The Rise and Fall of the Great Empires (1)

Introduction

Andrew Taylor is a journalist and a writer. As a journalist he has written for many newspapers and magazines, including the Sunday Times. He is the author of several books, including The World of Gerard Mercator: The Mapmaker who revolutionized Geography (hardcover 2004, paperback 2005). The book under review here covers the rise and fall of several empires from antiquity to the present day.

There are 25 chapters, with each chapter covering one empire, except for one chapter which covers two empires (Spain and Portugal). Why? No reason is given for this exception. Maybe because these two states were ruled by the same king for a brief period of time (1580-1640), or maybe simply because the author and the publisher feel that 25 is a nice, round number. Each chapter includes a map of the empire in question, a timeline with important dates and a list of kings or emperors of the empire in question. The book begins with an introduction and ends with a bibliography and an index.

The 25 chapters do not have the same length. Some are short, they get only four pages each: the Sumerian, the Aksum, the Chola, the Songhai Empires and the final chapter which is called "A New World Empire?" Some are long, they get 20 pages each: the Roman and the British Empires. The remaining 18 chapters range somewhere between six and sixteen pages.

This is a beautiful book, but the text is terrible. In fact, the best thing I can say about this book is that it has many beautiful illustrations. The text is a total disappointment, for three reasons. The first reason is the general composition of the book, or the choice of empires: three important empires are missing. The second reason is the bibliography: the list of titles is incomplete and obsolete. The third reason is the text: there is a large number of factual errors, misunderstandings, and omissions of important facts.

Three empires are missing

Regarding the first reason: in the introduction, on page 7, Taylor explains his choice of empires with these words:

 

"The choice of which empires to include is anything but arbitrary; irrespective of their duration or geographical extent, the 25 discussed here have all left an indelible imprint on world history."

 

I have no problem with the empires which are included here, but three empires are missing: the ancient Egyptian Empire and the modern French and Japanese Empires. These empires are relevant in any book about empires, and especially if we are to follow Taylor's own criteria. How can he exclude them?

The French Empire is mentioned by the publisher on the inside of the dust jacket:

 

"Some empires, like Hitler's Third Reich, rise and fall with dizzying swiftness over a short period; others, like the British and French colonial empires, grow gradually over the centuries, only to crumble much more speedily than they had expanded."

Isn't it strange that the publisher's announcement on the inside of the dust jacket mentions the French Empire, when this empire is not covered in the book? The omission of three important empires is a reason for serious disappointment.

Incomplete and obsolete

Regarding the second reason: the bibliography is very short. There is only one page with 28 titles which are listed in alphabetical order by the author's last name. This is often a good idea, but not in this case. Since the book has 25 chapters, and since each chapter covers one empire (with the exception mentioned above), obviously, the bibliography should follow the same pattern.

There should be 26 sections containing two or three titles about each empire. In addition, there should be a section containing some titles about empires in general. Taylor has one title like this: A. Motyl, Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse and Revival of Empires (2001). However, he does not cite Paul M. Kennedy, Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500-2000, an important work that was published in 1988.

There are two titles about Alexander the Great, two titles about the Incas, two titles about China, two titles about the Mongols and two titles about the Soviet Union, but not a single title about the Songhai Empire, the Aztec Empire or the Spanish Empire. What is included or not included here seems rather arbitrary. As a consequence, the bibliography is incomplete.

The titles are not exactly up to date. Only six of the 28 titles are published after 2000. The oldest title is from 1955. As a consequence, the bibliography is obsolete. An incomplete and obsolete bibliography is a reason for serious disappointment.

Factual errors and misprints

Regarding the third reason: it is obvious that a book like this will contain many dates. You would expect the author and the publisher to take great care that these dates are correct. However, it seems they have not done so. There is an incredible number of factual errors. You do not have to be an expert to see this. In many cases the author gives conflicting dates for the same person or the same event. Every careful reader can see that something is wrong here.

Regarding dates, Taylor says in his introduction, on page 7, that "certain start or end dates may appear contentious, but the rationale for their placement is consistently explained." I have no problem with alternative dates for the start or the end of a dynasty or an empire, if you have a good reason for them. But if you want to do this, you should at least be consistent, and Taylor is not. In many cases he gives two sometimes even three different dates for the same dynasty or the same empire.

Moreover, his statement that "the rationale for their placement is consistently explained" is simply not true. A case in point is the British Empire which is said to begin in 1584. This date is never explained. In fact, the year 1584 is never mentioned in the chapter about this empire.

Why 1584? In that year, Sir Walter Raleigh received a patent from Queen Elizabeth to start a colony  in the Americas. This could be the reason why Taylor picked this date. I do not know, because he never explains his choice. Anyway, if you want to pick a starting point for the British Empire, why not pick 1588? This is the year when the British fleet defeated the "invincible" Spanish Armada, and this really was the beginning of an empire.

