceded the 16 page conclusion was 363 pages of clear supporting evidence for Ferguson's final thesis.

Ferguson states early on that, "England had a religious duty to build a Protestant empire to match the `Popish' empires of the Spanish and Portuguese" and that the "English conception of empire was thus formed in reaction to that of her Spanish rival." But these two ideas could in fact be considered exclusive. There is plentiful evidence that especially early in the process that only later became known as empire building, British actions were fueled to a large extent by its relationship with Spain. However, there is little evidence, that this in fact translated into a consensus within Britain for a rival religiously based British Empire.

There are other ideas that Ferguson is not alone among empire enthusiasts in putting forward - the strength of the British Navy and firepower, a respect for liberty, a Protestant work ethic and a respect for the free market - but these are instruments and tools of empire, that became so only in the end, after historians looked back and said, "look what has been created." Of other ideas and circumstances throughout history that played a role, battles that were not forgone conclusions and ideas that also shaped the modern world, Ferguson neglects or mentions them derisively. Describing Sir Stafford Cripp, Labour politician and Chancellor of the Exchequer following WWII, Ferguson remarks that he was "as dogmatic a Marxist as only a millionaire can be." And that's it for Marxism, an idea that Ferguson apparently deems otherwise largely irrelevant in shaping the modern world.

Ferguson also disarms all the modern movements for autonomy and all efforts to throw off British colonization as mostly irrelevant. "The principle threats - and most plausible alternatives - to British rule," Ferguson asserts, "were not national independence movements, but other empires." Following history more carefully one can clearly see not only evidence to support internal and external factors in the fight for independence in former colonies but also many ways in which such struggles shaped the British Empire and continue to shape the modern world. Whether or not these struggles alone would ever have been strong enough to undermine the British occupiers, the impact of the occupied on the British Empire was and continues to be felt.

What is most nefarious about Ferguson's thesis is his dogmatic attachment to the notion that anything that happened in British colonies was, if not good and ultimately beneficial, then at the very least better than the alternative in the form of Spanish, Japanese, German, Italian or Belgian occupation. Where the British Empire has been abusive, Ferguson acknowledges and apologizes but with the understanding that the British was the best empire and the least cruel. Indians for example, needed "only to look at the way the Japanese conducted themselves in China, Singapore and Thailand to see how much worse the alternative before them was." The British Empire it seems, "had some conception of human rights," compared to other empires. Ferguson does not question that India should have expected to be colonized and as such would have chosen the best of the colonizing lot.

Ferguson further dismisses any accusations of the negative impact of British colonization and especially eschews the idea that the abject poverty faced today in former colonies, particularly in Africa is in any way related to the legacy of British colonialism. Using the example of Zambia, Ferguson asserts that "the British empire encouraged investors to put their money in developing economies" thereby making such investment less risky than it is today. Further, in the period immediately following colonization "the differential between British and Zambian incomes was [much] less." Since the end of British colonization however, "the gap between colonizer and the ex-colony has become a gulf." Therefore, Ferguson concludes, "there is good evidence that the imposition of British-style institutions has tended to enhance a country's economic prospects."

As Ferguson tells it, former British colonies were better off not only during and because of the British Empire, they have suffered in the post-colonial period precisely because it is the post-colonial period. The fine British institutions and the benefits conferred by British style law-making etc. have only mitigated this suffering. If there is any proof of this, Ferguson does not provide it with this loose chain of causality.

Ferguson notes that the British, "robbed the Spaniards, copied the Dutch, [beat] the French and plundered the Indians." He also makes it clear that most of the early ex-pats of empire were Scots and Irishmen, hoping to fare better than they did as the minority at home. And yet, even as Ferguson describes the complicated interplay within and between cultures - the sharing and stealing of information, financial systems, weapons, religion and philosophies, in the end Ferguson still somehow concludes that all of this complicated interaction proves only that one of the players, the one that had accumulated the most colorful map of empire, made the modern world.

Ferguson's Empire ends suddenly in a wake-up call for the U.S. to assume its destiny as the inheritor of British-style imperial greatness. The United States must unabashedly take the reigns, as Ferguson implies the British Empire did, and govern the world. Ferguson worries that the U.S. is not ready for this important responsibility, describing the U.S. as "an empire that lacks the drive to export its capital, its people and its culture to those backward regions which need them most urgently and which if they are neglected, will breed the greatest threats to its security. It is an empire, in short, that dare not speak its name. It is in empire in denial.

There may yet be a thesis that clearly articulates how British Empire is single-handedly responsible for the creation of the modern world. Niall Ferguson's Empire is not it. There is certainly widespread evidence for the impacts of the British Empire in terms of parliamentary institutions, language and religion, which Ferguson does not succinctly summarize in his conclusion. Empire instead looks back more broadly on British imperialism, casting its abuses as relative and its impacts as a largely favorable mostly one-way street, in terms of the modern world. Ferguson then uses this to justify what is needed - a return to unabashed empire building - a justification essentially for the post September 11th global war on terror. But if Ferguson is right, if the British Empire is responsible for the making the modern world, a world that Ferguson describes as breeding threats to security in its neglected and backwards parts, why does Ferguson suggest a solution that is more of the same?

Ferguson's book titled "Empire" sets out to discuss the rise and fall of the British Empire in less than 400 pages, a large percentage of which are pictures. As you can guess from that sentence, he doesn't do a very good job in my opinion convincing me of anything. I will admit that the illustrations that were picked are excellent, and he generally hits all the major points along the empire trajectory, producing some interesting quotes from the various eras. Unfortunately, this is too much of a coffee table book to produce serious discussion. His central thesis, that the empire was superior to the alternatives at the time, is an interesting one, but unfortunately I cannot say that he backed it up that well. This is worth a library checkout, to read through and examine the pictures.

Ferguson has written a thouroughly readable and informative book on one of the greatest accomplishments in human history. The fact that ignorant left-wing critics everywhere ceasessly cite the negative aspects of this accomplishment merely underscores their unwillingness to engage in critical analysis by comparing the British empire to other empires throughout history. "compared to what?" is the operative question that seems to evade the reasoning of these "nattering nabobs of negativism."

As Ferguson points out, it wasn't colonialism that thwarted progress in .i.e the African countrie, it was the culture of the "big man," the tyranical dictator du jour. America, Canada, NZ, Hong Kong, and Australia were all colonies of the empire and they've done very well thank you. Why can't these liberal-lefty critics get it? The answer is that their need to feel morally virtuous supercedes any search for truth via the hard facts.

There are many books positing why the west got rich and why capitalism, a naturally occuring spontaneous ordering, has prevailed as the greatest economic system of all, the one that has created the greatest surplus for all of the people. However, Ferguson concludes his tome by noting that what took 300 years to build was taken down in a mere 30 years by the overwhelming wartime expenditures of WWI and WWII.

That the British empire unfairly treated many of its enemies is without question, but what continues to be debated "is compared to what or whom?" Those who cite specific instances of brutality have their point and who wouldn't harbor hatred for the kind of imperious and arrogant treatment one can pin on the Brit's, but from the standpoint of the overall picture one must not let specific instances invalidate the whole as it relates to the advancement of civilization. And, I might point out that these same critics remained silent in the face of the comment by Stalin that "to make an omelet one has to break a few eggs."

This is a well written encapsulated history of the British empire and should be part of the reading material in any college history course on western civilization, a subject (unfortunately) continually avoided by the left-wing gatekeepers in academia.

Okay, Children, listen up.

I have it on good authority that a) God is not an intergallactic social worker and b) the world was not created by Enid Blyton (fluffy childrens' author).

No doubt the all the `altruistic' acts we and our governments perform this very day will be sneered at and carped about in a hundred years from now by your own very foolish and ungrateful future offspring, regardless of how well meant and long-considered they may be at this moment. Ring any bells?

The British Empire was the Big Bang of the modern world. GET OVER IT. This kind of weeping, snivelling revisionism really is weak and cowardly. If a void existed for the possibility of an empire, then SOMEONE was going to fill it. Slavery existed BEFORE the British invested in it, and it's still around in various forms today. If you're looking for the perfect country with the perfect history, good luck! Say hello to Buddy Holly, Father Christmas and the Loch Ness Monster for me when you find it.

Niall Ferguson's "Empire" is a superb book and should be on the school curriculum of the Uk, if not MORE `educated' countries. It is well written, colourful, thoroughly entertaining and a minor revelation in parts. For all the critics of the book and of Britain, unless you live in a country called Utopia, I'd stay quiet. `Britain' did not gorge itself on the spoils of the colonies - several families and many companies did fantastically well on the proceeds. As far as I know, the British Isles had more than its fair share of poor who lived in grinding poverty. Have I got that wrong? Didn't think so.

I suspect that most of the criticisms of "Empire" come from people who are `historically' predisposed to grievance against us, or just don't like the British, full stop, and this is a way to `snatch and throw', as it were. When life is too easy, it tends to breed a stupidity and contempt in people - so life must be very easy in the universities and coffee shops of the western world.

A poser I know had a pop at me recently, saying that India was right to re-name Bombay `Mumbai', to "try to shake off the mantle of oppressive British Imperial rule." Yeah. Right. Except that it was the Portuguese who called the place Bombay, way before the British got there. Duh!

Throughout the history of the British Empire, there have been some very poor/bad/brutal decisions made (and also some good ones). So what? Seriously. It is history. The British were invaded and occupied for centuries by the Romans. Do we seek apology or recompense from the Italians? The English were harrassed likewise by the Picts/Celts/Scots for ages, taking slaves (yes, slaves) and doing whatever they felt like. Again, what do we seek? The Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Jutes, Angles and Saxons invaded, raped and pillaged in our lands. Apology? Compensation from the Scandinavians? The Normans (French) invaded and occupied England, in some places almost de-populating large areas. Have you ever met a Frenchman who's said sorry? The Spanish tried to invade. The French again. Then the Germans had a try. Have the British tried to blag any freebies for misdeeds against us in history? No. And in the 17th century, England was absolutley terrified of what they believed to be an impending Irish invasion.

Apart from rudementary central heating (the Romans) and a bit of architecture (the Normans/French), our invaders didn't do us a lot of favours. The British, however, DID; parliament, roads, railways, medicine, Christianity (never said it was perfect, though it often thought it was) industrialisation and law spring to mind. Yes, people were scr*wed, yes, people were exploited. And today is different how exactly? Look at India and China and get over yourselves. Is it just that it's ok to oppress and exploit, as long it's your own you are doing it to? No?

