the third volume is a near failure. what is said, is well said, but too much is not said. in Schama's universe, science is irrelevant but technology is triumphant. the problem is that this is entirely too much in the temporal near field and integration of detail is impossible. it would have been so for Churchill and it is for Schama.

Readable and interesting summary of recent history presented in themes rather than strictly chronological. I wanted a not too demanding UK history book to remind me of the national context when my ancestors were alive, to complement my local family history work, and this was perfect. I watched the tv series too which helpfully gave me Schama’s “voice” when I was reading.

I heart Simon Schama forever. Of course, if I was to be hell picky about my history I would probably have something more critical to say. As it is - I just - I just - I lurve him. I want to have his history babies.

I read Simon Schama’s three volume history of Britain in an attempt to get a basic grasp of the country’s history in advance of my big move to the country (didn’t quite finish before I got here though). Though I have forgotten most of it the first two volumes were pretty good - a somewhat balanced crash course through English history (with the occasional reference to Scotland - and essentially none to Wales, with Ireland only really featuring when the English are oppressing it - so much for ‘British’ history).

I wasn’t so enthused about volume three:
• The scope of the book expands drastically once the British empire gets underway, and it gets pretty difficult to follow events across multiple continents which are not always presented in a sensical way. Sometimes it feels like Schama has missed important bits - you’ll occasionally pick up somewhere in India with no idea how you got there - it’s all a bit confusing.
• In his intro Schama declares that he is going to approach volume three by reference to certain themes and ideas (paraphrasing here I read this months ago), which apparently translates to an inordinate amount of time devoted to whatever Churchill and/or Orwell happens to be up at at any given moment. Much like the continent hopping mentioned above, this creative (?) framing of historical development through the lives of particular individuals comes at the expense of a basic chronological narrative, and is a far cry from the simpler and more effective structure of the preceding books. I also just don’t understand the obsession with Churchill - he feels shoehorned into a bunch of sections.

An interesting and entertaining third volume of Simon Schama's History of Britain trilogy.

Of the three volumes of A History of Britain, this one, for me, is easily the most interesting. Simon Schama's approach through all three has been to avoid a chronology of events and focus instead on themes and especially people. In this volume, and the title is a clue, the primary focus is around empire, which extends to include Britain and Ireland as a nation. Links are made between the Irish potato famine, the Scottish clearances and the famines of India. Simon Schama explores the motivations of the political elites in these scenarios, which, to modern minds, can seem incomprehensible, even unforgivable. There's little of Niall Ferguson's exploration of the counter-factual of the British in India, much more of how India was exploited to the benefit of Britain (an example might be the establishment of the railways to improve the economy of India for years to come, or, arguably, to allow food exports to Britain and troops to be moved more efficiently).

In the latter part of the book, Churchill understandably features prominently. The great, flawed, politician with his belief that the empire would outlast the post WW2 period, but who also was pivotal in guiding the country away from appeasement of Hitler and the likely consequences for Britain as some kind of subsidiary state.

The the whole topic of empire is often treated emotively, with anything from fond nostalgia to abhorrence. Simon Schama presents a critical and largely unsentimental view. Definitely worth a read!

Understandably, it’s harder to evaluate recent history than previous ages. Most people know a lot about the times they’ve lived through, or their parents and grandparents lived through- albeit often from a narrow-ish viewpoint. The jury is not out, definitively, on what has not entirely passed from “current events” to scholarly study.

When I studied history at school, “modern history” started in 1789 with the French Revolution and ended in 1918 with the Armistice. I wonder why Schama chose an arbitrary date of 1776 for the beginning of this volume.

This, however, means that I did know a fair bit about most of this period of history (and, being Scottish, we had to study two versions- for example, the 1832 Reform Act (E&W) and its counterpart the 1832 Scottish Reform Act. (Two textbooks, two opinions!)

I enjoyed the inclusion of women and their gradual emancipation and admission to the professions, the contrasting activities of Florence Nightingale and the more practical and courageous Mary Seacole in the Crimean War, the latter, like Dr Elsie Inglis in WWI (from Edinburgh) having to finance her own service, the eccentric Annie Besant, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson and (briefly) Sophia Jex-Blake in her struggle to get a medical education in Edinburgh (still a moderate challenge in 1969-75 for women, but without the dung slinging).

