A Review of Crucible of War, by Fred Anderson

This. Was. An. Awesome. Book. Full title: Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754 - 1766.

Seriously, this is probably one of the better history books I have ever read. I struggle to find one that I actually enjoyed more that has a similarly epic scope; the only one I could think of was Robert K. Massie's Peter the Great.

Before going on, let's make one thing clear: this is a history book, one which makes a fairly detailed examination of a pretty complex subject. While I don't doubt the reader's ability to come to terms with the Seven Years War (which is what this book is about), I think I can safely say that if you do not like history you will probably still not like this book, no matter how well written or informative it is. Even if you do like history, there are inevitably places in a 746 page history book where things will drag. But if you can accept that, you are in for something amazing.
The subject, as aforementioned, is the Seven Year's War, or the French and Indian War. From history class, I remember the French and Indian war as being a sort of a prelude to the American Revolution where George Washington ironically fought for the British, and where Wolfe and Montcalm decided things (and died) at the Plains of Abraham, outside Quebec City. More than good enough for the Virginia SOLs; not good enough for one who really wants to get to grips with early American history.

This book filled in the gaps, and much, much more. The author's thesis is that it is important to look at the Seven Years War not backwards through the lens of revolution but rather forwards from the colonists understanding of their status as Englishmen. As Anderson chronicles the progress of the war and its aftermath he explores the cultural differences that were already present between colony and mother country, the different lessons that both colonists and Crown took from the conflict, the difficulties the British faced in governing the vast new empire they acquired from the victory, and the colonial response to their attempts to do so.

It is wonderfully written. The Seven Years War was a world war, fought in America, Europe, India, and Hispaniola, but Anderson manages the epic scope of the book well, treating events in America with great detail but sketching in events elsewhere so one can still see how everything fits together. When he is describing efforts by Britain to govern the colonies with the Proclamation of 1763 and the Stamp Act he does not remain neutral, but shifts his tone subtly to make the British efforts seem reasonable and the colonial response completely understandable (even if a little violent).

It helps that the man can turn a phrase. This was a carefully crafted work, obviously the effort of years and years. Great care was taken with the text and it was refreshing to read a work that was so informative and yet also actually pleasurable to read from a literary standpoint.

The only "problem" with the book is that Anderson ventures on a good bit of speculation with regards to the character of General Wolfe, commander of the British on the Plains of Abraham, one of the war's few open field battles. It was a smashing victory wrought by the discipline of the British army that faced a French army half composed of militia. Both Wolfe and the French commander, Montcalm, died on the field; Wolfe has been a lionized, almost romantic figure, ever since. But Anderson feels that he owes his reputation of tactical brilliance to good luck and a timely death.

According to Anderson, Wolfe did not get along well with his subordinate commanders, may have been slightly delusional due to a fever (he had horrible health), and launched a rather foolhardy attack late in the campaign season because he was more interested in dying a glorious death rather than return home a failure. Anderson even speculates that, once the British were in place, he did not have a plan for what he intended to do next. Fortunately for him Montcalm, fearing that the British were about to lay siege trenches (which they were not), decided to attack before his full force could arrive. The British soldiers won the day, Wolfe died leading his men in a charge (which most British Generals did not do at that time), and the rest is history.

It is a radically different interpretation than most are used to (its useful to read Francis Parkman's account of the battle; the facts are the same but Wolfe cuts a very different character), and in the footnotes Anderson does own up to the fact that he is making some rather large leaps. But its not wild speculation, he has plenty of footnotes to support his point of view. Bad history? Perhaps. Thought provoking? Absolutely.

So, a very good book. Till later, kiddos. I am watching the USA v. Argentina match replay on ESPN 3....which is turning into Messi v. Howard. Don't tell me how it ends!!