The Rise and Fall of the Great Empires (3)

 

Magellan and Drake

The empires of Spain and Portugal are covered on pages 178-187. Here Ferdinand Magellan - the Portuguese sailor who served under the king of Spain - is mentioned three times, but each time the information given is inaccurate. The timeline on page 180 says: "1519-22: Magellan's circumnavigation of the globe." The dates are right, and Magellan was the leader of this expedition in the beginning, but he died in 1521, when the expedition reached the Philippines. On the last part of the trip, from the Philippines to Spain (1521-22), the leader was Juan Sebastián El Cano.

The caption to the illustration on page 181 reads: "A contemporary map showing the route taken by Ferdinand Magellan, who made the first succesful circumnavigation of the globe." The route is correct, but as explained above, Magellan died on the way. He did not make "the first succesful circumnavigation," some members of his crew did.

The text on page 180 mentions Portugal's attempt to control the Indian Ocean: "Occasional foreign incursions such as the 1522 Spanish-backed expedition of Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521) or the circumnavigation by Sir Francis Drake (c. 1540-96) in 1577 caused angry diplomatic protests, but did not threaten Portugal's supremacy."

Magellan died in 1521, as Taylor notes in his text. Now the question is: if Magellan died in 1521, how could he have anything to do with a Spanish-backed expedition in 1522? The answer is the Spanish-backed expedition began in 1519 with Magellan as its leader, and it ended in 1522 with Juan Sebastián El Cano as its leader.

The information about Drake is also inaccurate. His trip began in 1577 and ended in 1580. By giving just one year, Taylor implies the trip was completed within this year, which would have been impossible with the ships available at the time. The timeline on page 196 (in the chapter on the British Empire) says: "1577: Francis Drake begins his circumnavigation of the world." This information is accurate, but still incomplete, since we are not told when the trip was completed.

Taylor is a journalist. Maybe that is why he tries to say many things with a few words. But sometimes this is not possible. Sometimes the facts are complicated. What should you do? Use more words and get the story right, or simply let it go. Unfortunately, Taylor chooses the middle way, which makes his account inaccurate, incomplete and confusing.

Babur and Shajahan

The Mughal Empire is covered on pages 188-193. The first ruler of this empire is Babur the Tiger, but the information given about him and his road to power is very confusing. First, on page 189, we hear this: "Babur the Tiger (r. 1526-30) succeeded to the throne of the Central Asian kingdom of Fergana … when he was only 13 years old." Later, on the same page, we hear this: "By the time he inflicted a crushing defeat on the Afghan ruler of northern India …, at the first Battle of Panipap in 1526, Babur was in his forties."

At first we assume he is 13 years old in 1526 when his rule begins. But later we learn that in that year he is in his forties. Now we are confused, and we have a question: when is Babur born? The timeline on page 190 says 1438, but this does not really help us. If anything, it only adds to the the confusion. If Babur is born in 1438, he must be a very old man in 1526, in his eighties, and certainly not in his forties. Clearly, something is wrong here.

Babur is not born in 1438. As explained earlier, the last two digits of the year have been switched around. He is born in 1483. Now we begin to understand. When he was 12 or 13 years old - in 1495 or 1496 - Babur succeeded to the throne of Fergana, a small kingdom, but his rule of the Mughal empire does not begin until 1526, when he is in his forties. Why does Taylor have to make everything so complicated?

Babur the Tiger claimed descent from both Genghis Khan and Timur the Lame. Where did the latter person lead his life? On page 189 he is described as "a 14th-century conqueror who ravaged much of Central Asia." But the caption to the illustration on page 145 (in the chapter on the Mongols) describes him as a "central European warlord." So which one is it? The first description is correct, the last one is wrong. Timur the Lame operated in Central Asia, not in Central Europe.

Shahjahan, the sixth emperor of the Mughal Empire, is famous for building the Taj Mahal, considered by many to be one of the most beautiful buildings in the world. It was built as a mausoleum for his wife, Mumtaz Mahal, who died in 1631. But when did Shahjahan rule? The text on page 191 says 1627-58. The list of emperors on page 193 gives the same dates. But it is wrong. The sidebar "The Taj Mahal" on page 192 says 1628-58, and this is correct.