Let us now take a look at the factual errors, misunderstadings and omissions of important facts in this book, going from the first to the last chapter. The Assyrian Empire is covered on pages 12-19. The text on page 16 mentions Tiglath-pileser III and his road to power: "In 754 BC, a revolt by the army brought a military leader to power. He took the name Tiglath-pileser III…" However, the list of kings on the same page says he ruled 745-727 BC. If you look at the dates - 754 and 745 - it is easy to see what happened here: the last two digits were switched around. The text (754) is wrong, and the list of kings (745) is right. A factual error like this can easily happen, but it should have been discovered and corrected before the manuscript was printed.

There are more cases like this. The headline for the chapter on Alexander the Great (page 39) dates his empire 336-323 BC, which is correct. However, the table of contents says 336-332 BC, which is wrong. The last two digits have been switched around. The timeline on page 190 says Babur the Tiger was born in 1438, which is wrong. The correct date is 1483. Again, the last two digits have been switched around,  but how can the general reader know?

Factual errors like these can be explained as misprints. And misprints do happen. On page 47, for instance, we read about  "the Antigonid and Selencid empires." Selencid is a misprint for Seleucid. On page 220 we read about "the Ausrian army," which is a misprint for the Austrian army. Maybe misprints like these are only small mistakes, but I point them here out because they are symptomatic of the careless attitude and lack of precision that dominate most chapters of this book.

Cyrus, Darius and Xerxes

The Persian Empire is covered on pages 20-31. On page 21 Taylor says king Cyrus II, known as Cyrus the Great, "succeeded his father Cambyses I to the throne of Anshan … in 559 BC." But in the same sentence Taylor adds the dates for his rule: 558-529 BC. The first is right, the second wrong. The sidebar on page 26 says 559-529 BC, while the list of Persian kings on page 30 says 558-529. Again, the first is right, the second is wrong.

How about Darius I? The text on page 25 says he ruled 522-485 BC, which is wrong. The sidebar on page 26 says 521-486, which is right. The timeline on page 30 repeats the right dates: 521-486. Here we have two right and one wrong.

The confusion continues with Xerxes. The text on page 27 says he ruled 485-465, which is wrong. The timeline on page 30 says 486-465, which is right. The text on page 33 repeats the wrong dates: 485-465. Here we have two wrong and one right.

There is more confusion regarding Darius II and Darius III. The timeline on page 22 says Darius II died in 405 BC, which is correct. But then he seems to come back to life again: the timeline on page 25 says "Succession of Darius II" in 336 BC, and "Darius II killed" in 330 BC. What happened here? The last two entries are not for Darius II, but for Darius III, two very unfortunate misprints.

Sulla, Pompey and Crassus

The Roman Empire is covered on pages 48-67. On page 51 Taylor mentions the conflict between the upper class (patricians) and the common people (plebeians). This conflict is real and relevant, however it belongs to the old republic. As time went by, the plebeians broke the monopoly that the patricians used to have on seats in the senate and political office. During the last hundred years of the Roman Republic we have a new conflict between the optimates, the old upper class which had its power base in the senate, and the populares, the new upper class which used the popular assemblies to further their interests. But Taylor does not seem to know this. On page 55 he says: "Sulla's loyalty had been to the patricians in the senate, but Pompey and Crassus allied themselves with the plebeians." This is a misunderstanding. Sulla was loyal to the optimates, while Pompey and Crassus supported the populares.

On page 56 Taylor writes: "One of Caesar's first priorities was to be elected consul, which he achieved in 59 BC." This passage shows that Taylor does not know how the Roman political system worked. Roman consuls and most other magistrates were elected in the summer of one year, after which they would serve from January to December of the following year. In this way they had some time to get ready for the new job. Caesar was elected in 60 BC, but he served in 59 BC. The timeline on page 50 makes the same mistake when it says "Caesar elected consul" in 59 BC.

In the United States, they have a similar system for the president who 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.

On page 57 Taylor mentions Mark Anthony, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus and Octavian, Caesar's heir, later known as Augustus. The three victorious generals agreed to rule the empire together, at least for a while. But soon they had a falling out. First Octavian pushed Lepidus to the side, and then he went to war with Mark Anthony. Taylor mentions the battle of Actium in 31 BC in which Octavian defeated Mark Anthony and Cleopatra of Egypt. Then he continues: "Octavian, sole survivor of the three men who had shared out the empire, was left as the unchallenged ruler of Rome." This wording is unfortunate. Mark Anthony killed himself in 30 BC following his defeat at Actium, but Lepidus was still alive. As Taylor says, Lepidus did not die until 13 BC. Octavian was unchallenged, true, but he was not the "sole survivor" of the three men who had shared out the empire.

On page 62 there is a portrait of Nero, the last of the Julio-Claudian line, who was emperor AD 54-68. The caption reads in part: "His massive new imperial palace (the 'Golden House') dominated the heart of Rome." On page 63 there is a picture of the Flavian amphitheatre, better known as the Colosseum. The caption reads in part: "Construction of this magnificent amphitheatre, which could seat some 50,000 spectators, was begun by Vespasian in AD 70."

