Rating: 
Summary: Forging the American Idea of Independence
Review: Fred Anderson's absorbing book about the Seven Years War is a remarkably readable history of an episode that receives scant attention in recounting the forging of the uniquely American idea of independence. His study of the interaction of the colonies and Great Britain before, during, and after the war shows how America's unique idea of individual liberty was actually forged in reaction to Britain's insistence on attempting to treat the colonies as if they were Ireland or Scotland--which they weren't. An absorbing study that creates much food for thought. (I also found out how Pittsburgh got its name; and who Pittsburgh's old ball park--Forbes Field--was named after!)
Rating:
Summary: Opened my eyes to the American Rev's prelude
Review: Professor Anderson has opened for this avid, but picky history buff a much broader perspective on the immensely complex First Global War. Up to now, my habitual take on the 18th century was in the context of the two great revolutions of its last twenty-five years. But Anderson's pellucid prose and uncanny knack for the telling anecdote fills and embellishes a former blank decade in my personal historical timeline. I then bought Kevin Phillips The Cousins' Wars to help me better understand the lead-in to the French & Indian War! As my wife is from Massachusetts, looks like I will buy her the Anderson book on Provincial soldiers.
Rating: 
Summary: Everything you always wanted to know about the Stamp Act....
Review: 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...
Rating:
Summary: A satisfying volume on a relatively obscure time in history
Review: I bought this book for my father, who is, among other things, an American history buff. I won't give a syopsis of the book, you can read that above. I will say he enjoys the book immensely, read the whole thing through, and refers to it regularly as needed. It was well worth the price I paid for it as a gift, and he and I were quite pleased. If you're considering buying this for someone who studies this period in American history, don't hesitate.
Rating:
Summary: Elevates the 7 Years War To Its Deserved Place In History
Review: As a French & Indian War buff, I have read most if not all of the books describing it including Eckert's "Wilderness Empire," Pocock's "Battle For Empire," Leckie's "A Few Acres Of Snow," and many others, in addition to traveling to and exploring many of the sites of the vast East Coast Theatre Of Operations from Louisbourg in the Northeast to Fort Niagara in the West. Fred Anderson's book is by far the best for the following reasons: 1. He tells the story within its context as a World War, not just a colonial war as the others have done; 2. He describes the key political decisions, both in North America, and in England that have a bearing on the outcome; 3. He describes the battles on the European Continent, even India, Africa and the Caribbean Islands that have a bearing on the outcome; 4. He describes the major players with more detail and insight than even some of their biographers deliver; e.g., how George Washington evolved as a Military Commander in the five years from his first skirmish at Jumonville's Glen up to his resignation from the Virginia provincials; 5. He tells the inside story of how England's Prime Minister Pitt secured and used the power to defeat the French in fascinating detail and . . . finally, he places . . . 6. The story within the proper time frame not bound by the seven years of other authors, but beginning with a short history of the Iroquois Conferacy and their influence on the War's origins, and continuing past the previously accepted ending point of 1760 so the reader can better understand the influence of this War and its aftereffects on the American revolution. And he tells the story in easy-to-read language that makes it a joy to read for amateur historians like me. Because of reading this book, there are some sites on my must-visit list, sites I was not heretofore aware of. Mr. Anderson, I raise my glass to you - a superlative job. Jerry Patterson
Rating:
Summary: outstanding
Review: I have read a few of the more recent books about the "French and Indian" war (such as Jennings')along with some of the classics (like Parkman's) and haven't liked them very much. This one is terrific. Well written, balanced, detailed enough to explain but not so the pace is slowed, good illustrations, covers the fighting and politics in North America as well as the world setting. If you've never read about this period, this is a great place to start; if you've been disappointed by what you've read, give it one more chance with this.
Rating:
Summary: A Legitimate Classic
Review: Fred Anderson's stated goal in writing "Crucible of War" was to produce "a book accessible to general readers that will also satisfy...historians' scholarly expectations." I am pleased to report that he attains that goal as completely as anyone could reasonably expect. Anderson's subject is a relatively small slice of US history--the conflict known variously as the French and Indian War or the Seven Years War, along with the war's immediate aftermath. His narrative is highly informative. He describes how isolated skirmishes on what was then America's western frontier escalated into a true global war, involving every major European power. He convincingly explains how England eventually came to triumph over her rivals, and to inherit much of France's erstwhile colonial empire. Although his focus in on North America, he does not neglect events in Europe. He then shows how events like the Stamp Act Crisis and Pontiac's Rebellion were inextricably linked to the war and its outcome. Anderson deserves credit for his skillful blend of diplomatic, military, economic and social history into a coherent whole--he should be a model for other scholars in this respect. Also noteworthy is his clear identification of the interest of the four main groups involved in the North American conflict--the French and their Canadian colonists, the English, the American colonists, and the Native Americans--and his untangling of the conflicts both within and between these groups. While specialists may end up quibbling with some of the details of Anderson's interpretations, he seems to me to have amply demonstrated his claim that the French and Indian War was an extremely important influence on the revolutionary events of the following decades. "Crucible of War" is a genuine classic of historical writing.