So, is it just a time lapse thing, then, where selective recollection doesn't count after so long? Apparently. Apparently it's just the rest of the world who get to b*tch and moan. It's grievance mentality that is the new (and lucrative) theology. And it seems to be popular.

There will always be rich, there will always be poor, there will always be tall, there will always be short. There will always be different aspirations and opinions. That is life and the human condition. Think. The British, realistically, couldn't get rid of the Empire quick enough. Remember, it was certain families and companies who did well. It was actually costing the British government/tax payer too much to `run' the colonies. Think. If the British people were living off the fat of the folk of Empire, then why were we broke before, during and after both world wars? It's only in the last couple of years we've actually managed to pay the U.S. back for WW2. Duh! When both world wars broke out, most, if not all, of the colonies already had independence or were on their way, so why did they answer the call of the `old country'? We couldn't hold a gun to anyone's head, we didn't have that many guns. Even thousands upon thousands of decent, honest Irishmen came to fight for Empire. So how bad could we have been?

A large part of the reason why the propoganda has taken such a hold is that the Brits are just too polite to say "get stu**ed, you're talking rubbish." It would seem too much like bragging. And guilt and politeness are the diseases that've been slowly (wrongly) killing us.

If you look at (feast off) the so-called `atrocities' the British are accused of (and I'm not sugar coating anything), you may be disappointed to know virtually none of any of the bad decisions came from Downing street, but almost always from the fool on the front line who gave the order. The Germans, Dutch, French, Belgians, Spanish and Portuguese all had aspirations of empire - and you may care to know some of these countries had an even worse policy/record than ours. Wicked, in fact. Empire was going to happen. And what about Japan and Russia? Do any of these places have a commonwealth of countries over 50 in number? We do. So how bad were we exactly?

Empire was inevitable and, in its day, more than morally and economically justified. That was the way it was.

As bluff, crusty, repressed, stuffy, starched, dogmatic, lead-footed and pompous as the `sons and daughters of Empire' might have been, these people (in the most part) actually believed they were doing the then undeveloped world a big favour. Many of these countries were almost in the Stone Age (and I genuinely mean that with no hint of insult, but it's a fact). The infrastructures, economies and technology you see today are ONLY there because of British/western influence. You may not agree, and very brave of you, too. But you cannot, cannot, CANNOT try to make these said people historical pariahs. You cannot seriously liken the British Empire to the Third Reich, Imperial Japan or the former Soviet Union, and then expect to hold an adult conversation about it.

And guess what else? INNOCENT PEOPLE GET HURT IN ALL WARS AND CONFLICTS. Just ask the Americans about Viet Nam and Iraq or any country who've pulled a trigger. Who of you will be the first to volunteer your own onto the war crimes stage? Exactly.

Time is an unstoppable conveyor belt and we are all on it. Stuff happens. YOU CANNOT CRITICISE THE BRITISH OR THE EMPIRE UNLESS WE ALL AGREE NEVER TO LEAVE OUR HOUSES AND DO NOTHING AGAIN, EVER - SOONER OR LATER, ACTIONS AND INACTIONS ALL HAVE CONSEQUENCES SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE TO SOMEONE. THINK ABOUT IT. Hindsight, guilt and political correctness are pointless and shamefull.

It was the British who abolished slavery decades before America. The Brits wanted arms control in the Americas, and signed land treaties with the Native Americans - you can't trade with a people if you've wiped them out, can you? How much better would have been their plight if the Redcoats had won? Duh! I could go on.

Yes, we can all nit pick the causes of the two big wars, but the fact remains, it was the British who (with Empire) took the plunge. Had we been `the Republic of England' things would have been very different. Wouldn't they? America did not want to know (sorry, but it's a fact) and had large Nazi and Facist sympathies - true. Thank God for Roosevelt and his constant pressure for our aid. It was only when Japan bit America on the backside at Pearl Harbour that they came into the fray. It's all out there, go read it.

"So what?!" I hear you ask, "Do you want a medal or something?" Perhaps not, but a bit of long-overdue respect wouldn't go amiss. And the way some former colonies seem Hell bent on disassociating themselves with us is insane, heartbreaking. The British hold pretty much all of the 'colonial' countries in a real affection.

Empire is coming again, be it economical or religious, and now the Americans (who played a huge and active role in the destruction of the British Empire, not to mention their betrayal of us over Suez) may have no choice but to pick up the gauntlet. The British Empire is (almost) dead. The world has gained absolutely nothing (apart from the freedom to spit and sneer at it from a safe distance) from its demise . Shame. If America 'crashes', who will be first out of the starting gates to challenge any future threat? Exactly. You might need us again one day. Niall Ferguson has written a superb book. Read it as an adult.

God save the Queen!

Baby Cromwell, Nottingham, England

PS- the blight that caused the Irish Potato Famine came from America - toodle pip.

Okay, Children, listen up.

I have it on good authority that a) God is not an intergallactic social worker and b) the world was not created by Enid Blyton (fluffy childrens' author).

No doubt the all the `altruistic' acts we and our governments perform this very day will be sneered at and carped about in a hundred years from now by your own very foolish and ungrateful future offspring, regardless of how well meant and long-considered they may be at this moment. Ring any bells?

The British Empire was the Big Bang of the modern world. GET OVER IT. This kind of weeping, snivelling revisionism really is weak and cowardly. If a void existed for the possibility of an empire, then SOMEONE was going to fill it. Slavery existed BEFORE the British invested in it, and it's still around in various forms today. If you're looking for the perfect country with the perfect history, good luck! Say hello to Buddy Holly, Father Christmas and the Loch Ness Monster for me when you find it.

Niall Ferguson's "Empire" is a superb book and should be on the school curriculum of the Uk, if not MORE `educated' countries. It is well written, colourful, thoroughly entertaining and a minor revelation in parts. For all the critics of the book and of Britain, unless you live in a country called Utopia, I'd stay quiet. `Britain' did not gorge itself on the spoils of the colonies - several families and many companies did fantastically well on the proceeds. As far as I know, the British Isles had more than its fair share of poor who lived in grinding poverty. Have I got that wrong? Didn't think so.

I suspect that most of the criticisms of "Empire" come from people who are `historically' predisposed to grievance against us, or just don't like the British, full stop, and this is a way to `snatch and throw', as it were. When life is too easy, it tends to breed a stupidity and contempt in people - so life must be very easy in the universities and coffee shops of the western world.

A poser I know had a pop at me recently, saying that India was right to re-name Bombay `Mumbai', to "try to shake off the mantle of oppressive British Imperial rule." Yeah. Right. Except that it was the Portuguese who called the place Bombay, way before the British got there. Duh!

Throughout the history of the British Empire, there have been some very poor/bad/brutal decisions made (and also some good ones). So what? Seriously. It is history. The British were invaded and occupied for centuries by the Romans. Do we seek apology or recompense from the Italians? The English were harrassed likewise by the Picts/Celts/Scots for ages, taking slaves (yes, slaves) and doing whatever they felt like. Again, what do we seek? The Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Jutes, Angles and Saxons invaded, raped and pillaged in our lands. Apology? Compensation from the Scandinavians? The Normans (French) invaded and occupied England, in some places almost de-populating large areas. Have you ever met a Frenchman who's said sorry? The Spanish tried to invade. The French again. Then the Germans had a try. Have the British tried to blag any freebies for misdeeds against us in history? No. And in the 17th century, England was absolutley terrified of what they believed to be an impending Irish invasion.

Apart from rudementary central heating (the Romans) and a bit of architecture (the Normans/French), our invaders didn't do us a lot of favours. The British, however, DID; parliament, roads, railways, medicine, Christianity (never said it was perfect, though it often thought it was) industrialisation and law spring to mind. Yes, people were scr*wed, yes, people were exploited. And today is different how exactly? Look at India and China and get over yourselves. Is it just that it's ok to oppress and exploit, as long it's your own you are doing it to? No?

So, is it just a time lapse thing, then, where selective recollection doesn't count after so long? Apparently. Apparently it's just the rest of the world who get to b*tch and moan. It's grievance mentality that is the new (and lucrative) theology. And it seems to be popular.

There will always be rich, there will always be poor, there will always be tall, there will always be short. There will always be different aspirations and opinions. That is life and the human condition. Think. The British, realistically, couldn't get rid of the Empire quick enough. Remember, it was certain families and companies who did well. It was actually costing the British government/tax payer too much to `run' the colonies. Think. If the British people were living off the fat of the folk of Empire, then why were we broke before, during and after both world wars? It's only in the last couple of years we've actually managed to pay the U.S. back for WW2. Duh! When both world wars broke out, most, if not all, of the colonies already had independence or were on their way, so why did they answer the call of the `old country'? We couldn't hold a gun to anyone's head, we didn't have that many guns. Even thousands upon thousands of decent, honest Irishmen came to fight for Empire. So how bad could we have been?

A large part of the reason why the propoganda has taken such a hold is that the Brits are just too polite to say "get stu**ed, you're talking rubbish." It would seem too much like bragging. And guilt and politeness are the diseases that've been slowly (wrongly) killing us.

If you look at (feast off) the so-called `atrocities' the British are accused of (and I'm not sugar coating anything), you may be disappointed to know virtually none of any of the bad decisions came from Downing street, but almost always from the fool on the front line who gave the order. The Germans, Dutch, French, Belgians, Spanish and Portuguese all had aspirations of empire - and you may care to know some of these countries had an even worse policy/record than ours. Wicked, in fact. Empire was going to happen. And what about Japan and Russia? Do any of these places have a commonwealth of countries over 50 in number? We do. So how bad were we exactly?

Empire was inevitable and, in its day, more than morally and economically justified. That was the way it was.

As bluff, crusty, repressed, stuffy, starched, dogmatic, lead-footed and pompous as the `sons and daughters of Empire' might have been, these people (in the most part) actually believed they were doing the then undeveloped world a big favour. Many of these countries were almost in the Stone Age. The infrastructures, economies and technology you see today are ONLY there because of British/western influence. You may not agree, and very brave of you, too. But you cannot, cannot, CANNOT try to make these said people historical pariahs. You cannot seriously liken the British Empire to the Third Reich, Imperial Japan or the former Soviet Union, and then expect to hold an adult conversation about it.

