A History Of Britain: The Wars Of The British 1603-1776 (2001) - Plot & Excerpts
Volume II of Simon Schama’s History of Britain purports itself as, “The Wars of the British, 1603-1776” (Volume I presumably compasses the preceding 56 hundred-odd years), but it is in truth, and of necessity, something more than that. While the martial conflicts of that age were certainly of central importance, it is in the smaller human dramas, those that caused the wars and those that resulted from them, that the most important lessons are to be found. This is especially true in this country at this time, as Britain’s struggles both internal and external were the birth pangs of an entity which, more so than any other, would scribe the shape of the world as we know it today: the so-called “empire of liberty”. In broad terms, the scope of the history presented here should be familiar to anyone with even a cursory education: the Civil War resulting in the execution of Charles I and the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, the Restoration of the Stuart line following Cromwell’s death, the momentous but relatively short-lived instillation of William of Orange during the Glorious Revolution, the institution of the Hanoverian line that continues to this day, and Britain’s imperial adventures in India and North America. What might be less familiar, and what Schama seeks to show, is how each of these events led into the next; the small contemporary issues of policy which became rallying points for various factions until battle lines were drawn, the Rubicon crossed, and the course of history rewritten. The English Civil War, for instance, stemmed from disagreements over the rights and limitations of the monarchy as opposed to Parliament, and it was issues such as ship money, wherein Charles attempted to circumvent parliamentary approval to raise revenue, which brought the conflict to a head. Ironically, it was a similar disagreement over taxes and liberty which provoked the American colonists to shirk the yoke of their governors and found their own nation (an irony not at all lost on Jefferson, Madison, and their colleagues). Most interestingly to me was the debate which sprang up, or rather revived itself, prior to and during the civil war about the nature and authority of government. For ages monarchs had availed themselves to the Divine Right of kings, the notion that the right to rule was granted by God himself and handed down by direct lineage (or whatever laws applied in the absence thereof). Though this idea had been challenged before, the increasingly secular philosophies of the Enlightenment made it possible to do so on grounds which were previously unthinkable (not only that they were taboo; the capacity to understand a concept such as innate human liberty simply did not exist among the majority of those who might claim it). For Oliver Cromwell, erstwhile protector of the Church of England against the heresies of the Catholic church, some justification had to be found for deposing (murdering, even) the man who had been previously hailed as God’s appointed representative. Ample rhetoric for this purpose was to be found in the pen of Milton, among others, but truly revolutionary ideas were also forthcoming from authors such as Hobbes and Locke. Their writings were to serve as the foundations for a new way of comprehending the relationship between government and governed not just in Britain and her daughter America, but in the entirety of Western civilization and, increasingly, the rest of the world. As a stout defender of the unequivocal sovereignty of God and an equally stalwart champion of individual liberty, the finer points of this debate are of utmost interest to me, and will certainly lead to further reading on the subject (I intend to start Leviathan as soon as my reading schedule allows). Schama approaches the expanse of history set before him simply by diving right in. Volume II picks up, presumably, right where Volume I left of, with the death of Queen Elizabeth and the ascension of James I and VI. He then runs the narrative in one continuous thread straight through to the end. There are no real divisions in each of the long chapters, and not entirely even between them, making the reading a bit disorienting until one gets the hang of the style. Because Schama moves his account organically along with the events in question, it can often seem as though a theme or thought is abandoned before it is fully developed, while a new thought is examined before returning to the original. This style also affects the nature of Schama’s biographical studies. Leading figures such as Charles I or Cromwell are developed over the period of events in which they figure, giving a more complete but less focused picture, while minor players are somewhat hastily sketched, lest their development derail the thread of the main narrative too long. Presenting the material in this manner certainly requires a good deal of attention on the part of the reader, and favors a compact reading schedule (I found myself flipping back to refresh my memory a few times if I’d let it sit too long), but the task is not one that should be begrudged. The advantage of moving at the speed of the events is just that; the discussion of the