Rating: 
Summary: Amazing read, if long read
Review: As a writer, Fred Anderson is accessible and well researched. Sometimes history writing makes these two traits seem mutually exclusive, but not in his wonderful study of British and Colonial relations amidst the Seven Years War.Anderson's main thesis is that the Seven Year's War (known more popularly as the French and Indian War) did not need to lead to the American Revolution, but was a significant and major turning point in its own right. The latter is fair enough, but I'm not sure that Anderson, despite his claims, is breaking really new ground with regard to not necessarily seeing the French and Indian War and our Revolution as a seemless progression to American Independence. His analysis at the end of the book as to why this was not necessarily so is pretty thin, although the coverage of the events themselves certainly let the reader understand that there were several possible break points where Parlimentary action or policy changes could have kept America as part of the British Empire at least past 1776. What Anderson has done is written a thorough history of the conflict. He takes a wholistic approach and in fact focuses on war management and policy in more detail than the military campaigns. They do not necessarily get short shrift, but they are not evaluated in the kind of minute detail that military histories provide. This is appropriate. As Anderson shows, the conflict was as much driven by the chess game played in European capitals and between Parliment and the Colonial assemblies as it was by battlefield developments. The book reminded me of Middlekauf's "Glorious Revolution," a series in the Oxford history of the United States that gave great background and discussion to causes and English debate over our Revolution in additon to telling the story as written by our troops. Anderson shows how the character of the relationship between England and the Colonies was much different while the French held Canada. France brillintly used its indian allies in ways the English never considered, treating them as co-equals and using them to harass the American frontier in order to protect their penetration into the Ohio Valley and Illinois country. While this menace existed, the colonists were united in desperately wanting British troop protection. The British-Franco rivalry, always upon a tinderbox during this time in Europe, only needed an incident to ignite it anew into war. That the incident was provided by troops under George Washington's command in Pennsylvania is a delicious irony of history. The reslutling war was a struggle between French and English troops, between various Indian tribes allied to or caught in the middle of the combatants and between Parliment and the Colonial assemblies regarding funding and local support for the war. As history would show, the debates and various strategies employed by Parliment to secure colonial financial and manpower contributions to the effort would set the stage for the Stamp Act, Quatering Act and other post war Parlimentary initiated crises that paved the way for American Independence. Along the way we meet wonderful characters. An early George Washington in search of glory and wealth via militia command. The indominable William Pitt, parlimentarian master and stragegic visionary whose management of the war effort led to a stunning military victory and close colonial cooperation with the mother country. Lord Grenville, who followed Pitt and in a short time reversed the policies that had brought the colonies close to Parliment and accepting of Pitt's imperial order. George III who in a pique of personality sacked Pitt for no other reason than to placate opposition forces that had gathered around him while he was waiting for a vacancy on the throne. All in all, its a big story that is well written, lucid and engaging. For a big book, it has short paragraphs, which help keep the pace moving along nicely. For anyone interested in the French and Indian War and the evolving nature of American identity as well as the path toward Revolution, this is a good choice
Rating:
Summary: Another Five Star Review
Review: I enjoyed this book so much that after reading it I decided to sign on to Amazon and give it a favorable review, the first review I've written for Amazon. After seeing all of the other accolades that the book has garnered here, an additional five star review seems a bit superfluous. I do want to say, however, that this book makes absolutely compelling reading for anyone interested in the military, political, and economic history of Europe and North America. The author is a history professor who has mastered his subject, but he is also something much more rare -- a talented writer who has produced a cogent, witty, intelligent book. (Only the bowtie in the cover photo and the amount of scholarship that went into the book convince me that Anderson is a university professor rather than a "writer" in a garret somewhere.) I bought Crucible of War primarily because I thought I would enjoy reading it (and I did) but I also found that it greatly deepened my understanding of the American Revolution. Anderson places the Revolution in the context of the major struggle which preceded it and demonstrates in great detail how the Seven Years' War colored and even created the widely divergent attitudes and perceptions of the British and Americans as they entered the Revolutionary Era. (I say "demonstrates" because Anderson's didacticism is subtle and he never lets it get in the way of the story that he is telling.) Anderson concludes the book with the Stamp Act and its repeal. In these last few chapters, a new storyline -- the confrontation between Parliament and the Colonies -- clearly emerges, and these chapters really seem more like a beginning than an end. In school our study of the American Revolution usually began with some discussion of the Stamp Act and other unpopular Parliamentary legislation of the mid-1760's -- and it was always difficult to understand how trade legislation could call forth such passion. I had the sense (rightly or wrongly)that I knew why the Am. Civil War broke out, and why WWII started -- but the American Revolution was quite a bit more enigmatic and difficult to comprehend (also less interesting). Anderson's book went a long way towards making the origins of the Revolution intelligible to me.
