Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766 [Paperback]

Prior to its release, other histories of the French & Indian War tended toward being narrow, incomplete or seen as at best a precursor to what in American eyes is the more important American Revolution. Anderson's effort puts this pre-Revolution era in its proper perspective, and accurately elevates it to its more vital significance in the global perspective. Instead of being the backwater trial run leading up to the supposedly more important Revolution, it was really part of a world war; and the Revolution more an aftermath than the main event.

It is a balanced narrative. Anderson explains the unfolding events both from the American and British point of view. This makes it easier for the reader to understand the gradual polarization on each side of the Atlantic that led inexorably to Revolution later. He also endeavors to present the French perspective as well as that of the various Indian nations.

What brings the story to life, though, is his skill in blending the strategic events with colorful rendition of individual people and events. As an historian, he is blessed with a 'zoom lens' that equally sees both the little guy and the big picture. His detailed account of Washington's folly in the Ohio wilderness that became the matchstick to ignite world war is particularly poignant.

Along with A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin, Anderson's book is one of the two best histories I have read. I highly recommend both to everyone, even those who seldom delve into history.

The major weakness of the book is the author's bias. The overall tone is decidedly anti-British/American. He also has an anachronistic, politically correct view of Indians, which makes large parts of the book all but unbearable to knowledgeable readers. (Read Allan W. Eckert's "Wilderness Empire" for a more reasonable treatment of the Indians during this war.)

However, this book is not your typical and, I have to admit perennially enjoyable account of British Glory and Empire Building at the expense of France. No. Read the title and I can tell you this is most definitely an American academic writing an American history of what is argued by this author as an essentially American war. In its favour this makes for both a revealing and detailed account upon the pretty much indispensable role the Indians and colonials had upon the successful British prosecution of the war. If perhaps not winning the war for Britain then surely preventing it's defeat, the author puts emphasis on factors such as the Indian nations siding with the British and the massive manpower contributed from the often reluctant colonies.

Whether intentional or not Fred Anderson puts the colonialist's support for Britain in a bad light. The colonial assemblies' willingness or lack of, to either provide provincial troops or support British troops in the first half of the war, a war that was being fought on their behalf against a confident and bellicose enemy puts the war effort into a hew that never really changes into a favourable one, despite the best efforts of the author to beef up their importance.

Indeed, that their contributions had to be financially guaranteed by William Pitt before they would cough up any sort of significant contribution to their own defence staggers belief and casts a long shadow upon the story of Britain and her American colonies fighting a war against the French enemy- together. The often cited intransigence of the "Americans" or British colonials, depending on the author's retelling of failings or successes tells us that a revolution of sorts had already occurred between the mother country and its American children, years before that schism was forcefully brought into view in the American War of Independence. So, there's lots to ponder over then, especially for us Brits!

Anderson rifles through every conceivable detail of the story and rarely leaves a stone unturned in the examination of the war's cause, length, and reasons for victory and defeat on both sides, thorough evaluations from colonial taxation to the enthralling fall of Quebec.

For British readers it is worth mentioning that in all areas Anderson tries to give an American side to the war, which can seem strange to those brought up on General Wolfe and the Thin Red Line, not the seemingly unheroic and ill-disciplined colonial militias. The sheer intensity of the war and its importance to the development of a global empire for Britain are slightly overshadowed by this American point of view. It can also be slightly irritating to find traditional British titles of rank such as Duke and Earl spelt in the lower case together with Britain's empire. I wonder if historians of Rome commit to the same protocol?

Mute points perhaps for a book that paints the fullest picture possible of the French and Indian War, portraying all aspects of the British, French, American and Indian point of view, and thus does exactly what it says on the tin. A triumph of engaging history and a triumph for a history that needed to be told in its fullest light.