India and North America

The British Empire is covered on pages 194-213. According to Taylor, this empire had two types of colonies. One type was India where the British found "an established and prosperous civilization." Unfortunately for India, the British felt they had to destroy this civilization in order to control the Indian territory. The other type was North America where the British found "a largely unsettled land" (page 195). While the description of India is correct, the description of North America is wrong.

In the old days, many people believed all Native Americans were nomads who lived in tents and hunted buffaloes. This view is wrong, and has been disproved many times, but some people - including Taylor - still cling to the old view. I could cite many sources to prove this point, but I will mention only one: Justin Pollard, The Story of Archaeology in 50 Great Discoveries, published by Quercus in 2007. The Indian civilization in Mesa Verde, that was discovered in 1888, is covered in the chapter on pages 88-93. On page 88 Pollard writes "this was not a pristine, empty environment, but an ancient settled land…"

I have a question for the publisher here. In 2007, Quercus published a book whose author tries to show that some Native Americans had a civilization and lived in houses prior to the European invasion. In 2008, Quercus published a book whose author seems to believe the old myth that the Native Americans were nomads who lived in "a largely unsettled land." My question is: do the the editors of Quercus ever read the books that they publish?

On page 196 Taylor mentions the Mayflower which carried the Pilgrim Fathers to the new world. He says they landed in 1621. The timeline on the same page gives the same date. But it is wrong. The Mayflower left England in September 1620 and arrived in Massachusetts Bay in November of the same year. This date is a milestone in US history (although, of course, the US was not yet established by then). How can Taylor get this important date wrong - two times?

The caption to the picture on page 199 reads as follows: "This undated illustration shows Britannia, a symbol of Great Britain for over 2000 years. She was often depicted as ruler of the seas of the British empire."

I am afraid Taylor is stretching history a bit too far here. I think the figure must be 200 years - and not 2000 years!

William Pitt and Napoleon Bonaparte

The caption to the illustration on page 202 reads as follows: "Cartoon from c. 1809 showing William Pitt and Napoleon Bonaparte dividing the globe between their two nations, after the signing of the Treaty of Amiens temporarily ended hostilities between the United Kingdom and France."

There is a problem here. William Pitt died in 1806, as Taylor notes on the next page. Is he likely to be the object of a cartoon three years after his death? I do not think so. The cartoon is very famous. It was created by the British caricaturist James Gillray (whose name is sometimes spelled Gilray). The official title of the cartoon is "The plumb-pudding in danger." The creator also noted the date, 26 February 1805, at which time Pitt was still alive. Why does Taylor want to date this cartoon to around 1809, when we know exactly when it was made?

On page 203 Taylor mentions the battle of Trafalgar: "The naval defeat of the French and Spanish forces at Trafalgar in 1805 not only gave Britain mastery over the French at sea, it also provided the basis for the growth of a new and powerful empire stretching around the world." The battle is also mentioned in the caption to the picture on the same page. Again, the date is 1805. But the timeline on page 200 says the battle took place in 1804. So which one is it? 1804 or 1805?

The date is a milestone in British history, as is clear from Taylor's own description, quoted above. How can there be any doubt? The battle took place on 21 October 1805. How can Taylor give the wrong date in his timeline?

On page 204 Taylor mentions the infamous Opium Wars of 1839-42 and 1856-60. The dates given in the text are correct. But the timeline on page 200 says "1840: First Opium War with China," which is not quite correct. Taylor says the wars lead to the Treaty of Nanking in 1842, which is true. He says further that it gave the East India Company access to markets in China, which is also true, "and also leased them a base at Hong Kong." This passage is wrong and shows that Taylor does not know the basic facts about Hong Kong's history. The British base at Hong Kong was developed in three stages.

*** Stage 1: Britain captures the island of Hong Kong in 1841. China has to cede this territory to Britain as part of the settlement after the first war.

*** Stage 2: Britain takes over Kowloon Peninsula in 1860. China has to cede this territory to Britain as part of the settlement after the second war.

*** Stage 3: Britain leases the so-called New Territories in 1898 for a period of 99 years.

This lease expired in 1997, as Taylor mentions on page 213: "Hong Kong was handed back to China at the expiry of its lease in 1997." But the lease dates from 1898, not 1842, as Taylor seems to think, and it covers only the New Territories, not the whole base, but the whole base was handed back to China in 1997.