current moment naturally gives way to the next one, removing the hazard of getting snagged on any one point. This is not to say that the narrative is simply a dusty recapitulation of long-past occurrences. Schama is certainly not afraid to add his own insights on the subjects at hand, but neither does he come across as a revisionist seeking to satisfy his own personal vendetta. His conclusions are, for the most part, justifiable by the historical evidence he presents, often citing primary sources. For example, after quoting a passage in which Cromwell defends the brutality of his campaign in Ireland by rendering a harsh indictment of the “lawlesse Rebels,” Schama has this to say: “[The passage:] is not the unwitting confession of a genocidal lunatic, but it is the unwitting confession of a pig-headed, narrow-minded, Protestant bigot and English imperialist. And that is quite bad enough.” This sort of lively criticism pervades the book, but, as it is tempered with acknowledgements of the relative merits of hindsight, as well as equally fervent praise when it is due, the entire account stands as an honest assessment of historical fact rather than a didactic lecture. Schama’s writing style, too, is just as lively and engaging; his sentences are often shining examples of those quirks of the English language which make it such a delight for its authors and such hell for its readers – clauses are inserted or tacked on at will, such that a multitude of thoughts might be expressed all in the space of one breath, particularly to include a well-placed note of sarcastic criticism (and frequently contained in that most nefarious of grammatical devices, the parenthetical expression). Though not exhaustive by any means, Schama does an excellent job of covering this turbulent period. Many factors contributed to the dissolution of the English civil war and the American revolution, and Schama seeks to give each its full measure in order to paint a complete picture of the underlying reasons behind these upheavals, measuring them against the context of the day, rather than being content with a simple but unjustifiable or anachronistic explanation. And this is the real triumph of Schama’s presentation: history is made alive through the lives that lived it and the issues they debated, according to their standards and often in their own words. As such the modern reader is challenged to reach beyond his own understanding, and Is rewarded with insights which are applicable to his own experience. As this is ultimately the goal of any proper study of history, no further recommendation of Schama’s admirable work need be given. Anyone interested in this time period, or the foundations of American political philosophy, should make an effort to read this book.
I’m writing this having now read the whole of Schama’s ‘A History of Britain’ trilogy. Having one day watched ‘The King’s Speech’ I realised I knew so little about my own country's history outside of the big date history –1066, 1966 etc.- and decided I had to learn. Being a pedant I jumped straight in with this three-book history of the whole thing by the current mainstream poster boy for the subject. I haven’t read much history and sort of dabbled with the books slowly over the period of a year or so, looking up subjects that caught my interest. If this sounds a bit like your style of history reading, these books are perfect. They are books that will suit those like myself turned off by academic style histories (maybe these are for those that already have the framework that these books offer) but it is also fair to say that if you don’t know anything of the events some wiki-reading on the side may be necessary.Of the three in this overall excellent series, I found this slightly the weakest. Running from the end of the Elizabethan era up to and slightly beyond American Independence it covers mainly events that precipitated the Civil Wars, the growth of a mercantile empire and the forced choice of the ‘wrong empire’ as Britain looked mainly eastward after the loss of the Americas. Schama continues in this very fluid narrative style often illustrating the big events through the eyes of the peripheral characters and common man.Remember that Schama is an art historian so his history is often reflected in the artistic culture of the period. In the earlier book painting, sculpture and architecture have prominence and in the later books the printed word begins to have a greater influence in his style. An example is his introduction to Cromwell’s rise to power where he uses Torricelli’s 1644 vacuum experiment, which yielded the barometer and Hobbs’s Leviathan to introduce the idea that Cromwell was needed to fill the void that the rump parliament had no mandate or confidence in filling. Milton then takes a main part in explaining the events that follow.Always remembering to show how historical events moulded Britain and its place in the modern world of the reader, Schama finds angles of perspective missing form school history, although something in the fluidity of this volume seems slightly less confident than in the other two books, particularly in the complexity of Cromwell’s rise to power that becomes slightly confused with too much peripheral reference. Still an excellent read.