And guess what else? INNOCENT PEOPLE GET HURT IN ALL WARS AND CONFLICTS. Just ask the Americans about Viet Nam and Iraq or any country who've pulled a trigger. Who of you will be the first to volunteer your own onto the war crimes stage? Exactly.

Time is an unstoppable conveyor belt and we are all on it. Stuff happens. YOU CANNOT CRITICISE THE BRITISH OR THE EMPIRE UNLESS WE ALL AGREE NEVER TO LEAVE OUR HOUSES AND DO NOTHING AGAIN, EVER - SOONER OR LATER, ACTIONS AND INACTIONS ALL HAVE CONSEQUENCES SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE TO SOMEONE. THINK ABOUT IT. Hindsight, guilt and political correctness are pointless and shamefull.

It was the British who abolished slavery decades before America. The Brits wanted arms control in the Americas, and signed land treaties with the Native Americans - you can't trade with a people if you've wiped them out, can you? How much better would have been their plight if the Redcoats had won? Duh! I could go on.

Yes, we can all nit pick the causes of the two big wars, but the fact remains, it was the British who (with Empire) took the plunge. Had we been `the Republic of England' things would have been very different. Wouldn't they? America did not want to know (sorry, but it's a fact) and had large Nazi and Facist sympathies - true. Thank God for Roosevelt and his constant pressure for our aid. It was only when Japan bit America on the backside at Pearl Harbour that they came into the fray. It's all out there, go read it.

"So what?!" I hear you ask, "Do you want a medal or something?" Perhaps not, but a bit of long-overdue respect wouldn't go amiss. And the way some former colonies seem Hell bent on disassociating themselves with us is insane, heartbreaking. The British hold pretty much all of the 'colonial' countries in a real affection.

Empire is coming again, be it economical or religious, and now the Americans (who played a huge and active role in the destruction of the British Empire, not to mention their betrayal of us over Suez) may have no choice but to pick up the gauntlet. The British Empire is (almost) dead. The world has gained absolutely nothing (apart from the freedom to spit and sneer at it from a safe distance) from its demise . Shame. If America 'crashes', who will be first out of the starting gates to challenge any future threat? Exactly. You might need us again one day. Niall Ferguson has written a superb book. Read it as an adult.

God save the Queen!

Baby Cromwell, Nottingham, England

PS- the blight that caused the Irish Potato Famine came from America - toodle pip.

Okay, Children, listen up.

I have it on good authority that a) God is not an intergallactic social worker and b) the world was not created by Enid Blyton (fluffy childrens' author).

No doubt the all the `altruistic' acts we and our governments perform this very day will be sneered at and carped about in a hundred years from now by your own very foolish and ungrateful future offspring, regardless of how well meant and long-considered they may be at this moment. Ring any bells?

The British Empire was the Big Bang of the modern world. GET OVER IT. This kind of weeping, snivelling revisionism really is weak and cowardly. If a void existed for the possibility of an empire, then SOMEONE was going to fill it. Slavery existed BEFORE the British invested in it, and it's still around in various forms today. If you're looking for the perfect country with the perfect history, good luck! Say hello to Buddy Holly, Father Christmas and the Loch Ness Monster for me when you find it.

Niall Ferguson's "Empire" is a superb book and should be on the school curriculum of the Uk, if not MORE `educated' countries. It is well written, colourful, thoroughly entertaining and a minor revelation in parts. For all the critics of the book and of Britain, unless you live in a country called Utopia, I'd stay quiet. `Britain' did not gorge itself on the spoils of the colonies - several families and many companies did fantastically well on the proceeds. As far as I know, the British Isles had more than its fair share of poor who lived in grinding poverty. Have I got that wrong? Didn't think so.

I suspect that most of the criticisms of "Empire" come from people who are `historically' predisposed to grievance against us, or just don't like the British, full stop, and this is a way to `snatch and throw', as it were. When life is too easy, it tends to breed a stupidity and contempt in people - so life must be very easy in the universities and coffee shops of the western world.

A poser I know had a pop at me recently, saying that India was right to re-name Bombay `Mumbai', to "try to shake off the mantle of oppressive British Imperial rule." Yeah. Right. Except that it was the Portuguese who called the place Bombay, way before the British got there. Duh!

Throughout the history of the British Empire, there have been some very poor/bad/brutal decisions made (and also some good ones). So what? Seriously. It is history. The British were invaded and occupied for centuries by the Romans. Do we seek apology or recompense from the Italians? The English were harrassed likewise by the Picts/Celts/Scots for ages, taking slaves (yes, slaves) and doing whatever they felt like. Again, what do we seek? The Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Jutes, Angles and Saxons invaded, raped and pillaged in our lands. Apology? Compensation from the Scandinavians? The Normans (French) invaded and occupied England, in some places almost de-populating large areas. Have you ever met a Frenchman who's said sorry? The Spanish tried to invade. The French again. Then the Germans had a try. Have the British tried to blag any freebies for misdeeds against us in history? No. And in the 17th century, England was absolutley terrified of an impending Irish invasion.

Apart from rudementary central heating (the Romans) and a bit of architecture (the Normans/French), our invaders didn't do us a lot of favours. The British, however, DID; parliament, roads, railways, medicine, Christianity (never said it was perfect, though it often thought it was) industrialisation and law spring to mind. Yes, people were scr*wed, yes, people were exploited. And today is different how exactly? Look at India and China and get over yourselves. Is it just that it's ok to oppress and exploit, as long it's your own you are doing it to? No?

So, is it just a time lapse thing, then, where selective recollection doesn't count after so long? Apparently. Apparently it's just the rest of the world who get to b*tch and moan. It's grievance mentality that is the new (and lucrative) theology. And it seems to be popular.

There will always be rich, there will always be poor, there will always be tall, there will always be short. There will always be different aspirations and opinions. That is life and the human condition. Think. The British, realistically, couldn't get rid of the Empire quick enough. Remember, it was certain families and companies who did well. It was actually costing the British government/tax payer too much to `run' the colonies. Think. If the British people were living off the fat of the folk of Empire, then why were we broke before, during and after both world wars? It's only in the last couple of years we've actually managed to pay the U.S. back for WW2. Duh! When both world wars broke out, most, if not all, of the colonies already had independence or were on their way, so why did they answer the call of the `old country'? We couldn't hold a gun to anyone's head, we didn't have that many guns. So how bad could we have been?

A large part of the reason why the propoganda has taken such a hold is that the Brits are just too polite to say "get stu**ed, you're talking rubbish." It would seem too much like bragging. And guilt and politeness are the diseases that've been slowly (wrongly) killing us.

If you look at (feast off) the so-called `atrocities' the British are accused of (and I'm not sugar coating anything), you may be disappointed to know virtually none of any of the bad decisions came from Downing street, but almost always from the fool on the front line who gave the order. The Germans, Dutch, French, Belgians, Spanish and Portuguese all had aspirations of empire - and you may care to know some of these countries had an even worse policy/record than ours. Wicked, in fact. Empire was going to happen. And what about Japan and Russia? Do any of these places have a commonwealth of countries over 50 in number? We do. So how bad were we exactly?

Empire was inevitable and, in its day, more than morally and economically justified. That was the way it was.

As bluff, crusty, repressed, stuffy, starched, dogmatic, lead-footed and pompous as the `sons and daughters of Empire' might have been, these people (in the most part) actually believed they were doing the then undeveloped world a big favour. Many of these countries were almost in the Stone Age. The infrastructures, economies and technology you see today are ONLY there because of British/western influence. You may not agree, and very brave of you, too. But you cannot, cannot, CANNOT try to make these said people historical pariahs. You cannot seriously liken the British Empire to the Third Reich, Imperial Japan or the former Soviet Union, and then expect to hold an adult conversation about it.

Time is an unstoppable conveyor belt and we are all on it. Stuff happens. YOU CANNOT CRITICISE THE BRITISH OR THE EMPIRE UNLESS WE ALL AGREE NEVER TO LEAVE OUR HOUSES AND DO NOTHING AGAIN, EVER - SOONER OR LATER, ACTIONS AND INACTIONS ALL HAVE CONSEQUENCES SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE TO SOMEONE. THINK ABOUT IT. Hindsight, guilt and political correctness pointless and shamefull.

It was the British who abolished slavery decades before America. The Brits wanted arms control in the Americas, and signed land treaties with the Native Americans - you can't trade with a people if you've wiped them out, can you? How much better would have been their plight if the Redcoats had won? Duh! I could go on.

Yes, we can all nit pick the causes of the two big wars, but the fact remains, it was the British who (with Empire) took the plunge. Had we been `the Republic of England' things would have been very different. Wouldn't they? America did not want to know (sorry, but it's a fact) and had large Nazi and Facist sympathies - true. Thank God for Roosevelt and his constant pressure for our aid. It was only when Japan bit America on the backside at Pearl Harbour that they came into the fray. It's all out there, go read it.

"So what?!" I hear you ask, "Do you want a medal or something?" Perhaps not, but a bit of long-overdue respect wouldn't go amiss. And the way some former colonies seem Hell bent on disassociating themselves with us is insane, heartbreaking. The British hold pretty much all of the 'colonial' countries in a real affection.

Empire is coming again, be it economical or religious, and now the Americans (who played a huge and active role in the destruction of the British Empire, not to mention their betrayal of us over Suez) may have no choice but to pick up the gauntlet. The British Empire is (almost) dead. The world has gained absolutely nothing (apart from the freedom to spit and sneer at it from a safe distance) from its demise . Shame. If America 'crashes', who will be first out of the starting gates to challenge any future threat? Exactly. You might need us again one day. Niall Ferguson has written a superb book. Read it as an adult.

God save the Queen!

Baby Cromwell, Nottingham, England

PS- the blight that caused the Irish Potato Famine came from America - toodle pip.

Okay, Children, listen up.

I have it on good authority that a) God is not an intergallactic social worker and b) the world was not created by Enid Blyton (fluffy childrens' author).

No doubt the all the `altruistic' acts we and our governments perform this very day will be sneered at and carped about in a hundred years from now by your own very foolish and ungrateful future offspring, regardless of how well meant and long-considered they may be at this moment. Ring any bells?