Rating:
Summary: Well Worth 750 pages!
Review: It is with considerable caution that I approach any book that is over 700 pages. This one was well worth the effort and time commitment. Excellent presentation on the French & Indian war period and surprisingly had the added treat of taking the reader through the period up to the Revolution. I liked the last part but I loved the way Anderson wrote the first part. Very good tie-ins; the history just flows! Anderson did an excellent job following one historic thread and then stepping back slightly in time, adds another tread and brings them together as a whole. I'll read more of Anderson.
Rating:
Summary: Surely definitive!
Review: It is hard to imagine how this subject could be handled better than does the author in this very good book. His careful tho unobtrusive footnoting cites often appropriate volumes from Lawrence Henry Gipson's 13-volume opus, The British Empire Before the American Revolution (which I read during the period from 9 May 1982 to June 29, 1982), but this book's purpose is different, and it spends less time relating original source data. Anderson does a stupendous job showing the importance of the French and Indian War to the development of the attitude which resulted in the American Revolution, as well as giving a sweeping account of the war and of events immediately thereafter, including Pontiac's Conspiracy and the Stamp Act controversy. I have known about the battle of Quebec since I studied about it in 4th grade, but the account in this book I found tells the story vividly and with attention-holding clarity. If you like real history, shorn of the pop patina some sources and authors deliver, this is a book you will appreciate. Do not be too daunted by the page total: There are only 746 pages of text, most chapters are relatively short, the type is clear and not too small. I found this a good solid work, giving adequate attention to events in England and sufficient information as to other theaters of the Seven Years' War so that one gets the whole picture of a momentous struggle fraught with importance for the shaping of today's world.
Rating:
Summary: Clear easy to understand and brilliant
Review: This is a book about the Seven Years war between Britain and France. Its main concentration is on the battles that were fought on American Soil and resulted in the expulsion of the French from Canada. In reality it is more than that and it tries to explain the tensions within empire which led to the American War of Independence. The book is written in a clear style and explains a number of military operations that overlapped very clearly. One problem with history books is that they can assume that the reader has a good knowledge of the period and refer to tangential events in a way that leaves a reader wondering. This book is marvelous in the way that it explains the dynamics of the English political system, the response of the colonies so that it is possible for someone having no prior knowledge to understand the period. At the start of the Seven Years War, there was delicate balance of forces in America. The French controlled Canada and they were allied with the majority of the Indian people. The continued independence of the Indians was based on trade with the French and the supply of arms. The alliance was valuable for France in offsetting the smaller number of colonists it had in Canada. England started the war but suffered from a major handicap. That was the commitment of George the second to support his ancestral home of Hanover. This in practice meant that the forces that Britain had to send to the colonies was limited. Initially the French carried the field. Early on George the second had been willing to delegate his war policy to his younger son the Duke of Cumberland. After Cumberland suffered a military defeat in Germany William Pitt the elder took over the reign of power. He removed British forces from the continent and decided on a policy of attacking France on the periphery. That is to attack its colonies. The British Naval predominance made it difficult for France to defend its Empire. On the continent Pitt paid huge subsidies to Frederick the Great who obligingly took on Russia, Sweden, and Austria. By disengaging from the continent Pitt was able to concentrate vastly superior forces in America and later in the Caribbean. Previous administrations had attempted to gain support from the American colonies by coercion. Pitt instead paid again large subsidies. Within a short time Canada had been conquered, a number of Frances sugar Islands seized and huge gains in India. Frederick the Great was just able to hang on against overwhelming odds. The conclusion of the war changed the landscape of the colonies. The Indian power had been severely diminished as they no longer the