What do You think about A History Of Britain: The Wars Of The British 1603-1776 (2001)?
A dense but good read on a period of english history that I knew little about. The book is just as a illuminating on early American history as well, going into detail on the causes and campaigns of the French and Indian war, as well as the repercussions particularly for the Acadians. If you live in New England, the Maritime provinces and Quebec then this book is especially helpful in gaining an understanding of the demographics and history of the north eastern state in the US, and the most eastern provinces of Canada. I would highly recommend it to any other avid amateur students of English or North American history.
—Adam
Returned to this book around late May/early June. The first two times I attempted to read it (with several years gap in between), I had found the prose style difficult and I lacked an (essential) knowledge of the outline of British history. Now I have stronger mental faculties and improved perceptiveness, lots of recent reading experience and much broader and deeper general knowledge. I find I'm able to appreciate and enjoy (at least on some level) Schama's eloquent arguments and gift for storytelling. I've started with the 'Britannia Incorporated' chapter, to complement the recent BBC series I watched about the Georgians. It makes a change from the ancient history I've tended to get stuck on in the past (albeit enjoyably) — the excitement felt when parallels between historical times and the present jump off the page is even more palpable with later history, and I really feel I'm on the road to understanding today's institutions and the cares, preoccupations and beliefs of people today, with a clarity and detail I thought would always elude me. What I'm most happy about is that, over 20 years on, I might finally understand all the subtle Blackadder jokes!
—Richard
I didn't think you could improve much after Vol. 1 of the series A History of Britain: At the Edge of the World? 3500 BC-AD 1603 but boy has Schama done an even better job with this one.To some extent, he's helped a lot that this book's narrative focus is much narrower than the thousands of years covered by the previous one. Vol. 2 sticks to 17th and 18th Century Britain and later on, areas very intertwined with British history.Again, Schama eschews the traditional pitfalls of British historiography such as "looking back", especially using Victorian eyes. This book is anything but that. Very strong narratively, especially in the first half, Schama demolishes perennial British myths such as that of the Civil War and Glorious Revolution being inevitable. Oliver Cromwell, the Restoration and the Stuarts are wonderfully handled. The narration slowly shifts from the political history of the Civil War to the economic and cultural history in the next few decades with Walpole, Hogarth, and the Georgians. The architecture and art (which are not really my favourite histories to be honest) are lovingly described and really you start to enjoy the intertwining of politicians and architects.The last third of the book finishes strongly with both America and India. Both were dealt with strongly in different chunks. American history buffs though will feel a little hard done by, since this book has such a strong British narrative element which even to me took a little while to get used to. Which shows just how strong the American point of view has become and this even though Schama is very sympathetic to the revolutionaries. Cornwallis is used as a narrative bridge between America and India, and this clears up a long time mystery to me actually. How did the empire-losing British general actually end up on the other side of the world and end up conquering another empire?We're given a short crash course in 17th Century Indian history and the Company's interaction with the Mughals and their vassals, the Marathas and the French. Robert Clive is treated harshly (Schama compares him to a thug, and Clive did apparently run a protection racket in his native Market Drayton while still a teen!) and Warren Hastings somewhat sympathetically (reverse of the traditional Victorian view). Schama certainly persuaded me that Hastings was punished for British excesses in America (really, some of the accusations thrown at Hastings, a "Genghis Khan in breeches", looked laughable compared to what the British would do in the next century and a half across the world). So Cornwallis was sent over to consolidate but ended up expanding, especially along with the mercurial Wellesley brothers. I can't wait for how Schama will treat the Raj in Vol. 3 if I take this to be a prologue.Overall, this is a gripping history book, Schama eruditely handles old myths and throws some light at new ones. History and Britain like you've never seen before. And the narration by Steven Thorne in my audiobook is top-notch again. Highly recommended if you'd like to know more about Britain and it's Empire's formative years.
—Maitrey