The Boers and the British

On page 207 Taylor mentions the Boers of South Africa: "The Transvaal had been established as a homeland by the Boers, Afrikaner farmers of Dutch origin, who left the Cape earlier in the century rather than accept British rule…" Actually, the word is usually spelled "Afrikaaner" with a double A to mark the Dutch origin and the langauge that many of them speak: Afrikaans.

On pages 208-209 Taylor mentions the Boer war:

"By the end of 1899, the British and the Boer settlers were at war… It was the first time British soldiers had faced such a campaign, and they sustained heavy losses over the next two years, before the war ended with the Treaty of Vereenining."

According to the text, the war took place from 1899 to 1901. The timeline on page 200 gives the same dates: "1899: Start of Boer War" and "1901: Treaty of Vereenining." The war began in 1899, as he says, but it did not end in 1901. It ended in 1902. The treaty of Vereenining was signed on 31 May 1902. Vereenining is the name of the town in Transvaal where the treaty was signed.

The British Commonwealth of Nations is mentioned twice. On page 195 (in the beginning of the chapter) Taylor says it is "an association of 53 independent nation-states." But on page 213 (at the end of the chapter) he says: "There is also the Commonwealth of Nations, in which the United Kingdom, 52 former British colonies and Mozambique, formerly ruled by Portugal, are linked as a voluntary association of independent states."

From page 195 to page 213, membership seems to have grown from 53 to 54. Which one is it? 53 or 54? And is Mozambique, a former Portuguese colony, really a member of the British Commonwealth? Mozambique is indeed a member, having joined the association in 1995. The first figure is right: there are 53 members, i.e. the UK, 51 former British territories and Mozambique. Why is it so hard for Taylor to get the facts right?

Pius VI and Pius VII

The Napoleonic Empire is covered on pages 214-227. On page 216 Taylor mentions Napoleon's "reorganization of the police, the educational system, the judiciary and above all the army," adding one brief sentence about his relations with the Vatican state: "He also repaired relations between the French Republic and the papacy."

This statement is very strange considering the actual relations between Napoleon and the Vatican state. Pope Pius VI had the office 1775-1799. How did Napoleon deal with him? In February 1798 French troops entered Italy. When Pius VI refused to obey Napoleon's orders, he was taken prisoner and transported from one place to another, ending up in the citadel of Valence where he died in August 1799, six weeks after his arrival there. However, he was not buried until January 1800. Later his body was exhumated and transported to Rome where it was re-buried in February 1802.

The caption to the picture on page 217 reads as follows: "The concordat of 1801, signed between Napoleon I and Pope Pius VII, assured the Roman Catholic Church's position as the majority church of France and restored some of its civil status, which was lost during the revolution."

Pope Pius VII had the office 1800-1823. How did Napoleon deal with him? There was a Concordat of 1801. Napoleon and his allies ruled many Catholic lands, and so he realised that it would be a good thing for him if he appeared to have a good relationship with the Vatican state. But most of what was in the Concordat of 1801 was dictated by Napoleon. The pope just had to obey.

In 1804 Pius VII travelled to Paris for Napoleon's coronation. In the old days, the political leader would travel to Rome to be crowned by the religious leader. But this time it was the other way around. Maybe the pope thought he was going to crown Napoleon, but it did not happen like that. Pius VII was present, but Napoleon crowned himself. This small gesture was very important, because in this way Napoleon showed the pope and the world that he was above the pope.

Around 1808, Napoleon's army seized the papal lands in Italy. When Pius VII protested, his protest was ignored, and he himself was a virtual prisoner for several years. He was not able to return to Rome until May 1814 when Napoleon was beginning to lose his power.

The truth is that Napoleon dominated and humiliated two popes in a row, Pius VI and Pius VII. Taylor's claim that Napoleon "repaired relations" between the French Republic and the papacy is a very strange statement which reveals a serious misunderstanding of European history around the year 1800.

Towards the end of this chapter, on page 226, Taylor writes just three lines about Napoleon's son, who was known as the King of Rome, but even this brief passage is inaccurate: "Napoleon Bonaparte's son, who was born three years before Waterloo and died at the age of 21, was considered Napoleon II, even though he never held any political office."