potential of the French alliance or the supply of munitions available to them. In addition the colonies had been treated during the war as equals rather than as an adjunct to the Empire. Individual officers such as Washington had seen service and gained confidence. The British tried to impose a Stamp Tax on the colonies as a means of defraying the cost of establishing regular forces in the colonies to prevent a French revolt and to prevent incursions by the Indians. The colonies staged riots to prevent this duty being collected. The British had no forces available to quell these riots most of their troops being in Canada or Indian Country. Thus they had to give in. This was the first step in giving the colonies the confidence to become independent. All in all a very fine and readable book about an important time in history. The book also re-evaluates the reputation of General Wolfe one of the heroes of Empire. It clearly shows that he was an incompetent in one of the more amusing sections of the book.
Rating:
Summary: Epic History
Review: Anderson states in his introduction that he wanted to write a popular, yet sophisticated history of the Seven Years War. He succeeds at this with flying colors in "Crucible of War." Using excellent prose and drawing on a large amount of primary sources, Anderson takes the reader from the backroom dealings in Parliament to the footsoldier on the march in Upstate New York. At the same time Anderson advances a novel thesis that the French and Indian War was just an example of just how far apart the Americans and the English had grown apart, and the war merely accelerates the separation. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the Seven Years War, the causes of the American Revolution and History in general.
Rating:
Summary: The most important event in 18th Century North America,...
Review: ...most of us would agree, was the American Revolution. After reading this excellent book by Fred Anderson don't be surprised to find yourself thinking otherwise. Certainly you will come away with a new appreciation for the Seven Years War or the French and Indian War as our forefathers called it. The book begins in 1754 in western Pennsylvania with a skirmish between French troops and land hungry colonists led by a young Virginian named George Washington. It is a story about five cultures (English, English colonials, French, French settlers and Native Americans) and the war they fought for control of the vast territory of the Ohio Valley. Anderson tells us it is "a story of violent imperial competition that resulted first in a decisive victory and then in a troubled attempt by metropolitan authorities to construct a new British empire along lines that would permit them to exercise effective control over colonies and conquests alike. It is not, therefore, a story that has the birth of the an American republic anywhere in view." Anderson brings his narrative to a close in 1766, long before the revolution. There are 2 areas where the book shines, bringing new insight into our pre-revolutionary history. 1. HISTORY AND CULTURE OF THE INDIAN TRIBES. One of the cultures Anderson focuses on - Native Americans - we all know, is not one homogenous culture at all. The author is brilliant in showing how the internecine history of the eastern tribes brought about the emergence of the Iroquois nation as the dominant tribe in the northern Ohio Valley area. Tribes such as Mingos, Delaware, and Shawnee were almost subservient client states of the Iroquois and this made it very difficult for both the English and the French to negotiate alliances with the Indians. Also, what becomes very clear is that the use of Indians as scouts, mercenaries, and troops was a contributing cause to the atmosphere of "fear and misunderstanding, miscalculation and mischance". This was due to the totally different norms under which Indians fought; rules of battle that neither French nor British practiced nor understood. Anderson explains the massacre following the surrender of Fort William Henry in this light. "The only rewards that the Indians -whether Christian or heathen- had expected were plunder, trophies to prove their prowess in battle, and captives to adopt or sacrifice as replacements for dead warriors or perhaps hold for ransom. When it became clear that the man whom they had called 'Father' [Montcalm] intended to do what no real father would and deprive them of of the reward they had earned, most of the warriors decided merely to take what they had come for, and then to leave". Misunderstanding leading to butchery; the immediate consequences of it being that the English and colonials would never again trust Montcalm. It was not only the French though; such incidents had happened before with Indians in the service of the English. The Indians themselves saw Montcalm's interference in their plundering as cause for concern; "never again would Indian allies flock to the French colors". The circle of mistrust was now complete. 