These two illustrations are facing each other on opposite pages. It is probably just a coincidence, but there is in fact an interesting connection between them. Taylor does not mention this, maybe because he does not know about it. Parts of Nero's Golden House (Domus Aurea) was built on land that was confiscated from the people. After his death most of the palace was pulled down. The Colosseum was built where Nero had an artificial lake. Vespasian wanted to return the land to the people and to use it for a building which would provide entertainment for the people for many tears to come. In this way, there is a subtle connection between the two illustrations.

Han, Tang and Ming

The Chinese Empire is covered on pages 68-79. Taylor seems to be a bit confused about the Han dynasty. The list of dynasties and emperors on page 78 says it ruled 206 BC-AD 220. But the caption to the map on page 73 says 202 BC-AD 220. The first is right, the second wrong. Taylor is also confused about the first Han emperor who ruled under the name Han Gaozu. The text on page 72 says he ruled 202-195 BC. But the list of dynasties and emperors on page 78 says 206-195 BC. This time the first is wrong, the second is right.

The traditional dates for the Tang dynasty are 618-907. The list of dynasties and emperors on page 78 says 619-907, which is wrong, but almost correct. The timeline on page 70 says Li Yuan rebelled (in 617) and later (in 619) seized power as emperor Gaozu. Again, these dates are wrong, but almost correct.

On page 74, Taylor describes the beginning of the Tang dynasty: "Li Yuan's Tang dynasty held power in China for nearly 300 years, but the first emperor, who reigned as Gaozu (r. 618-26) was ousted after only a few months by his son, who took the reign name Taizong (r. 627-49)."

If you look at the text, you will see that Taylor contradicts himself. The first emperor ruled for eight years (618-626). Consequently, he was not ousted by his son "after only a few months." Moreover, Gaozu did not die when his son took over in 626, as Taylor implies, he lived on as a retired emperor until 635.

Taylor is also somewhat confused about Chinese geography. On page 72 he mentions the old capital Xian in central China and the new capital Beijing in the north. He says Xian is located "about 400 miles (640 km) southwest of Bejing." But this is not true. The distance between the two towns is almost twice as long: Xian is located some 750 miles (1200 km) southwest of Beijing.

The Ming dynasty (1368-1644) is covered on pages 78-79. Here Taylor mentions the third Ming emperor Yongle (also known as Zhu Di, 1402-1424) who "resumed attempts to expand the empire, building a huge navy and recruiting a standing army of a million men. The Song and Yuan [dynasties] had built ships both for war and for trade, but nothing on this scale. Ancient records suggest that over 1600 new ships were built, creating a navy of some 3750 vessels."

This is true. But Taylor never mentions the admiral Zheng He, who led seven expeditions to foreign lands (1405-1433). Why not? Instead, Taylor explains how other nations came to China to pay homage to the Chinese emperor in 1421, the year in which Zheng He left China on the sixth of his seven expeditions:

"Other Asian nations sent tribute to the Ming emperor - in 1421 a fleet of ships brought rulers and envoys of 28 nations from  as far away as Arabia, Africa and India to pay homage."

Given Taylor's silence about Zheng He, it is quite surprising to find a book about him cited in his bibliography: 1421 - The Year that China Discovered the World (2002). This book, written by Gavin Menzies, focuses on the admiral and his expeditions to foreign lands. If Taylor knows about this book, why does he not show this in his chapter on the Chinese Empire?

Two different answers

The Byzantine Empire is covered on pages 84-95. How long did it last? The traditional answer is from 395 to 1453, that is 1,058 years. The end of this empire (1453) is not in doubt, but the start could be. Taylor gives us two different answers to this question, one is absurd, the other maybe plausible, but still doubtful.

On page 85 Taylor tells us that Byzantine emperors "ruled in Constantinople for nearly 1,400 years." This is absurd. His own headline on the same page dates this empire 330-1453, that is 1,123 years, a far cry from "nearly 1,400 years."

While the start date given in the headline may be plausible, it is still questionable. Taylor is counting from 330, the year when Constantine (later known as the Great) moved the capital of the empire from Rome to Byzantium after which the name of the city was changed to Constantinople.

But this start date is not very good. It makes more sense to count from 395, when the empire was divided into a western and an eastern part. Today the eastern empire is known as the Byzantine Empire. If we count from 395 to 1453, we find it has a duration of 1,058 years.

On page 88 Taylor mentions Emperor Leo III (717-741) who introduced "a ban on the use of statues, paintings and icons in religious worship" in 726. Taylor does not say when the ban was introduced, but he does say when it was cancelled and how long he thinks it lasted: "The conflict lasted for more than 120 years, causing sporadic revolts across the empire and bedevilling relations with [the pope in] Rome, until Empress Theodora (r. 842-855) finally accepted in 843 that the icons could be brought back into church."

If you count from 726 to 843, you will find that the ban was in force for 117 years, so Taylor's statement about "more than 120 years" of conflict is wrong. The policy of banning pictures from the church is known as iconoclasm, a Greek word meaning "smash the pictures," which Taylor never uses. Why not use the word by which this special period is generally known to the world today?

* * *

 

Go to the next installment:

 

The Rise and Fall of the Great Empires (2)

 

* * *