The account of Britain's history concludes, as the subtitle says, with a focus on the fate of the Empire. But there is a good deal of focus on the peoples and social history of Britain too, which makes for quite a balanced and varied account.

Schama is a terrific writer and academic. His writing is accessible and pulls you along, with personal stories of the famous and infamous and the sweeping grandeur of history. I was a little unsure of his view of Churchill as not being posh and how the king wouldn't have known him as well as he knew Halifax, which seems ridiculous. I also felt that by the end, and the book ends at the turn of the century, over twenty years ago now, that Schama was out of step with the ordinary Brit and it is probably a good thing he's taken American citizenship, where he can criticise the right and be lauded/rewarded for it in a way that he couldn't do here.

In the context of the entire history of Britain, I suppose the period 1776-2000 is, very much, about the "fate of empire" — building it up and then tearing it down — and Schama does spend a considerable amount of time on India in this book. But more than battles and occupations, it catalogs the building up and tearing down of different streams of British (mostly English) political and some forms of cultural thought. It's a tasting plate of various bits of each generation, in a vaguely though not entirely, chronological fashion, sometimes sampling writers (either of poetry, fiction or non-fiction, but always with a common interest in societal criticism), sometimes politicians and sometimes military or royal figures.

Schama tells the story as if to an audience already familiar with the main events of English history. He assumes the reader knows their wars, their kings and queens, their prime ministers, technological advances and major calamities — and then, for the most part, he glosses these events with the spins given them by their literary contemporaries.

He spends a lot of time on late 18th/early 19th century revolutionaries and the pastoral idealists many evolved into. He talks of Wollstonecraft and the "Rights of Women" and other writers and thinkers who carried related, early torches, pioneering human rights. He dallies with Queen Victoria and her dichotomies — Empress, politician-in-chief, subservient wife. He tells the story of the coming of the modern era largely through Winston Churchill, from the late 1890s though World War II (with a heaping side dish of Orwell).

1945 to 2000 is largely brushed over, but for a few interesting generalizations and insights into the rapid twists and turns of the evolution of the British "Welfare State" and privatization. His tone changes markedly once he starts talking about the era during which (presumably) he was alive and living through the history.

It's a long book, but there is much he leaves out or treats only quickly… colonization outside of India, Northern Ireland in the 20th century, 19th century British Socialism (and its effects on the 20th century), Thatcher, the arts outside of literature, and the art of the 20th century…

Granted I'm used to tellings that view history more through the lens of technological and artistic advancements (e.g., how industrial revolution era weaving technology lead to the computer and changed everything). That is a style I relate to more (yay, James Burke!), but this was an interesting book nonetheless. The 19th century artists and cultural critics who I think are so important, are barely mentioned (Ruskin gets a smidge of air time, William Morris and George Elliot are named-dropped only incidentally — though Julia Margaret Cameron does get a nice little section).

I'm not really in deep enough with the politics and philosophers of the time and place to have much of an opinion outside what Schama tells me, so I can't really comment on his slant or his takeaways, beyond saying they are interesting and appear reasonably equitable, for the most part.

I purchased this book as a reference source for a college assignment and have found it both really useful and informative.

Schama's third work in his trilogy; this book outlines changes in Britain from 1776 thus is largely about the industrial revolution and social reform. This is believed to be the best of the three part series and can easily be read without picking up the first two parts.

Schama has his own unique way of telling things and as with all Historians, he has areas where you can see the writers opinion and personal interests in areas of history and antidotes.

I would suggest if you were to read this, but also read a similar book by another author to vary your sources and eliminate bias but I would say that as a teacher.

At times I found this book slightly hard going. My recommendation would be to read this if you have a love of this period.... But perhaps read Andrew Marr's similar piece of work which I found to be an easier and slightly more enjoyable first.

