Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(41)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Most people who are not history aficionados find such tomes to be boring and bland reading, useful primarily for falling asleep. Even an objective historian will admit that most history books tend to be dry and uninspiring. Dr. Anderson's work is a rare and welcome departure. It is one of the most well written histories I have ever encountered.

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.

Overall, Crucible of War is a pretty good but not a great read. At times it is riveting. But other times it bogs down in too much detail, especially political detail.

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.)

Highly readable and highly recommended account of the Seven Years' War in the crucible of North America, involving the brutal and exhausting confrontations between the British Redcoats, French troops de la marine and the American Indian.

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.

Ostensibly, this book is a comprehensive history of the Seven Years War (known as the French and Indian War in America) and its affects upon the British Empire in North America. In fact, the focus of this book is on the triangular relationship between the American colonists, the Indian tribes struggling to maintain a balance between the warring European empires, and the power struggles of British parliamentarians, rather than the war itself.

Fred Anderson, a university professor, writes well and he avoids a narrow, parochial viewpoint in favor of a broad canvas that depicts the struggle as a multi-dimensional global conflict. Unfortunately, Anderson often only scrapes the surface and fails to provide real detail on important issues, like what was the actual balance of power between New France and the British colonies (figures on population, economic productivity and military potential would have been useful). Instead, Anderson spends many tedious pages detailing various treaties with Indian tribes, inter-colonial bickering and the land interests of the Penn family. The real weakness of the book is that Anderson fails to properly address the meat and potatoes of this subject: the military campaigns fought between 1755 and 1760 for the control of Canada. Anderson eschews details such as order of battle, casualties or analysis in favor of selected eyewitness accounts, which add little. Major military operations are glossed over quickly: the siege of Louisburg gets only four pages but the post-war land squabbles between Connecticut and Pennsylvania get six. Only eight pages are spent on the Battle of Ticonderoga in 1758, but more than thirty pages are spent on the Stamp Act. The only exception to this is the climatic Battle on the Plains of Abraham, which Anderson dismisses as a "dubious battle" that was neither decisive nor brilliantly fought. In his most controversial interpretation, Anderson claims that the British General Wolfe blundered into the battle without a plan, as part of a suicidal death wish. No evidence is presented to support this revisionist accusation, nor does Anderson disclose how he knows what was going on in Wolfe's mind. This leads to a second weakness of the book, which is that while many historical characters parade through the chapters, they remain ciphers because the author makes little effort to detail their backgrounds or pre-war experience.

This book desperately needs several appendices, covering topics such as a list of the British regular units that served in America during the war, a list of colonial units raised and war-expenses of each colony, and capsule biographies of all the major participants. Anderson does provide some additional detail in the 85 pages of endnotes, but he often finds it sufficient to cite a source without telling the reader what additional information it contains. To be sure, Anderson's book is impeccably researched. Yet the book is sadly lacking in detail on many important topics, including Britain's naval superiority and economic mobilization, both of which were crucial to the outcome. Interesting topics, such as the creation of Roger's Rangers and the British condoning of scalping are glossed over. In order to make sense of Anderson's sketchy detail, I frequently had to consult other books on the war. A 746-page volume should not force a reader to conduct so much extra legwork. French perspectives are also given short shrift, and their strategic objectives are never explained (what did France hope to gain?). After the fall of Montreal in 1760, France drops out of Anderson's account and we hear no more of them - which is pretty ridiculous given that the effect of losing Canada upon France is never discussed. In another area, Anderson's use of colonial-era maps, while quaint, was a poor choice since they are very difficult to read and hence constitute only useless eyewash.

Finally, the real crux of this book comes down to one issue: Anderson wants to break from standard historical accounts that depict the war as merely a prelude to the American Revolution and instead, to portray it as a stand-alone event that did not inevitably lead to revolution. However much his intent, Anderson actually does tend to use foreshadowing of future British-American friction throughout his narrative. At heart, Anderson is a colonial-era historian and his main interest is in the political and emotional ramifications of the war. Indeed, less than half of the book is actually devoted to the war and the last 180 pages are pre-occupied with post-war taxation policies. Nowhere does Anderson summarize the war's human and financial costs, which are certainly more germane than the antics of various colonials in frustrating British customs policies. Contrary to what other reviewers might claim, Fred Anderson has not written the definitive account of the Seven Years War or even come close; most of his work covers well-trodden ground with few new revelations. If you want to learn a lot about the Stamp Act, read this book. If you want to learn a lot about the Seven Years War, keep looking...