Rating: 
Summary: Crucible of War
Review: Fred Anderson's Crucible of War is a readable, thoroughly researched account of the French and Indian War that should be a scholarly standard on the topic for years to come. His narrative achieves his goal of writing a book for the general public while satisfying the needs of historians. Anderson's detailed analysis of the events and personalities in the war makes for a fast paced and entetaining read for anyone even remotely interested in the subject. However the book is not without its flaws. Anderson's careful analysis of the war is excellent, but when attempting to push back "revolutionary" responses to British colonial administration, his argument becomes somewhat muddled. Colonial anger and frustration towards the various British ministries became radical almost from the first postwar tax (the Sugar Act) and had definitely achieved radicalism by the Stamp Act. Anderson's point that these taxes were rooted in the recent war is obvious, but he fails to account for why suddenly colonists resorted to mob violence to voice their opinions. In the end there is no "radical" explanation for colonial opposition to attempted British controls. Instead, Anderson resorts to unimaginative economic interpretations. Anderson's choice of dates is also somewhat of a hindrance. If his postwar analysis is plagued by lack of radical explanations, the book might be considered too long. He might have shortened his postwar arguments into a briefer summary to support war-related imperial conclusions. However, if his intent was to prove how the war triggered a series of imperial control measures then the book is too short. He abruptly ended his study with the Stamp Act's repeal, but that was hardly the end of Crown-colony tensions. But these issues do not detract from an otherwise outstanding effort. Anderson's mastery of his subject should make this book required college reading for at least the next decade. He could easily address some of the criticisms raised here by continuing his study through the Revolutionary War. For this war was, among other things, a continuation of the Second Hundred Years' War between Britain and France.
Rating:
Summary: Simply fantastic
Review: If you have any interest in early American history, this is a must read. I am always searching for that rare book that has both great scholarship and an author who knows how to tell an exciting story. This book is a page turner. Despite its length, the chapters are short, and each chapter tells a great minature story. It also tells an important story, because most books on the American Revolution focus on how we won the war; the causes of the dispute are given fairly brief treatment. This book goes back and shows the real causes of the rift between Britain and its prize colony. Highly, highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Narrative, Excellent Analysis
Review: Prof. Anderson set high goals for this book. He aimed to produce a book that is attractive to general readers and a significant scholarly contribution. To accomplish the latter, he aimed at writing a history of the Seven Years War in North America that avoids the anachronistic pitfall of viewing it from the prespective of the American Revolution. Similarly, he aimed at giving just coverage to the imperial dimension of the War and all combatants; French, Canadians, Colonial Americans, British, and Native Americans. In addition to these ambitious goals, simply writing a substantial book on the Seven Years War requires some courage. This topic was covered masterfully by the pioneering scholar, Francis Parkman, in one of the peaks of 19th century American literature, and is analyzed in depth by the great 20th century scholar, Lawrence Gipson. Anderson accomplishes all his aims in a smoothly written and comprehensive volume. This is simply an excellent book. Prof. Anderson is remarkably erudite, as comfortable describing British politics as he is in analyzing the activity of Native Americans. Because of a lively writing style, this book is never ponderous. Several points deserve specific mention. Drawing on a wealth of recent scholarship, he emphasizes the role of Native Americans as independent and important actors in this conflict. He is particularly good at setting the North American conflict in the appropriate global perspective. To Anderson, the Seven Years War was an epochal event that formed the basis for Britain's subsequent Empire and set stage for the American and consequently, the French Revolutions. While he avoids seeing the Seven Years War through the prism of the American Revolution, he is very good at showing the ways that the experience of the Seven Years, both as experienced by the British and by the Colonials, set the stage for later conflicts. Interestingly, his conclusions on this topic are very similar to those reached by scholars who work backwards from the Revolution, for example, Robert Middlekauf in The Glorious Cause, part of the excellent Oxford History of the United States. This book required over 15 years of effort and it was time well spent.
|