The third in Schama's History of Britain series was no less satisfying than the previous two. This series is a must for anyone interested in an intrtooductory overview of British History. I particularly enjoyed the insights into Churchill's and Orwell's biographies... funny to think of Winston Churchill's father comparing him, unfavorably, to his brother Jack ... 'now there's a boy who is going to be somebody' ;)

A fascinating history of - well, Britain, from just after the Jacobite Rebellions to (almost) the present day. Simon Schama, as ever, gives a meticulous picture of the developing Industrial Revolution, to Victorian empire and the Britain that survived two World Wars and post-war dramas. Interestingly, the First World War is almost bypassed, told from the point of view of the country that lost nearly a whole generation of young men. The Second World War gives away Schama's devotion to Winston Churchill, most of this part being a complete biography of Churchill's life. For me, that was interesting, seeing how he developed into the orator of those famous speeches and why he was so determined that "we shall NEVER surrender!"
Follow that with the Iron Lady (Margaret Thatcher, to non-British readers) and so on up to Blair and the Millennium. This book proves why I always tell people to take an interest in history - it explains why and how we got to where we are today.
Now I'd like to go back and watch the series again!

-Repaso histórico muy peculiar.-

Género. Ensayo.

Lo que nos cuenta. Tercer libro de la serie del autor dedicado a la historia de Gran Bretaña (que no del Imperio Británico estrictamente hablando), que se ocupa del periodo entre 1776 y 2000.

¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:

http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...

Weakest one in the series. The majority is about Churchill sadly the rest was glossed over. Still worth the read though.

I thought this third volume of Simon Schama’s History of Britain would be the one I’d enjoy the most, after all I’d lived through a small part of it and surely I knew more about the more recent history of this sceptred isle than the years covered in the earlier volumes. But no, in truth I found this volume to be rather dull in comparison. Maybe it’s the way the author decided to tell the tale: i.e.by by tracking the timeline through his focus on a small number of influential characters? Or perhaps it was the very fact that I already knew a good part of the story? Or could it be that the early volumes had just covered more colourful periods in our history? A bit of all three, I think.

The first half of this book seemed to drag horribly as social changes, the rise of women’s rights movements and the evolution of the role of the Royal Family were explored largely through the writings of Wordsworth and other notable scribblers. In the second half, things livened up a bit as big chunks describing the reign of Queen Victoria and the political life of Winston Churchill dominated the text. I did like the way the author off-set Churchill’s period of influence with sections on George Orwell. The two were obviously politically miles apart, but they were both outspoken orators of uncomfortable truths. I think this was the section of the book that worked best.

As I’ve found on numerous occasions when listening to these volumes, some key moments of history seem to have hitherto passed me by. For example, I’d previously known nothing of the Seige of Lucknow (1857) or the Great Famine in India (1876-78). I also was reminded of the enormous scale of the British Empire at it’s peak - in 1913 23% of the worlds population were under British rule. A staggering fact but one undermined by the knowledge that in achieving this level of control and influence the treatment of many native inhabitants was far from acceptable!

As I came close to the end I began to notice how some sections were skimpy in the extreme. For example, WW1 was barely covered - although WW2 was granted more space – and all events after 1945 were virtually skipped over. The establishment of the Welfare State was touched on as were the Thatcher years (dismissively) but suddenly Shama was winding it all up with his reflections on where Britain goes next.

The body of work comprised in these three volumes is staggering and I’ve gained a great deal from working through them. I highly recommend these books (and/or the BBC television series that accompanied their release) to anyone interested in exploring the history of this island.

I really enjoyed this third volume. Rather than focusing on queens, kings, and wars - it turned intellectual. Here we get modern enlightenment liberty from the feminist Wollstonecraft and later the economist, J.S. Mill. He discusses slavery, the Victorian empire building. The lofty goals of utilitarian and cultural toleration clashed with greed, profit, and conquest. In the end the conquest spirit won out and the consequences were poverty, famine, and destruction.

All histories need to focus on and select some pieces. I enjoyed the narrative choices. Comparing the consequences of British imperialism with the famines in Ireland and India. The final chapter told the story of the 20th century from two perspectives: George Orwell and Winston Churchill. Two totally different views on the role of empire in the world. Yet, in the face of the threat of fascism both agreed completely. For all of Churchill's failures (violently breaking up labor strikes, Gallipoli, failures as the chancellor of the exchequer, and a white supremacy world view justifying imperial conquest) he was right about Hitler, and he was right to vociferously and violently oppose him. No Churchill, and the author speculates, given the experience with Vichy France, a collaborationist English government would lead to the round up of British Jews, the elimination of the British Navy, and the triumph of Hitler on the continent and fascism throughout the world. The author, Schama, who is Jewish, touchingly says "this is no small thing."

My least favourite of the 3 volumes, probably because it's the period of history I find less interesting. The book is well written and very informative however and well worth reading.

recommended reading from the Churchill Foundation