Napoleon II was born on 20 March 1811, that is fours years - not three years - before his father's final defeat at Waterloo in June 1815. He died on 22 July 1832, so he did live to be 21. This time Taylor got it right!

Hitler and Stalin

The Third Reich is covered on pages 228-235. On page 229 Taylor mentions some of Hitler's political tricks in the beginning of 1933: "He bullied parliament into passing the Enabling Act, which gave his personal decrees the force of law. Germany's democratic government had voted itself out of power."

This wording is wrong. It was not the government, but rather the parliament which had voted itself out of power. The government, led by Hitler, had a lot of power, and Hitler used it to further his own political goals.

On page 232 Taylor mentions the pact concluded between Germany and the Soviet Union in august 1939: "In August, despite his opposition to communism, his purges of communists at home, and his frequently repeated contempt for the Slavs of Eastern Europe, Hitler also signed a non-aggresion pact with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin (1870-1953)."

Hitler and Stalin made the pact, but they never signed it. Foreign Minister Ribbentrop signed on behalf of Germany, while Foreign Minister Molotov signed on behalf of the Soviet Union. On page 239 (in the chapter on the Soviet empire) there is a picture of the signing ceremony in Moscow. The picture shows Molotov sitting at the desk while he is signing the pact. Stalin and Ribbentrop are standing in the background. But the caption to the picture does not mention any names.

The text on page 239 says "Stalin signed the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler's foreign minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893-1946)." Once again this is wrong, since Stalin never signed the pact. Molotov is not mentioned anywhere, although the picture shows him signing the pact.

By the way, Stalin was not born in 1870, as stated in the quote from page 232. The date of his birth is a bit of a mystery. According to several official documents, he was born on 18 December 1878. This date was also used by himself until 1921. But from 1922, he changed his date of birth to 21 December 1879, and while he was the leader of the Soviet Union, his birthday was celebrated on 21 December. From 1922, he lied himself about one year younger than he really was. Stalin's date of birth is mentioned again on page 239, and here Taylor says 1879. This is the version that Stalin used while he was in power, but actually it is not correct.

How many members?

The Soviet Empire is covered on pages 236-245. On page 238 Taylor mentions the establishment of the Soviet Union in 1922 and the six founding members:

** Russia

** Byelorussia (now Belarus)
** Ukraine
** Georgia
** Armenia
** Azerbaijan

On pages 239-240 he mentions the three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which were annexed (against their will) during World War II. By now we know of nine members. But on page 237 Taylor says the USSR comprised 15 "union republics." What about the remaining members? He never tells us anything about them. But we want to know. Who are they and when did they join? Here are the (modern) names and the dates of entry:

** 1924 - Uzbekistan

** 1925 - Turkmenistan
** 1929 - Tajikistan
** 1936 - Kazakstan and Kirgyzstan
** 1940 - Moldova

By the way, for a few years, the USSR comprised sixteen members, but it seems Taylor does not know this. We have to add the Karelo-Finnish Republic which existed from 1940 until 1956. This republic was established after the winter war between Finland and the USSR (1939-1940), which Taylor mentions on page 239. In 1956, it was dissolved and its territory was downgraded to an autonomous region which was a part of the Russian republic. Today this territory is still a part of Russia.

During World War II the Soviet Union also established a naval base at Porkkala, 30 km west of the Finnish capital Helsinki. But in 1956 the base was evacuated and handed back to Finland. At the time many people in Finland took these steps as a sign that the Soviet Union did not have any further designs on Finnish territory.

Taylor's failure to mention the shortlived Karelo-Finnish republic and the naval base at Porkkala constitutes an omission of an important fact.

On page 240 Taylor says "Romania was pressured into handing over Bessarabia, which stretched north from the Black Sea, as well as northern Bukovina, in the east of the country," but he never says what happened to these territories after World War II or after the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. Bessarabia corresponds (more or less) to the republic of Moldova which was annexed in 1940. Today it is an independent country whose name appears on the map on page 243. Northern Bukovina was incorporated into the republic of Ukraine.

Katyn

On page 240 Taylor also mentions the horrible massacre of Katyn:

"An insight into the brutality of Soviet tactics in this conflict came some years later, with the discovery in woods near Katyn, in eastern Poland, of the remains of some 15,000 Polish officers and others, who had been summarily executed there on Stalin's orders."