By far the finest, most incredibly complete account of the Seven Years War I have read todate, treating England's conflict and awesome achievement as a massive global effort, as opposed to just our North American version, The French and Indian War. I better understand the role of this intense event in the slow formation of colonial American resistance to Britain. Independance took almost 30 years to occur and the subject matter, (the pros and the cons, the rights and the wrongs (pun intended)) is dealt with impecably.

As you read this excellent work, you can almost tick off on your fingertips the incredible British blunders which had to eventually result in and force American independance. The American Revolution did not occur because colonial Americans did not support their King, but rather, because their King failed his colonists so very, very miserably.

Interested in the birth of the American psyche? Before the revolution the American colonies were driven into a viscous war with their northern and western neighboors, the french and indians. Forced to learn the art of colonianal combat and deep forest fighting in a hostile climate the colonies earned a sense of independence. This war was also dotted with the interested personalities of General Pitt and Montcalm. THis book fills an essential gap in American history. A great read for the military scholar and the political historian.

Few American history students will readily relate the French and Indian War to worldwide events, let alone the struggle on the European continent in the Seven Years War. Anderson masterfully weaves a highly readable, very well-researched tale that presents the reader with the complex components of the war: attitudes of the colonists toward self-government, England; British policies concerning their American possessions and subjects; Indian relations with the colonial governments and merchants. Moreover, the Crucible of War superbly translates the maneuverings and machinations of colonial, Briton, Frenchman and Indian into international grand strategy, and argues that the French and Indian War represented the culmination of British empire on the North American continent.

Anderson's book is a boon for the novice as well as well-versed historian, amatuer or otherwise, in this period. It is an easy read and his endnotes are a valuable resource for the more serious. Also, Crucible of War is replete with maps, a seeming requirement for any history book to be widely popular.

It is somewhat rare that a contemporary work will quickly earn the moniker 'classic,' but it would not be surprising if Crucible of War is placed on that level soon, if it is not already. An indispensible book for one's library.

Don't let the size of this book daunt you -- it is well written and chapters are in easily digestible chunks. Anderson has put together a great overview without sacrificing a necessary level of detail. It is much deeper than just the battles, but delves into the politics and diplomacy of the players involved as well as giving a look at many of the important personalities. Perhaps most interestingly, he talks about Native American policy vis-à-vis the two colonial powers. Recommended for anyone interested in their period of North American history and a good backgrounder for those interested in the American Revolution.

I received this book as a gift for my 18th birthday. I was not looking forward to read this massive volume, but very quickly, I couldnt put it down, and finished this book in a week and a half. I avoided TV, the internet and even sleep to read more.

Anderson, like William Manchest, author of "A World Lit Only By Fire", are great story tellers, and informative.

Anderson shows the enormity of this war, the great span of the first world war, which was fought on the fields of Prussia, mountains of Appalachia, trade routes of South East Asia and over the sugar of the Carribean.

My words do not give this book justice, to put it simply, it is a great read and I recommend it to anyone.

-student in Scotland

In Crucible of War Anderson provides a compellingly written and authoritative look at the Seven Years/French and Indian War. He goes deep into depth about the power politics of 18th century North America and does a good job of showing the Native Americans as both sophisticated societies and cultures that were very alien from that of the white settlers. He does a lot of work placing the war in the context of the world politics of the time. Anderson does come to some curious conclusions sometimes (such as his belief that the massacre of Braddocks troops was caused by their discipline and proffesionalism). There's also a slight Anglo-American bias in the book. While he goes deep into the thinking of the British leadership such as Pitt there is no discussion of policy making amongst the French leadership. Also curiously for a book which does so much to establish the Seven Years war as a world war Anderson stays mostly to the North American theatre. While he'll spend chpaters on single campaigns in the North American woods he will devote only a part of a chapter here and there to operations in Europe and elsewhere. Particularly bizzarre is his relegation of the British conquest of Bengal, perhaps the most significant event of the war, to only an offhand comment. Anderson also has a slight pro-American bias. The British commanders are all portrayed as somewhat stuffed shirts and it is Anderson implied conviction that the British needed to bend to accept the slipshod colonial realities rather than trying to instill some notion of civic duty in the unruly colonists. Still Crucible of War is a fine book and a very good source for anyone wishing to learn about the Frnch and Indian War.