The British Empire was the Big Bang of the modern world. GET OVER IT. This kind of weeping, snivelling revisionism really is weak and cowardly. If a void existed for the possibility of an empire, then SOMEONE was going to fill it. Slavery existed BEFORE the British invested in it, and it's still around in various forms today. If you're looking for the perfect country with the perfect history, good luck! Say hello to Buddy Holly, Father Christmas and the Loch Ness Monster for me when you find it.

Niall Ferguson's "Empire" is a superb book and should be on the school curriculum of the Uk, if not more `educated' countries. It is well written, colourful, thoroughly entertaining and a minor revelation in parts. For all the critics of the book and of Britain, unless you live in a country called Utopia, I'd stay quiet. `Britain' did not gorge itself on the spoils of the colonies - several families and many companies did fantastically well on the proceeds. As far as I know, the British Isles had more than its fair share of poor who lived in grinding poverty. Have I got that wrong? Didn't think so.

I suspect that most of the criticisms of "Empire" come from people who are `historically' predisposed to grievance against us, or just don't like the British, full stop, and this is a way `snatch and throw', as it were. When life is too easy, it tends to breed a stupidity and contempt in people - so life must be very easy in the universities and coffee shops of the western world.

A poser I know had a pop at me recently, saying that India was right to re-name Bombay `Mumbai', to "try to shake off the mantle of oppressive British Imperial rule." Yeah. Right. Except that it was the Portuguese who called the place Bombay, way before the British got there. Duh!

Throughout the history of the British Empire, there have been some very poor/bad/brutal decisions made. So what? Seriously. It is history. The British were invaded and occupied for centuries by the Romans. Do we seek apology or recompense from the Italians? The English were harrassed likewise by the Picts/Celts/Scots for ages, taking slaves (yes, slaves) and doing whatever they felt like. Again, what do we seek? The Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Jutes, Angles and Saxons invaded, raped and in pillaged in our lands. Apology? Compensation from the Scandinavians? The Normans (French) invaded and occupied England, in some places almost de-populating large areas. Have you ever met a Frenchman who's said sorry? The Spanish tried to invade. The French again. Then the Germans had a try. Have the British tried to blag any freebies for misdeeds against us in history? No. And in the 17th century, England was absolutley terrified of an impending Irish invasion.

Apart from rudementary central heating (the Romans) and a bit of architecture (the Normans/French), our invaders didn't do us a lot of favours. The British, however, DID; parliament, roads, railways, medicine, Christianity (never said it was perfect, though it often thought it was) industrialisation and law spring to mind. Yes, people were scr*wed, yes, people were exploited. And today is different how exactly? Look at India and China and get over yourselves. Is it just that it's ok to oppress and exploit, as long it's your own you are doing it to? No?

So, is it just a time lapse thing, then, where selective recollection doesn't count after so long? Apparently not. Apparently it's just the rest of the world who get to b*tch and moan. It's grievance mentality that is the new (and lucrative) theology. And it seems to be popular.

There will always be rich, there will always be poor, there will always be tall, there will always be short. There will always be different aspirations and opinions. That is life and the human condition. Think. The British, realistically, couldn't get rid of the Empire quick enough. Remember, it was certain families and companies who did well. It was actually costing the British government/tax payer too much to `run' the colonies. Think. If the British people were living off the fat of the folk of Empire, then why were we broke before, during and after both world wars? It's only in the last couple of years we've actually managed to pay the U.S. back for WW2. Duh! When both world wars broke out, most, if not all, of the colonies already had independence or were on their way, so why did they answer the call of the `old country'? We couldn't hold a gun to anyone's head, we didn't have that many guns. So how bad could we have been?
A large part of the reason why the propoganda has taken such a hold is that the Brits are just too polite to say "get stu**ed, you're talking rubbish." It would seem too much like bragging. And guilt is the disease that's been slowly (wrongly) killing us.

If you look at (feast off) the so-called `atrocities' the British are accused of (and I'm not sugar coating anything), you may be disappointed to know virtually none of any of the bad decisions came from Downing street, but almost always from the fool on the front line who gave the order. The Germans, Dutch, French, Belgians, Spanish and Portuguese all had aspirations of empire - and you may care to know some of these countries had an even worse policy/record than ours. Empire was going to happen. And what about Japan and Russia? Do any of these countries have a commonwealth of countries over 50 in number? We do. So how bad were we exactly?

Empire was inevitable and, in its day, was more than morally and economically justified. That was the way it was.

As bluff, crusty, repressed, stuffy, starched, dogmatic, lead-footed and pompous as the `sons and daughters of Empire' might have been, these people actually believed they were doing the then undeveloped world a big favour. Many of these countries were almost in the Stone Age. The infrastructures, economies and technology you see today are ONLY there because of British/western influence. You may not agree, and very brave of you, too. But you cannot, cannot, CANNOT try to make these said people historical pariahs. You cannot seriously liken the British Empire to the Third Reich, Imperial Japan or the former Soviet Union, and then expect to hold an adult conversation about it.

Time is an unstoppable conveyor belt and we are all on it. Stuff happens.

It was the British who abolished slavery decades before America. The Brits wanted arms control in the Americas, and signed land treaties with the Native Americans - you can't trade with a people if you've wiped them out, can you? How much better would have been their plight if the Redcoats had won? Duh! I could go on.

Yes, we can all nit pick the causes of the two big wars, but the fact remains, it was the British who (with Empire) took the plunge. Had we been `the Republic of England' things would have been very different. Wouldn't they? America did not want to know (sorry, but it's a fact) and had large Nazi sympathies - true. Thank God for Roosevelt and his constant pressure for our aid. It was only when Japan bit America on the backside that they came into the fray.

"So what?!" I hear you ask, "Do you want a medal or something?" Perhaps not, but a bit of long-overdue respect wouldn't go amiss. And the way some former colonies seem Hell bent on disassociating themselves with us is insane, heartbreaking. The British hold pretty much all of the 'colonial' countries in a real affection.

Empire is coming again, be it economical or religious, and now the Americans (who played a huge and active role in the demise of the British Empire, not to mention their betrayal of us over Suez) may have no choice but to pick up the gauntlet. The British Empire is (almost) dead. The world has gained absolutely nothing (apart from the freedom to spit and sneer at it from a safe distance) from the fact. . Shame. If America 'crashes', who will be first out of the starting gates to challenge any future threat? Exactly. You might need us again one day. Niall Ferguson has written a superb book. Read it as an adult.

God save the Queen!

Baby Cromwell, Nottingham, England

PS- the blight that caused the Irish Potato Famine came from America - toodle pip.

Okay, Children, listen up.

I have it on good authority that a) God is not an intergallactic social worker and b) the world was not created by Enid Blyton (fluffy childrens' author).

No doubt the all the `altruistic' acts we and our governments perform this very day will be sneered at and carped about in a hundred years from now by your own very foolish and ungrateful future offspring, regardless of how well meant and long-considered they may be at this moment. Ring any bells?

The British Empire was the Big Bang of the modern world. GET OVER IT. This kind of weeping, snivelling revisionism really is weak and cowardly. If a void existed for the possibility of an empire, then SOMEONE was going to fill it. Slavery existed BEFORE the British invested in it, and it's still around in various forms today. If you're looking for the perfect country with the perfect history, good luck! Say hello to Buddy Holly, Father Christmas and the Loch Ness Monster for me when you find it.

Niall Ferguson's "Empire" is a superb book and should be on the school curriculum of the Uk, if not more `educated' countries. It is well written, colourful, thoroughly entertaining and a minor revelation in parts. For all the critics of the book and of Britain, unless you live in a country called Utopia, I'd stay quiet. `Britain' did not gorge itself on the spoils of the colonies - several families and many companies did fantastically well on the proceeds. As far as I know, the British Isles had more than its fair share of poor who lived in grinding poverty. Have I got that wrong? Didn't think so.

I suspect that most of the criticisms of "Empire" come from people who are `historically' predisposed to grievance against us, or just don't like the British, full stop, and this is a way `snatch and throw', as it were. When life is too easy, it tends to breed a stupidity and contempt in people - so life must be very easy in the universities and coffee shops of the western world.

A poser I know had a pop at me recently, saying that India was right to re-name Bombay `Mumbai', to "try to shake off the mantle of oppressive British Imperial rule." Yeah. Right. Except that it was the Portuguese who called the place Bombay, way before the British got there. Duh!

Throughout the history of the British Empire, there have been some very poor/bad/brutal decisions made. So what? Seriously. It is history. The British were invaded and occupied for centuries by the Romans. Do we seek apology or recompense from the Italians? The English were harrassed likewise by the Picts/Celts/Scots for ages, taking slaves (yes, slaves) and doing whatever they felt like. Again, what do we seek? The Danes, Swedes, Norwegians, Jutes, Angles and Saxons invaded, raped and in pillaged in our lands. Apology? Compensation from the Scandinavians? The Normans (French) invaded and occupied England, in some places almost de-populating large areas. Have you ever met a Frenchman who's said sorry? The Spanish tried to invade. The French again. Then the Germans had a try. Have the British tried to blag any freebies for misdeeds against us in history? No. And in the 17th century, England was absolutley terrified of an impending Irish invasion.

Apart from rudementary central heating (the Romans) and a bit of architecture (the Normans/French), our invaders didn't do us a lot of favours. The British, however, DID; parliament, roads, railways, medicine, Christianity (never said it was perfect, though it often thought it was) industrialisation and law spring to mind. Yes, people were scr*wed, yes, people were exploited. And today is different how exactly? Look at India and China and get over yourselves. Is it just that it's ok to oppress and exploit, as long it's your own you are doing it to? No?

So, is it just a time lapse thing, then, where selective recollection doesn't count after so long? Apparently not. Apparently it's just the rest of the world who get to b*tch and moan. It's grievance mentality that is the new (and lucrative) theology. And it seems to be popular.

There will always be rich, there will always be poor, there will always be tall, there will always be short. There will always be different aspirations and opinions. That is life and the human condition. Think. The British, realistically, couldn't get rid of the Empire quick enough. Remember, it was certain families and companies who did well. It was actually costing the British government/tax payer too much to `run' the colonies. Think. If the British people were living off the fat of the folk of Empire, then why were we broke before, during and after both world wars? It's only in the last couple of years we've actually managed to pay the U.S. back for WW2. Duh! When both world wars broke out, most, if not all, of the colonies already had independence or were on their way, so why did they answer the call of the `old country'? We couldn't hold a gun to anyone's head, we didn't have that many guns. So how bad could we have been?
A large part of the reason why the propoganda has taken such a hold is that the Brits are just too polite to say "get stu**ed, you're talking rubbish." It would seem too much like bragging. And guilt is the disease that's been slowly (wrongly) killing us.