2. NO LINK WITH THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. Perhaps the greater contribution of the book is the 'not quite revisionist' but certainly an alternative view of the events of the period. In the years 1758-1760, following an English victory and with the demise of New France, Anderson sees a change in the relationship between Britain and her colonies. The British government he says became convinced "that the only rational way to deal with the American colonists was to exert control from Whitehall." Anderson portrays the Stamp Act, the Townshend Act and even the Tea Act as means by Britain to exert local control. He is convincing with his argument that the reactions by the colonists to these acts "did not reflect a movement toward revolution so much as an effort to define the nature of the imperial relationship". Despite the focus of the book on the period between 1754-1766, Anderson makes one of the most powerful statements of the whole book regarding the decade prior to the revolution. "Between 1766 and 1775 lay a decade-long effort to deal with the legacies of a great war and a prodigal victory - an effort that instead of solutions generated a constitutional stalemate. Until the shots rang out on that bright spring morning [April 19, 1775 at Concord, Massachusetts], the Britsh empire had remained a transatlantic political community made up of subjects who, despite their differences, questioned neither their common allegiance to the Crown nor their common British identity". Treat yourself to this thoroughly enjoyable and well written history; it is sure to be a work that is referred to for some time to come.
Rating:
Summary: An utter masterpiece
Review: Fred Anderson weaves a tapestry so intricate you can almost feel the texture on the pages. He's mastered everything-- the political angle, the complex and far-reaching military history, the individual portraits of the personages, from George Washington to Pitt, from Wolfe to his blood adversary Montcalm, who fought the world's first true world war. And what spectacular detail-- midway through the book you're practically thinking like one of the war's belligerents, trying to guess what France's next move will be in North America, or who will betray whom in the complex alliance of the Continental theater. One almost gets the sense that the 7 Years' War, especially if considered in conjunction with the American Revolution, was more formative and consequential than any other of the past half-millennium, rivalled only perhaps by World War II. A fascinating read, and one has a gap in one's education if this isn't read to fill it.
Rating:
Summary: Superb narrative history of the Seven Years' War.
Review: "Crucible of War" is a sumptuously written, richly textured, and scholarly narrative history of the Seven Years' War (more commonly known to Americans as the French and Indian War.) Authored by Fred Anderson, Associate Professor of History at the University of Colorado, Boulder, "Crucible of War" is the first major study of the Seven Years' War since "Montcalm and Wolfe," Francis Parkman's classic account of the war, written in 1884. It is, in my view, of equal historical and literary quality as its esteemed predecessor. "Crucible of War" is notable not only for its exquisite prose and tremendous scholarship, but also because it takes an historically less traditional approach to the French and Indian War than most previous accounts. The author argues persuasively that this was actually a world war involving Britain, France, Spain, and other European powers. The war in North America was the spark that ignited this worldwide conflict, and the effects of the war in the New World were especially significant because they ended in France's decisive defeat, and a "dramatic rearrangement of the balance of power in Europe and North America alike." The immediate catalyst for the Seven Years' War was the dispute between Britain and France over the Ohio Valley, a dispute which came to a head in 1754 when George Washington led a small force of Virginia militia into the area around present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to drive out the French. Unsuccessful in his mission, Washington unknowingly engaged the French in the first battle of a war which would ultimately deprive France of her North American empire. From 1754 through 1758, the British suffered a succession of humiliating defeats at the hands of the French and her Indian allies. During this period, Britain had also drifted into a general European war with France, and suffered a string defeats in Europe as well. The turning point in British fortunes