The comparison between Winston Churchill and Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) is interesting. Churchill was certainly a good war leader, but a blunderer in peacetime- just as well Twitter hadn’t been invented!

The postwar period is rather skated over, as I said, but we have so much information about the world after printing and literacy that selection has to be made.

I enjoyed this. I think what made this a good book is that instead of telling history through events, dates and lists of names, he tells stories through people, eye witnesses to history. The only downside is that he bounces around between England, India and Ireland so that at the end of one chapter, we are in late 19th century England but at the start of the next in early 19th century India. Because I was listening on Audible, I would sometimes become confused as to when things were happening. The other slight niggle is that I didn't have any context for the Indian part of the story. I have a very basic idea of Indian history so I struggled to relate to the stories being told. I think if I had a better grounding, the stories would have had more value.

As is, Schama's strength is in contextualising history, helping breathe life into a fading past coloured by memories of memories and preconceived notions of what the past was like. The past is a foreign country, and Schama speaks the language. He learned the language from the writings of individuals both great and small who lived through these events. For example, much of the early 20th century focuses on two figures, two sides of the same coin really. One was Winston Churchill and the other was Eric Blair (George Orwell). Their views, their contrasts, their similarities, their use of language to describe the world around them makes for a good frame to hang the story of British history through their time period. It was poignantly brought to an end with Blair's review of Churchill's book Their Finest Hour.

The more recent history was more of an essay than a detailed analysis. I found it interesting that Schama argues that Britain does not quite fit the European mould and if Europe is not happy to have Britain as is, than Britain should walk away. I wonder if he now regrets those words seeing as he was a Remainer during the referendum. So much has happened over the past 20 years. I arrived in England in 1998, aged 22, in love with an idea of England. That England still exists but it is disappearing. So much has changed so rapidly, but not just in Britain. In my hometown in America, so much has changed. I don't know if I was just too young to see the change during the ,80's and 90's or whether change really has accelerated. Now more than ever, we must remember the past. And I will leave you with a passage from George Orwell's 1984:

‘It is almost time for you to leave, comrade,’ he said to Julia. ‘Wait. The decanter is still half full.’ He filled the glasses and raised his own glass by the stem. ‘What shall it be this time?’ he said, still with the same faint suggestion of irony. ‘To the confusion of the Thought Police? To the death of Big Brother? To humanity? To the future?’ ‘To the past,’ said Winston. ‘The past is more important,’ agreed O’Brien gravely.

I did not care for this final volume as much as for the first two. The author spent a lot of time on historical figures, such as poets and novelists, that were of little interest to me.
At the same time he devoted no mention whatever to the work of the two most important Englishmen who ever lived, Newton and Charles Darwin, based on their contributions to science.
He does a good job on Churchill who is probably the third most important Englishman in world history, so that is something at least. Newton and Darwin explained the world we live in and Churchill saved it.
The bottom line here is the whole series is well worth reading.
Read again July 2017. This time through I was especially struck by the preposterous nature of the British government starting with Queen Victoria when all role of any substance for the monarch and the house of lords was ended. Why be so silly as to retain this absolutely silly ceremonial role playing. They go through this meaningless act now for nothing but the tourist trade , or something.

A sometimes negative version of history. But well read.

My review of this book is at my website, please check out the link:

https://workingwow.net/2021/11/05/his...

Giving all of the major facts of this large of a period would result in a dry read. But this book attempts no such thing. Instead, the author astutely focuses on several major trends, and illustrates each with thoughtfully selected vignettes that bring the history to life. A lot here is relevant to any age, including:
--The temptation to falsely romanticize the past (widely perpetrated in Britain even by the early 1800s).
--The debates over the nature of representative government and the basic rights of men and women.
--The blistering and often violent reactions of the privileged against those who dare to question whether those privileges have any legitimacy.
--The callousness of many when facing less-powerful foreign peoples.
--The equally harmful well-meaning but inept blundering of many others when facing those same foreign peoples.