If you look at (feast off) the so-called `atrocities' the British are accused of (and I'm not sugar coating anything), you may be disappointed to know virtually none of any of the bad decisions came from Downing street, but almost always from the fool on the front line who gave the order. The Germans, Dutch, French, Belgians, Spanish and Portuguese all had aspirations of empire - and you may care to know some of these countries had an even worse policy/record than ours. Empire was going to happen. And what about Japan and Russia? Do any of these countries have a commonwealth of countries over 50 in number? We do. So how bad were we exactly?

Empire was inevitable and, in its day, was more than morally and economically justified. That was the way it was.

As bluff, crusty, repressed, stuffy, starched, dogmatic, lead-footed and pompous as the `sons and daughters of Empire' might have been, these people actually believed they were doing the then undeveloped world a big favour. Many of these countries were almost in the Stone Age. The infrastructures, economies and technology you see today are ONLY there because of British/western influence. You may not agree, and very brave of you, too. But you cannot, cannot, CANNOT try to make these said people historical pariahs. You cannot seriously liken the British Empire to the Third Reich, Imperial Japan or the former Soviet Union, and then expect to hold an adult conversation about it.

Time is an unstoppable conveyor belt and we are all on it. Stuff happens.

It was the British who abolished slavery decades before America. The Brits wanted arms control in the Americas, and signed land treaties with the Native Americans - you can't trade with a people if you've wiped them out, can you? How much better would have been their plight if the Redcoats had won? Duh! I could go on.

Yes, we can all nit pick the causes of the two big wars, but the fact remains, it was the British who (with Empire) took the plunge. Had we been `the Republic of England' things would have been very different. Wouldn't they? America did not want to know (sorry, but it's a fact) and had large Nazi sympathies - true. Thank God for Roosevelt and his constant pressure for our aid. It was only when Japan bit America on the backside that they came into the fray.

"So what?!" I hear you ask, "Do you want a medal or something?" Perhaps not, but a bit of long-overdue respect wouldn't go amiss. And the way some former colonies seem Hell bent on disassociating themselves with us is insane, heartbreaking. The British hold pretty much all of the 'colonial' countries in a real affection.

Empire is coming again, be it economical or religious, and now the Americans (who played a huge and active role in the demise of the British Empire, not to mention their betrayal of us over Suez) may have no choice but to pick up the gauntlet. The British Empire is (almost) dead. The world has gained absolutely nothing (apart from the freedom to spit and sneer at it from a safe distance) from the fact. . Shame. You might need us again one day. Niall Ferguson has written a superb book. Read it as an adult.

God save the Queen!

Baby Cromwell, Nottingham, England

PS- the blight that caused the Irish Potato Famine came from America - toodle pip.

Ferguson's EMPIRE is well-written, like all of his work. It is not a comprehensive look at the details of expansion and conquest--there are other books readily available for that--but instead looks at the empire as a process. Thus, he focuses on key figures and locations, primarily India and Africa. One gets a good sense of who was behind the imperial drive, and what the drive for empire was all about. It is, however, a little bit too "pro-Empire." To be sure, Ferguson acknowledges that imperialism had its nasty side (especially against the Boers). However, we don't get much of the violence and cruelty that characterized British expansion and conquest, which very much should have been included. Also, New Zealand, Canada and Ireland are barely touched on. Its still worth the read for sure, but must be used as a framework around which much else should be read.

Niall Ferguson, author of other non-fiction hits as "Pity of War", "The Cash Nexus" and 2006's "War of the World" offers a modern analysis of one of the most influential empires in history. An Englishman, Ferguson tackles the history of the British Empire in this layman's volume of 370 pages, rich with illustrations, maps, and photos stretching from empire's reluctant beginnings in the 17th century to the final collapse following WWII. The hardback edition of the book which I read had a textbook quality to it physically, more of a squared geometry, with glossy paper and text layout resemling a history textbook. However, the writing style was definitely not of a textbook. Niall has two great qualities for a history writer that endears him to this layperson - the ability to write history in a witty, conversational fashion, and a penchant for promoting alternative conclusions for historical events, often diametrically opposed to the standard ideas. For example, he rates the British leadership over India as an overall positive thing, without which India would not have quickly risen to the heights it has obtained today, in fact, it may have easily fallen victim to the Japanese empire of WWII. This contrasts with the mainstream view of the freedom movement promoted by Gandhi which eventually ended a repressive, exploitive British rule.

Before reading this book, I had scant knowledge of the history of the British Empire, besides the typical stories of American colonial resistance to British rule, and the dysfunctional relationship of ruler and ruled in Burma detailed by George Orwell in his essay "Shooting an Elephant". I came away from this book with a much more thorough understanding. At its height, it governed about 25% of the world's population and covered about 25% of the world's habitable land. All this was accomplished with a relatively small number of administrators and soldiers. Indeed, the colonial areas supplied large percentages of the Empire's soldiers for small regional conflicts and large wars with other European powers. Niall argues that this was accomplished by the relatively benign rule of the English and an increasingly loosened authoritarian grip, ending in a Commonwealth of states that survives in small form today. Whereas other modern empires, such as Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Reich and Tojo's Japan were ruled by a heavy hand and often brutal tactics, the British were more "hands off", their empire having more of a commercial orientation with occasional digressions into missionary movements and cultural assimilation.

Perhaps the most poignant point of the book was Ferguson's reasoning for the end of the British Empire - after being sapped of money and resources from the first world war, Britain was faced with a stark choice when Hitler began his campaign across Europe - agree to a peace deal with Hitler or lose the empire in a draining fight to the finish. By agreeing to keep out of Hitler's conquest of the European continent, Britain most likely could have kept her vast empire, ironically at it's largest size right when Britain was least capable of protecting it. Ferguson argues that Churchill led England on the more noble path of imperial self-sacrifice for the good of the rest of the world.
Not only did Great Britain pay perhaps the highest price for the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, she also failed to benefit substantially from the Marshall Plan and IMF/World Bank loans following the war to the extent that those same Axis powers were able to use to their benefit. Another surprise for me was Niall's argument that Britain continued to lose imperial possessions after the war due to the sometimes predatory policies of the US. While the 20th century relationship between the US and Great Britain is often portrayed as one of friendship, Ferguson paints a picture of a US more interested in containing communist expansion at the expense of the British Empire during the Cold War. Through a series of humbling military blunders (such as the Suez military campaign in 1956) and numerous Independence movements among the colonies, British colonial administrators often found themselves presiding over poignant transfer-of-power ceremonies, the British empire steadily disintegrating after the 1940s to today's Commonwealth of a few scattered islands around the world.

Why should we feel sorry for the demise of an empire? Traditionally, empires are seen as evil accumulations of power, enslaving masses of subjects for the benefit of a ruthless ruling people. Niall argues that while this has happened in the long history of civilization, empires are not all evil, and in fact the British empire was in the end a positive presence in the world. Ferguson says that without it, the spread of democracy, capitalism, even the predominance of the English language as the world's business lingua franca would not have happened, or to a much smaller degree.

Throughout the book, comparisons were made between the past British empire with the current "empire" of the United States. This is indeed an intriguing comparison, and in fact is the subject of another of his books- "Colossus - The Rise and Fall of the American Empire".

For those whose interests point in this direction, I can recommend this book as a thoughtful, if at times controversial story of a deceased Empire that left an indelible stamp on the modern world.

Niall Ferguson, author of other non-fiction hits as "Pity of War", "The Cash Nexus" and 2006's "War of the World" offers a modern analysis of one of the most influential empires in history. An Englishman, Ferguson tackles the history of the British Empire in this layman's volume of 370 pages, rich with illustrations, maps, and photos stretching from empire's reluctant beginnings in the 17th century to the final collapse following WWII. The hardback edition of the book which I read had a textbook quality to it physically, more of a squared geometry, with glossy paper and text layout resemling a history textbook. However, the writing style was definitely not of a textbook. Niall has two great qualities for a history writer that endears him to this layperson - the ability to write history in a witty, conversational fashion, and a penchant for promoting alternative conclusions for historical events, often diametrically opposed to the standard ideas. For example, he rates the British leadership over India as an overall positive thing, without which India would not have quickly risen to the heights it has obtained today, in fact, it may have easily fallen victim to the Japanese empire of WWII. This contrasts with the mainstream view of the freedom movement promoted by Gandhi which eventually ended a repressive, exploitive British rule.

Before reading this book, I had scant knowledge of the history of the British Empire, besides the typical stories of American colonial resistance to British rule, and the dysfunctional relationship of ruler and ruled in Burma detailed by George Orwell in his essay "Shooting an Elephant". I came away from this book with a much more thorough understanding. At its height, it governed about 25% of the world's population and covered about 25% of the world's habitable land. All this was accomplished with a relatively small number of administrators and soldiers. Indeed, the colonial areas supplied large percentages of the Empire's soldiers for small regional conflicts and large wars with other European powers. Niall argues that this was accomplished by the relatively benign rule of the English and an increasingly loosened authoritarian grip, ending in a Commonwealth of states that survives in small form today. Whereas other modern empires, such as Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Reich and Tojo's Japan were ruled by a heavy hand and often brutal tactics, the British were more "hands off", their empire having more of a commercial orientation with occasional digressions into missionary movements and cultural assimilation.

Perhaps the most poignant point of the book was Ferguson's reasoning for the end of the British Empire - after being sapped of money and resources from the first world war, Britain was faced with a stark choice when Hitler began his campaign across Europe - agree to a peace deal with Hitler or lose the empire in a draining fight to the finish. By agreeing to keep out of Hitler's conquest of the European continent, Britain most likely could have kept her vast empire, ironically at it's largest size right when Britain was least capable of protecting it. Ferguson argues that Churchill led England on the more noble path of imperial self-sacrifice for the good of the rest of the world.
Not only did Great Britain pay perhaps the highest price for the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, she also failed to benefit substantially from the Marshall Plan and IMF/World Bank loans following the war to the extent that those same Axis powers were able to use to their benefit. Another surprise for me was Niall's argument that Britain continued to lose imperial possessions after the war due to the sometimes predatory policies of the US. While the 20th century relationship between the US and Great Britain is often portrayed as one of friendship, Ferguson paints a picture of a US more interested in containing communist expansion at the expense of the British Empire during the Cold War. Through a series of humbling military blunders (such as the Suez military campaign in 1956) and numerous Independence movements among the colonies, British colonial administrators often found themselves presiding over poignant transfer-of-power ceremonies, the British empire steadily disintegrating after the 1940s to today's Commonwealth of a few scattered islands around the world.