actually came in 1757. William Pitt, a Minister of the British government, changed British colonial policy, which treated the colonies as "subordinate jurisdictions," to one which treated the colonies as allies in a struggle against a common foe. He also began the process of replacing inept military commanders with more professional ones - men like James Wolfe and Sir Jeffrey Amherst. Pitt's efforts paid tremendous dividends during 1759 - the Annus Mirabilis - the "Year of Miracles" - when British fortunes were permanently reversed with stunning victories in North America and in Europe. Anderson's narrative accounts of the war's major military and political battles are very well written and intriguing; however, I found the most fascinating aspect of this book to be how Anderson treats the years after the war, and the effects of those years on later events. The author counters a widely held historical view that many key events which occurred after the war - from 1763 to 1766, when the book closes - were precursors to an inevitable American Revolution. Instead, Anderson sees the historical events of the 1760s as an unanticipated shift in relations between Britain and her colonies, the result of a nation trying to regain control over subjects in the New World. Neither Britain nor her colonies could have foretold the coming of an American Revolution; nor did either side desire such a conflict. The historical events which we Americans now understand as being seminal to the ultimate independence of the United States are viewed in this book as a natural evolution in relations between Britain her colonies. "Crucible of War" is an exceptionally well written book - perhaps one of the very best works of American history I've read in recent years! Anderson has imbued his work with tremendous scholarship. As I read it, I was constantly amazed at how easily Anderson was able to convey facts about all aspects of the war. With great facility, he moves the reader from military events in North America to battles in Europe; from the internal politics of Indian tribes and colonial governments, to the inner workings of British and French government ministries. Anderson's painstaking research, and keen eye for historical detail are obvious throughout this book, much to the benefit of the reader. "Crucible of War" is a book of outstanding scholarship, and "must read" for anyone interested in American history.
Rating:
Summary: A Fitting Account of this Great War
Review: It was the fourth largest war in American history in terms of resources mobilised - larger than the Vietnam and Korean Wars, and larger than the Mexican war, the Spanish-American War and the war known as World War I. In actuality, this conflict WAS World War I - operations stretched from the Great Lakes to the Caribbean, from the Ohio River to the Philipines, including many bloody Central European battles between the forces of Prussia, France, Austria and Russia. During this war Britain decisively laid the foundations of her great Indian Empire 'the Jewel in the Crown', even as it laid the foundations for the loss of a greater jewel - what is now the USA. Not since James McPherson's 'Battle Cry of Freedom' has an era been covered so well, or a long series of events been described so compactly, yet with enough detail to maintain interest. Anderson focuses on the 'American Front' though includes vignettes of characters like Frederick the Great and Lally, the hapless French commander in India. London gets its due attention, where the Churchill-like character of Pitt dominates all. I found the book at its best on the American frontier - some "heroes" like James Wolfe get a come-uppance, old villains like Braddock get their reputations somewhat re-furbished. Inevitably, the comparison is with Parkman, and here I think Anderson wins by his symapthetic depiction of the Indians. The notorious Fort William Henry massacre (depicted by Hollywood in Michael Mann's 'Last of the Mohicans') is desribed fairly and with great understanding. Indians went to war to prove their manhood,to plunder and to take prisoners for ransom. By Andersons descerning eye, the perpetrators lost more by the massacre - the Indians took away prisoners who spread smallpox, the French by trying to stop the massacre (Anderson is fair to Montcalm here) lost support among their Indian allies. Lastly, the massacre of innocent men and women under a flag of truce 'fixed' the image of treachery on the Indians in North America for centuries afterwards. It is a long read, ending by setting the scene for the American Revolution by depicting the total mis-understanding that existed between metropolis and colonies. Fittingly, George Washington (who, like many others, got his basic military traiing during the war) stands centre stage as the curtain falls.
| 