Two things are wrong here: in the first place, Katyn is not in eastern Poland, it is in western Russia, some 15 kilometers west of the Russian town of Smolensk. Secondly, while more than 15,000 Polish officers and other members of the Polish elite went missing during the war, this number of bodies was not found at Katyn, only some 4,500 bodies were found there.

The rest of the missing bodies were buried in two other places: Kharkiv and Mednoye. But these mass graves were not discovered until 1990 when the Soviet authorities finally accepted responsibility for the killing. More than 15,000 Polish bodies were found in the three mass graves.

In July 2000 a Katyn memorial, sponsored by Poland and Russia, was dedicated at the site. Katyn is still a very emotional topic in Poland and Russia, but officially the two states are reconciled.

It is, of course, a good idea to mention Katyn, because it is an important symbol of the difficult times and hard conditions which existed during this period, but it is sad to see that Taylor does not know where it is and he never bothered to find out. How can he be so careless with regard to the details of the story he wants to tell?

On this page Taylor also mentions the territorial gains the Soviet Union made in the east during the last days of World War II:

"… in the eventual peace settlement the Russians regained territory on the island of Sakhalin and the town of Port Arthur (now Lüshun), both of which had been part of the Russian empire in the 19th century."

It is true that the Soviet Union took over the town of Port Arthur which had been a part of tsarist Russia for a few years (1898-1905) before World War I. Russia had to cede the town to Japan after its defeat in the war of 1905. But the town was handed back to China in 1955, and this fact is not mentioned by Taylor. His account about Port Arthur is incomplete.

On page 243 Taylor mentions the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Then he continues: "The next year [= 1980] US elections saw Ronald Reagan (1911-2004) come to power as president…"

This wording is not quite right. As explained earlier, the US president is elected in November of one year, after which he is inaugurated in January of the following year. In this way the candidate has some time to get ready for the new job. Ronald Reagan was elected president in November 1980 and inaugurated in January 1981.

Conclusion

This book has 25 chapters, and in 16 of them, I have found a large number of factual errors, misunderstandings and omissions of important facts. Obviously, there could be more mistakes in this book. Perhaps I was not able spot them all. In its present form, this book looks like the first draft of a manuscript which has to be edited and corrected, but unfortunately, and incredibly, Quercus went ahead and published the manuscript in its present form, disregarding its obvious and serious weaknesses.

A famous proverb says: "You can't judge a book by its cover." In this case it is certainly true: the cover is beautiful, but the text between the covers is terrible. However, now the damage has been done, and the book stands as a monument of embarrassment not only to the author but also to the publisher.

At the end of this long review, one important question comes to mind: can a journalist write - or should a journalist even try to write - a book like this? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the person. The journalist does have an advantage (or a strength). He/she is trained to compress a large amount of information into an account that is short and clear. The journalist will never get lost in an endless discussion about some minor detail which may seem very important to the professional scholar.

On the other hand, the journalist also has a disadvantage (or a weakness). He/she does not really know the history of these empires, does not know the primary sources or the modern research that is based on them. The journalist may make elementary mistakes which the professional scholar would never make or omit important facts which the professional scholar would never forget.

Having read this book I know what Taylor should have done. He should not have tried to write this book. Obviously, the job was too big for him. Instead he should have contacted 29 professional scholars - one for each empire - and asked them to write an article on the empire on which he/she is a specialist. Minimum 5-10 pages, maximum 15-20 pages. Taylor would be the editor of these articles; turn them into clear and readable accounts, and make sure they all used the same dates for dynasties and empires, in order to avoid conflicting information about the same person or the same event. Of course, conflicting opinions would be welcome, since it is always interesting to study different interpretations of the historical sources and the historical events.

Clearly, Taylor did not understand this. He wanted to write the book himself. But his publisher should have told him to give it up and should have asked him to become the editor of a collection of contributions from professional scholars. I would have loved to read a book like this.

I sent a copy of this review to the publisher, hoping that the publisher and the author would consider and think about the information given here. They never bothered to reply. However, I sincerely hope that Taylor will never write - and that Quercus will never publish - a book as bad as this again.

* * *

 

Andrew Taylor,

The Rise and Fall of the Great Empires, 

Quercus, 2008, 256 pages

 

* * *