Why should we feel sorry for the demise of an empire? Traditionally, empires are seen as evil accumulations of power, enslaving masses of subjects for the benefit of a ruthless ruling people. Niall argues that while this has happened in the long history of civilization, empires are not all evil, and in fact the British empire was in the end a positive presence in the world. Ferguson says that without it, the spread of democracy, capitalism, even the predominance of the English language as the world's business lingua franca would not have happened, or to a much smaller degree.

Throughout the book, comparisons were made between the past British empire with the current "empire" of the United States. This is indeed an intriguing comparison, and in fact is the subject of another of his books- "Colossus - The Rise and Fall of the American Empire".

For those whose interests point in this direction, I can recommend this book as a thoughtful, if at times controversial story of a deceased Empire that left an indelible stamp on the modern world.

Based on Ferguson's analysis, the growth of British Empire was in many ways serendipity. Starting by building a large private navy, based on privateers (read Pirates) and then expanding it into the British Navy, England originally got into the "Empire Business" as an offshoot of it's plundering of the Spanish and Portuguese New World Empires. Once they got good at attacking the Spanish 'Treasure Fleets' it was just one stop further to taking over some of the territory for 'security' reasons (sound familiar).

They became so good at it that at one point the British Empire ruled over 25% of the total land surface of the earth and the sun never set on the British Empire. At the same time, no other country contained a Navy that could compete with their's or their merchant fleet. For the British the Empire was a money making proposition up until the 20th century. Each of the colonies paid it's own way from trade or investment. It was only after almost bankrupting themselves during the two world wars, that the Empire became a millstone around their neck.

In Ferguson's conclusion, he discusses (rather jingoistically) how in the final analysis, the British brought more to the people of the 'colonies' than they even took from them; even taking into account the death and destruction that was wrought in the name of 'civilization'.

Ferguson seems to have missed three interesting and important points: 1) the British created and then ended the slave trade (though much after it stopped being economically viable), 2) they created the first major drug cartel (forcing China to open itself up to the importation of Opium from India) and, 3) that by bailing out of Africa in the 1960s, they left most of those colonies unready for independence or democracy.

As to the slave trade, many a British (and American) fortune can trace themselves back to a relative who made their money as part of either the trade in slaves or the use of them on the West Indian sugar plantations. Only at the beginning of the nineteenth century did they decide that it was an "unChristian" institution. Planters were fast to learn that it was cheaper to hire slaves as 'seasonal' workers than to take care of them from cradle to grave; because those on these islands had no choice except to go back to Africa.

The Opium War was fought in the middle Eighteenth Century to force China to allow the continued importation of Opium (through Hong Kong) into their country. It was the beginning of the long spiral of Chinese subjugation and the blueprint for how to make money by exporting large amounts of drugs into another country. Today's narco-traffickers learned their lessons well.

Lastly, one of the major problems with the African continent (and this includes the French and Portuguese) was that the colonies that were created were done so on an ad-hoc basis. Except for in a few instances (such as Egypt and Ethiopia), nations and tribes that had been adversaries for generations were lumped together in Colonies. No where did any of the colonial powers prepare for democracy, most were run by the British Colonial Office (with mostly white managers) who left little government structure behind them when they pulled out. In many cases they had raised a small tribe to prominence (because they were Christians, think the Ibo's in Nigeria) which were left with the stigma of collaborators after the British left.

For some reason, the United Nations bought the idea that none of the colonies in Africa should be allowed to break up and seek their own level of comfort in size and composition. It's as if the example of nationalism for the last hundred years in Europe never happened. Almost every country in Europe (except Belgium) is now ethnically homogenized. No one complained when Czechoslavakia had their velvet divorce; and the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia differs little from what happened in Poland and East Prussia after WW2.

It's a good read and my only real complaint is about the structure of the book. It's printed like a textbook so that the pages have lots of room for footnotes on the inside columns, but the size of the type is quite small and gets smaller when in quotation so that it can be very tiring to read for long periods. Oh well.

Good writer. It would be obvious to the reader that the author has a more positive view on British Colonism than most people who grew up in a British colony. That said, being one who came from a British colony myself, I personally think that the writer is not completely biased and I agree with some of his views. I am curious how many people in Britian shares the authors view. In the least, this will be a feel-good book for British to read. For those full of resentment on past colonial history, reading this at least will present a different point of view to you.

As a professional historian who specializes in European imperialism, I can easily explain why the book was panned by professionals, but popular with amateurs.

Ferguson is, quite simply, a great writer. His anecdotes are apt, his comments witty, and his stories are either dashing or tragic. Great stuff.

But the book is so flawed historically as to be basically useless.

I taught with it once. My students loved it for the first few chapters... but after I pointed out to them the many factual errors and especially, the MAJOR errors of omission that riddle every single chapter.... and then showed how Ferguson's re-enchantment of "empire" not only saturates but slants every single argument in the book...hey quickly lost interest in it. (And understandably so: if you can't trust the author, why waste your time reading the book, no matter how entertaining?)

For an example, read closely his section "Black and White" in the chapter "White Plague". At first glance, it seems to say that British slavery was indeed quite awful, gosh darnit bad, etc. etc. etc. But pore over it more closely, and you'll recognize that he is, in fact, working quite hard to equate the slavery (of Africans) to indentured servitude (of Europeans), both practically and (by extension) morally. (!)
This is, quite simply, wrong and wrong-headed. I can't go into all the reasons here, but trust me: if you are ever reincarnated in the 18th century, and you have the choice of coming back as a black slave or as a white indentured servant, do yourself a big favor: choose indentured servitude.

It is an "apology" of Empire in every sense of the word.

And as a historian, I find it just a bit unethical.

The best thing that can happen to a professional historian now is that he become a television "personality". This is true, of course, for all professions. I mean it is the best thing that can happen financially, I'm not sure it is the best thing for the art of the history. I don't know. The good thing is that authors are compelled to at least try to make the narratives interesting, witty and anecdotal, which Ferguson certainly did in this book. But I think the great television shallowness limits the depth of reflectiveness, and the author is inclined or required to leave out whatever might call for serious thought.

What empires indicate about mankind is not very flattering. Many phenomena in nature show the same thing from viruses to trees to corporations: one is usually made greater at the expense of someone else. The angels and the civilized are on the side of greater reciprocity, equivalent exchanges and the forces of evil and uncivilized favor pure robbery, or as much robbery as you can manage. One nation dominates another through force, superior weaponry and not superiority of character and certainly not greater good heartedness.
Ferguson makes these points in many interesting ways. He also demonstrates the racial bifurcation in British behavior towards its subjects and enemies (potential subjects). They were reluctant Imperialists in the case of the Americans: their fellow white, Protestant, English speakers, not so reluctant with the Catholic Irish - who starved to death while England watched, and not at all reluctant in regard to Asians and Africans, who were generally regarded as separate species.

Again, it's a very entertaining book and I recommend it, but I don't think he really makes his point about the good that the British Empire brought to the world. The British pretensions about the rule of law, their famous freedoms, didn't originate with them anyway. We should thank Plato, Jesus and all their disciples for ideas and principles that, in any case, the British only adhered to when it was convenient or not too painful. I don't think we owe the existence of Shakespeare to the Empire, or even Doctor Johnson. Maybe Kipling. Anyway, these great men and other great English speakers survived because the British Empire wasn't as bad as it might have been and as bad as others have been. And this is his last point, which is certainly valid, but not cause for great celebration: the Belgians in the Congo, the Japs, the Nazis and Stalin were much worse. Shakespeare, Johnson and Shelley would have been snuffed out in any of those empires.

I started this book thinking it would be an apology for the British Empire, but it really isn't. I think you should read the book and judge for yourself. It is, quite simply, an engaging, interesting, and thought-provoking read.

There are, however, some serious factual errors. The British empire allowed famines in India that killed millions of people even while food was exported from that country. Preferential tariffs seriously impaired the textile industry in India so that British textile imports to the subcontinent could flourish.

And Ferguson's assertion that Britain willingly sacrificed its empire to preserve democracy at home is pure fantasy. The UK's anti-insurgency campaigns in Kenya and Malaya in the postwar period do not fit the model of noble sacrifice of empire, so he simply ignores these wars.

Ferguson writes well and vividly, but his love of British imperialism impels him to some strange positions. For a thorough critique of this book, see Chalmers Johnson, Nemesis, chapt two.

There are, however, some serious factual errors. The British empire allowed famines in India that killed millions of people even while food was exported from that country. Preferential tariffs seriously impaired the textile industry in India so that British textile imports to the subcontinent could flourish.

And Ferguson's assertion that Britain willingly sacrificed its empire to preserve democracy at home is pure fantasy. The UK's anti-insurgency campaigns in Kenya and Malaya in the postwar period do not fit the model of noble sacrifice of empire, so he simply ignores these wars.

Ferguson writes well and vividly, but his love of British imperialism impels him to some strange positions. For a thorough critique of this book, see Chalmers Johnson, Nemesis, chapt two.

I listened to a number of Ferguson's lectures prior to my purchase. I do suggest the audio version than the book, unless you're willing to spend a large amount of time reexamining your chapters, including the wonderful pictorial aspects of this book. Niall appreciates the arts, thank you!!! Lots for everyone.

For me this was a challenge, I don't have a good grasp of English history or politics, but that is why my attention was fixated on Empire. The first half covers allot of "Pirate" stories, but as the book progresses through time India becomes an important subject, including colonization. The issues of cruelty are immense and quit critical of the the English Empire. It is that critical nature of this book that makes it a important read.

Excellent!

Excellent!

