The Ascendancy of Europe by M.S. Anderson

How does one review a historical book? I suppose it depends on what you're looking for when you read a history book: information, a basic understanding of the period and events, maybe a cohesive vision or story (maybe not).

Let's start with what this book is about. This book concerns itself with what happened in European history during 1815-1914. 1815 was the year Napoleon was defeated and 1914 was the beginning of World War I. Consequently, much is said about the rise of nationalism, the balance of power in European politics, the growing economies and the innovations in technology.

As far as information is concerned, this book gives much information. Unfortunately, I wish there were more about Eastern and Central Europe. Being a "survey" book the focus is on the "great powers" of Europe at the time: Great Britain, France, Germany, Austria, and Russia. The author uses a pretty straightforward method--he uses a topical approach. There is a section on the political history, a history of how the economies changed, colonial history, intellectual history, etc. Each section tackles that particular slice and shows how it is reflected in Great Britain, France, etc. There is space provided for "minor" players like Italy and Spain but it would be interesting to know a little more.

The main thrust of the book is the rise of nationalism. From the interest in folk cultures to the growing rhetoric about the German people's mission, or the French people's mission, nationalism pretty much informs the entire book. And, at the end of each section, the author shows how that led into the conflicts and alliances that gave rise to the first world war.

Any good historian knows a little something about historiography. In other words, what is this particular source's biases and/or prejudices? I thought he (she?) was a breath of fresh air in this perspective. I am sick of hearing from the academically inclined about the glories of Marxism and the evils of imperialism. This historian seems to be a little more objective in showing some of the wholly dogmatic and impractical aspects of Marxism and some of the benefits of imperialism. (But M.S. Anderson isn't so dogmatic either by also concluding that imperialism had its own grave errors and arrogance).

All in all it is not a bad book. It didn't thrill me (and I'm not kidding when I say some history books do thrill me), but it does have a certain charm in its approach. I would say it's a useful introduction to 19th century (Western) European history.