I've never encountered such a popular book that is so factually wrong. Ferguson hardly ever cites his facts, and he continually glosses over important subject matter. It is a highly problematic text. Those looking for a history of Empire should turn to another, more reputable book. This is just pop-history at its worst.

This is a wonderful easy to read history book about England that is great to supplement your knowledge of English history when you are reading other books about England and its former empire. Right now I'm reading about one man's walk across Afganistan and I'm glad I read Empire. All the big brains roll their eyes over this book but Ferguson has written thick historical tomes as well such as a 2 volume edition of the history of the Rothchilds full of footnotes and no pictures. According to him, England lost its empire after world wars one and two because it got too far into debt. Ha. America doesn't care about debt. George W. got us a national debt of $8,612,032,827,533.53 as of today and all the people in Texas still love him to bits. The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $2.31 billion per day since September 29, 2006!

A very scholarly but readable and witty tome about the British Empire, concentrating on economic and technological factors in the course of its development. Full of surprising insights and interesting facts.

Empire : "The Rise and Demise of the British World
Order, and the Lessons for Global Power"

By Niall Ferguson

At its peak, the British Empire controlled a quarter of the world's population;
ran the alphabet from A to Z (Abyssinia to Zambia); crossed the Equator and the international date line; produced coal, oil, tea, coffee, sugar and spices; served as the dumping ground for England's criminal class (Australia); and helped cure diseases like malaria and scurvy while indenturing millions of people.

In "Empire", Neill Ferguson marshals these and many other instances of British arrogance, ingenuity and initiative in a compelling and timely account of how the British ruled, and lost, their world.

An example: in 1866, Theodore, Emperor of Abyssinia, captured some British citizens. In response, Britain called on Lieutenant General Robert Napier to rescue them.
Theodore's decision was unwise: "Abyssina was about to feel the full military might of British India".

"Within a few months, the invasion force set sail from Bombay to the Red Sea Coast," he writes, "On Board the flotilla were 13,000 British and Indian Soldiers, 26,00o camp followers and huge mass of livestock; 13,000 mules and ponies, an equal number of sheep, 7,000 bullocks and 1,000 donkeys, not to mention 44 elephants."

After a swift victory in which Napier's forces killed 700 of the Emperor's men and wounded 1,200 more (and without losing one British soldier) Napier returned to England to a hero's welcome. "It was a huge logistical feat, perfectly combining Indian muscle with British technology."

Ferguson is at his best describing the British Civil Service, which, although it numbered less than 1,000 men, managed to control over 250 million Indians. The Anglo-Indians, as they called themselves, used two advantages: technology and firepower. "The rock on which British rule was founded was the Indian Army, `Ferguson writes. And the Indian Army was mostly Indian, not British. In the "Sepoy Rebellion," the Sepoys refused to fight, objecting to the use of cow or pig hides in British rifle cartridges.
England, having introduced the railroad, telegraph, and steamship to India...now found itself dealing with a better educated and more homogeneous population.
Ironically, now that the United States has "discovered" the advantages of out-sourcing technology, you're likely to be talking to a technical representative in Bombay or New Delhi when you call a customer service number.

The parallels between British Imperialism and American capitalism are inevitable but not necessarily identical: while England was a net exporter of goods and services, the United States has growing trade deficit. And the US spends far more on the military than Britain ever did to impose its democracy on countries which view its motives with understandable suspicion.

Ferguson's scholarship and research are impressive: the Index and Bibliography themselves are a joy to read. And the art and illustrations are great.. including period cartoons and photos of Winston Churchill as a war correspondent and Hiram Maxim, the inventor of the Maxim Gun, looking as if he were skeet shooting, not inflicting mayhem on the natives.
Conclusion: 4and a half stars.

Empire Review



Empire: "The Rise and Demise of the British World
Order, and the Lessons for Global Power"

By Niall Ferguson

At its peak, the British Empire controlled a quarter of the world's population;
ran the alphabet from A to Z (Abyssinia to Zambia); crossed the Equator and the international date line; produced coal, oil, tea, coffee, sugar and spices; served as the dumping ground for England's criminal class (Australia); and helped cure diseases like malaria and scurvy while indenturing millions of people.

In "Empire", Neill Ferguson marshals these and many other instances of British arrogance, ingenuity and initiative in a compelling and timely account of how the British ruled, and lost, their world.

An example: in 1866, Theodore, Emperor of Abyssinia, captured some British citizens. In response, Britain called on Lieutenant General Robert Napier to rescue them.
Theodore's decision was unwise: "Abyssina was about to feel the full military might of British India".

"Within a few months, the invasion force set sail from Bombay to the Red Sea Coast," he writes, "On Board the flotilla were 13,000 British and Indian Soldiers, 26,00o camp followers and huge mass of livestock; 13,000 mules and ponies, an equal number of sheep, 7,000 bullocks and 1,000 donkeys, not to mention 44 elephants."

After a swift victory in which Napier's forces killed 700 of the Emperor's men and wounded 1,200 more (and without losing one British soldier) Napier returned to England to a hero's welcome. "It was a huge logistical feat, perfectly combining Indian muscle with British technology."

Ferguson is at his best describing the British Civil Service, which, although it numbered less than 1,000 men, managed to control over 250 million Indians. The Anglo-Indians, as they called themselves, used two advantages: technology and firepower. "The rock on which British rule was founded was the Indian Army, `Ferguson writes. And the Indian Army was mostly Indian, not British. In the "Sepoy Rebellion," the Sepoys refused to fight, objecting to the use of cow or pig hides in British rifle cartridges.
England, having introduced the railroad, telegraph, and steamship to India...now found itself dealing with a better educated and more homogeneous population.
Ironically, now that the United States has "discovered" the advantages of out-sourcing technology, you're likely to be talking to a technical representative in Bombay or New Delhi when you call a customer service number.




The parallels between British Imperialism and American capitalism are inevitable but not necessarily identical: while England was a net exporter of goods and services, the United States has growing trade deficit. And the US spends far more on the military than Britain ever did to impose its democracy on countries which view its motives with understandable suspicion.

Ferguson's scholarship and research are impressive: the Index and Bibliography themselves are a joy to read. And the art and illustrations are great.. including period cartoons and photos of Winston Churchill as a war correspondent and Hiram Maxim, the inventor of the Maxim Gun, looking as if he were skeet shooting, not inflicting mayhem on the natives.
Conclusion: 4and a half stars.



Submitted by Philip Henry
1441 South Riverside Ave., #20
Rialto, CA 90237
E-Mail; Philz45@Yahoo.com

I am not accustomed to reading books on history. This book is ideal for someone like me. At only 380 pages, this book does not intimidate, yet draws the reader in, and gives him an overview and basic understanding of how the British Empire came about (mostly by accident) and how it came to an end (WW1 and WW2). In between it offers interesting chapters on America, Africa and India. In particular the section on the Indian Raj has inspired me to pursue other books on this topic.
A great read and a concise treatment on what is a massive subject matter. 5 stars.

This is a kind of casual time wasting stroll with a chipper professor of no great consequence, with his good decorum, correct opinions (eugenics is "snake-oil science", Kitchener was a butcher etc.) and dreadful witticims (on fishing being more important than religion in early Mass. "it was cod not God"). Fergie has some interesting stuff on the beginnings of Empire (stealing gold from the Spanish) and how the heck Britain acquired India in the early days (by way of the East India Company, kind of an old day Halliburton with a private army). However past about 1880 it all becomes rather slipshod, complete with the oft regurgitated Churchill's personal observations on the Boer War and Sudan (if you have read "The Last Lion" by William Manchester you'll recognise the quotations) and stuff that seems clearly lifted from "A Peace to End all Peace" (albeit this is speculation as footnotes and citations of quoted materials are clearly not for philosopher kings like Mr Ferguson).

Also before you drink the Kool Aid of Fergie's lofty ideals of an American Reich around the globe, take a reality pill from Pat Buchanan - 'A Republic, Not an Empire' or "Where the Right Went Wrong" are both excellent rebuttals of mushy globalism.

...yet not over the heads of the average reader!

First-rate historian and author Niall Ferguson offers a politically incorrect interpretation of the four-century history of the British Empire. Sure, he acknowledges that the imperialists stole, murdered and enslaved on their way to world domination. Yet, Ferguson argues, the Brits spread several traditions, including liberty, democracy and free trade, which improved the state of the world. To Ferguson's credit, he makes no attempt to gloss over the Empire's atrocities. In fact, with stellar prose, he takes the risk of undermining his central theme by describing the Empire's bad behavior in great detail. His conclusions are as complex as history itself, which might prove frustrating to readers seeking simple answers. We strongly recommend this memoir to readers who love history, and particularly to those seeking a historical perspective on the pitfalls of imperialism.

As a college student, I found Fergusons book to be very informative.


The book is filled with many interesting facts about popular historical figures while easily outlining British and world relations from the conception of the British Empire through the the beginings of the shift in world power.

The author did not seem, by my perspective, to offer an apology for the workings of the British Empire, rather, Ferguson offers an explination of empirical inevitability; expressing personal gratitude for the shaping of his personal family heritage.

The author implies that, should the British power-scape have remained unchanged, ideas of human equality would not have played an integral role of British social and political development. The current British desire for a world power-balance is a result of the Empire's demise. He argues that British colonial self-rule is the sigular result of power decline, rather that the result of national consciounsness. With equal resources, claimes Ferguson, Great Britain would follow a global agenda very similar to that of the United States government.

This book seems to praise the British Empire, while bringing to light a few of the darker moments in political history.

Amazing Book. Its a must for anybody who has interest in Foreign Policy. Britian is the reason behind most of the worlds changes today and this book tells us how, when, where and why.

This book is well written, its premises well defended, and its attempted neutrality reasonably well balanced. The unpleasant surprise is the conclusion. After considering everything, this book actually defends the British Empire. Surely you must be joking, Professor Ferguson. The audacity of the conclusion is what makes this an important book. It warns us that if even erudite historians like Prof Ferguson can defend the Empire, we have a long way to go before we learn from History.
I was born in independent India. I recognize that the final balance sheet of the British Rule is mixed, and that the distribution of positives and negatives may be debatable. I accept that several British institutions have had a beneficial impact in India. I also realize that what happened, has happened. It is futile to find demons and heroes in our past. We need to accept that past and move ahead.
And yet, here is Prof Ferguson raising the demons. Here he is arguing that, after all, the Empire was 'not all bad'. My key disagreement is a very subtle defence of 'white man's burden'. What gave Robert Clive, followed by the Queen to assume the role of saviors. Their greed may have had some unintended beneficial side effects, but those still do not give them a right to impose their will by deceipt and force.
What is truly dangerous about Prof Ferguson's views is that he defends the right to overcome self determination and independence. I wonder how his philosophy is any different from those intolerant extremists who find the British way of life abhorable and use violent means to change it. I wonder how Prof Ferguson would have felt if the Third Reich had conquered Britain and made the trains run on time. Would that have compensated for a significant drain of British national wealth, and an occasional shooting spree by the likes of Gen Dyers. Mr Churchill, the great defender of the British Empire, would not reacted as positively to the benefits of German Empire, if the subjects were British. So is it all about 'my Empire' vs 'your Empire'? Surely you must be joking, Prof Ferguson. And it is a cruel joke. I hope and pray that you do not cause a revival of the lust for Empire building. History will then repeat itself, first as a tragedy, and then as a farce.

A good friend of mine recently sent me his copy of this book and suggested that I should read it. While I am not finished with it yet I have found it to be a very enthralling read, a crackling narrative that does not overwhelm the reader.

While I still quite haven't figured out where Ferguson actually stands, whether he is a closet Tory or an apologist for Blair and "New Labour", what is clear is that he does not have the guilt trip about colonialism or the British Empire most current British historians such as the Communist Hobswam and others suffer from.

"Because of Empire...." Ferguson cites how his family learned to appreciate other cultures; or how some moved away from Scotland and found a better life in Canada. "Because of Empire...." the English language, the Rule of Law, Seafaring Trade, benefitted the world, and gave rise to the world's great democracies - America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Famous names are liberally sprinkled throughout this work. The Self-Destructive Clive, the Good and Giving Livingston, the unscrupulous Stanley, whom Ferguson brusquely describes as being an American (he was, for part of his life, but British at the beginning and end of it) Disraeli, Gordon of Khartoum, Kipling, Rhodes, Smuts, Kitchener, Lawrence and Churchill.

He also brings up those not so well known. Fanning, the North Carolina woodsman and diehard Loyalist; Macquarie, the governor of Australia who ruled over his convict colony with compassion and giving the wretched a chance to build new lives; Bogle - the original "bogeyman" whose revolt against British rule in Jamaica led to several reprisals. Indeed, Ferguson doesn't spare the excesses - he writes frankly of the British role in the Slave Trade (for example, the Reverend who composed "Amazing Grace" was a notorious slaver - EVEN after he wrote that song), of Indians being strapped to cannon and blown to bits in the Mutiny of 1857 (this however, after the Indians savagely slaughtered innocent British women and children after the garrison of Cawnpore surrendered); of the slaughter of the Tasmanian Aboriginal population (here Ferguson does try to make an apology that really doesn't hold water,i.e., that British administrators did try to uphold the rights of the Aborigines while American ones treated our Native Americans with deliberate callousness and cruelty); and of the forced deportations, slaughters and oppression of those who resisted British rule in Africa and Asia. Ferguson acknowledges the excesses, but also forcibly points out the benefits and the progress made in these subjugated countries thanks to British rule.*

Ferguson also interestingly refers to the American Revolution as being our first Civil War, and considering the thousands who flocked to Loyalist regiments in New York and the Carolinas, or people like the aforementioned Fanning, or Benjamin Franklin's own son William, the Loyalist governor of New Jersey, and finally the thousands who fled to Canada following Yorktown and preserved the survival of British Canada, he does have a strong point here.

Ferguson also points out that by the 1930s, even with the threat of Hitler, the British had become largely apathetic about their Empire - on one hand beginning to see colonial rule as a liability, but waxing nostalgic - see the "English Pudding Menu" designed by the King's chef and including exotic fruits and spices from India, Jamaica, Ceylon and elsewhere (without those ingredients this would be a tasteless pudding of doemstic old bread crumbs and old beer) - they were downright hesitant to give up the Empire even as internal and external pressures increased.

Another reviewers claims that Ferguson believed that the British sacrificed their Empire during World War II for the common good. I'm not so sure about this, but what is known is that the British forces sent to garrison Singapore were equipped with outdated aircraft (Brewster Buffalos, ancient Vildebeeste torpedo bombers, and a scant number of Hurricanes against the Japanese Zeros and Mitsubishi bombers), no tanks, not enough artillery, and outside of the Australian forces and the late arrival of the 18th division - which arrived only in time to end up "in the bag", second- and third rate troops. Also - a scant naval force of one Battleship, one Battle Cruiser (both quickly sunk)and a half-dozen destroyers to face the might of Imperial Japan. So, again, Ferguson may have another point here.

*For those who wish to push the guilt trip - the apologies for Colonialism, I would ask them to carefully read about what is happening in Zimbawbe, the Sudan, and South Africa since the British left. Or about the resurgence of infantcide and the ritual murder of women in India and Pakistan. Then try to elaborately discuss why the British Empire was so evil; while unscrupulous, murderous native rule is not.

Better yet, take another look at "Empire".

As a product of standard American-taught history, many of the ideas in this book were new to me. "Imperial" is so often used synonimously with "evil" that a justification of an empire is at least worth a look. Was India better of having been a colony? Perhaps. Read Marks' 'Origins of the Modern World' for an opposing view. This, I believe, is the real lesson of 'Empire:' take everything with a grain of salt, reach your own conclusions, and you can never learn too much about a given topic. Keep reading.

These days, empires are seen as A Bad Thing - "imperialism" was one of the insults thrown at the West by the former Soviet Union (ironically itself an empire, although it chose not to recognise the fact). However, as Niall Ferguson points out in this marvellous book, imperialism is not dead - witness the current behaviour of the USA (the book is recent enough to take in September 11 and its immediate aftermath).
The basic thesis of Professor Ferguson, always somewhat of an iconoclast, is that not only was the British Empire in general A Good Thing, but also that it was responsible for forming the world as we currently know it. Ferguson does this in just over 300 pages of dazzling, witty, erudite writing, a historical tour de force that is irresistibly readable. Is he correct? The layperson without the necessary scholarship naturally cannot say, but Prof. Ferguson is persuasive, all the more because he refuses to gloss over the warts, which are honestly presented - the beginning in outright piracy and theft, the slavery, the racism, the exploitation, the refusal to recognise that the introduction of British principles led inevitably to independence and the erosion of the Empire.

In the end, it was undone by doing The Right Thing - it fought two much more iniquitous empires, which left it financially ruined and unable to sustain any sort of imperial pretensions any longer. So the greatest empire the world has ever seen retreated back to some soggy islands moored off the coast of Europe, leaving the world a better place for its having existed.

It did, did it? On the whole, I was convinced it did. In such a short book on such a complex topic, it is inevitable that much is oversimplified. There is also much that represents Prof. Ferguson's own thinking, but he does not disguise such things and lets the reader decide. No matter on which side of the argument you come down, this book is a must-read for the sheer pleasure of its writing. If all historians wrote like this, perhaps we would remember it, and history wouldn't have to repeat itself because we didn't listen the first time.

"Empire: The Rise And Demise Of The British World Order And The Lessons For Global Power" is the companion volume to a British television documentary series, but works equally well as a well-written, thoughtful account of the rise and fall of the British Empire, as seen through the eyes of one of Great Britain's most erudite historians, economic historian Niall Ferguson, now a professor of history at Harvard University. Without question it is a dazzling account about how an empire whose origins lie in piracy nonetheless became the instrument of what Ferguson refers to as "Anglobalization", a radical reshaping of the world's economy according to British economic philosophy that survives virtually intact today. In short, what Ferguson argues and attempts to demonstrate in this book is indeed radical, that the British Empire's legacy is today's world order. Ferguson states forcefully that the British Empire was responsible for introducing, and then enforcing, the notion of global free trade via its dual role as the world's banker for much of the late 18th through early 20th centuries and world's policeman through its military forces, primarily the Royal Navy.

Ferguson's main argument rests on several concepts: the spread of the rule of law, liberal capitalism, responsible - if not always - democratic government and the communications revolution which started when the British began "shrinking" their vast empire via rail and telegraph. All of these features which are typical of much of today's world owe their origins to the British Empire. He also stresses the empire's keen interest in humanitarianism - though often with unexpected violent results as was the case in the 1857-1858 Indian Mutiny and Boer War - and concern for human rights which continue to this present day. Not surprisingly, Ferguson makes the politically incorrect argument, well supported by data, showing how capital investment to the developing world was substantially higher at the empire's apex at the turn of the last century, than it is today. For Ferguson this raises the interesting issue whether colonialism was indeed beneficial, and noting how benign Britain's version was, in stark contrast to the harsh forms of colonialism practiced by the Belgians and French in Africa in the 19th Century, followed by Imperial Germany in Africa in the early 20th Century, and then culminating in the evil versions practiced by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in the 1930's and 1940's. Last, but not least, some readers may be dismayed by Ferguson's contention that the United States of America is an empire in denial, acting as the true heir of British imperial power today (A theme he elaborates further with ample facts at his disposal in his 2004 book "Colossus: The Price of America's Empire".).

I don't agree with all of Ferguson's favorable interpretation of the British Empire's history. He tends to dismiss most of the revolutionary aspects of the American Revolution so eloquently described elsewhere by distinguished historian Gordon Wood and others, and minimizes the importance of the American Expeditionary Force in adding manpower and resources to the Western Front in the final months of World War I, hastening the war's end. He also portrays too adversarial a relationship between the United States and Great Britain during World War Two, as though both were reluctant odd bedfellows forced by circumstance to fight together against Germany and Japan. But these are relatively minor complaints I have about this well-written, often profound, popular account of the British Empire's rise and fall.

The story of the British Empire is a sprawling story and a vast undertaking. However, Niall Ferguson proves up to the challenge in this witty and objective account. Why Britain? Because they were the best pirates and stole much of what they gained from the Spanish, Dutch, French, and then plundered India, the Caribbean, North America, and Africa. Ferguson's writing is so fresh and enlightening. In his conclusion, he mentions how the U.S. has become the heirs of the British Empire, although reluctant to take up the mantel. We have the resources to continue a `New Imperialism,' but lack the export of capital and people to really colonize and carry the cause of liberty to others.