Andrew D. LambertBesprekingen

Perhaps this is not a book of history. At its core, it is a political book. Although at nearly 400 meandering pages of text, it is too unproductively long and tedious to make a good pamphlet.

Lambert's central thesis is that a set of political beliefs (his political beliefs, I assume) that are centred on free trade, capitalism, democracy, British imperial nostalgia, and conservatism, can be linked with the historical concept of a "SeaPower". That concept is vaguely defined, unfortunately, but clearly you are a SeaPower if you trade overseas, have a fleet, and Lambert likes you. Primarily the concept of a SeaPower seems to be an attempt to give British exceptionalism a wider historical basis by looking for analogies, farfetched or not.

I would actually agree that some of the historical and philosophical links that Lambert tries to build have a probabilistic form of validity. They are not unique to him, either. For example, Ioanna Iordanou explores the same link between Venice's sea-trade economy and Venice's political and administrative system in her excellent book on Venice's Secret Service. But the difference is that she makes a strong effort to underpin her position with evidence. Lambert just makes claims. His book is a ratcheting series of assertions with way too few attempts to bring in some evidence to defend these claims. To the reader, this quickly becomes tedious.

Maybe we are supposed to takes his claims at face value because of Lambert's authority. He is no amateur, after all, but a professor of naval history at King's College with a substantial publication record. That seems hardly a sufficient reason to let him get away with an endless stream of assertions that are both poorly structured and repetitive. Moreover, some of them are outright bizarre. Lambert's fast summary of naval strategy in the 20th century fails to demonstrate much more than that strong opinions are an inadequate substitute for knowledge. Admittedly, Lambert is primarily a historian of the 19th century, but he should have known better.

This book is a mistake, then. Lambert is entitled to his views and he might have written a really interesting book about them. Probably it should have taken a lot more time, and some 300 pages less.

I read this book for research purposes. It's a very nice reference book with full color pages throughout of high quality, utilizing many period paintings and schematics depicting battles and the major players in fights. It does assume some basic knowledge--some terms are never defined, and there's no glossary in the back. The marginalia is especially nice, as the facts there often accompany pictures and bring in nice details. I wish there'd been more 'how did they do this' content like depictions of battle flags and their meanings, how ships communicated when underway, how weaponry was used and stored, etc. Still, quite informative.

When I started this book I really didn't know what angle Lambert was going to adopt. To be honest, I mostly expected a boiler-plate examination of the sinews of naval power for the current age, with a particular eye on Beijing's maritime aspirations. I then get exposed to this somewhat labored dichotomy between nations with a "seapower" culture, versus countries that simply have navies capable of offensive naval action; my reaction being okay, let's see what the author does with this.

One then goes through this looping examination of those disparate polities that Lambert holds had a "seapower" culture: Athens, Carthage, Venice, the Netherlands, and Britain. The argument being that only such states were the true creators of open societies, or are at least the best opponents of overbearing hegemonic states. It's at this point we eventually wind up arriving at author's true concern; Great Britain's absorption into a European Union that, to Lambert, is just a new form of German hegemony. Yes, this is mostly a pro-Brexit polemic. Keep in mind that I'm not convinced that the EU as it's been run has been all it's cracked up to be and, since this book was probably finished about 2017, you could argue that I should give Lambert more benefit of the doubt. However, since it turns out that the Brexit skeptics were dead right about this being a disastrous move, mostly implemented on dishonest arguments, that result makes this book look like wishful thinking. Professional historians might have reason to read this book as a case study of when a smart person fails to rise above their own prejudices, but the general reader should give this work a wide berth.

A great book about the naval war between Britain and America. Having said that, the bulk of the book takes place on the Atlantic and very little is said about the war on the Great Lakes (much of where war was actually settled).

Should be compulsory reading for Canucks and Brits alike.........................at least the Canadians remember that the USA invaded Canada, it's a shame we've forgotten. I've no doubt the book is thoroughly researched, and it's well written, evocative although not compulsive reading. Would recommend for any maritime enthusiasts.

I enjoyed this; didn't realise how high strung Nelson was, struggling with illness a lot of the time and feeling unappreciated/undervalued... The book is good on naval battle descriptions, and on describing the way in which Nelson innovated, cutting into the enemy formations, rather than lining up for a broadside-to-broadside canonade. Also interesting passages on how the cult of the hero was developed - political 'spinning' was around at the time as well....

Lambert sets out to re-cast the story and history of Sir John Franklin, but as a story about a scientist who happens to explore the world. More than that, Franklin's geographical explorations were the extension, not of a nationalistic fervour to discover the Northwest Passage, but to advance science and magnetic science in particular. Lambert is more interested in articulating that view than countering accepted views and so he fills in an important gap in our understanding of Sir John Franklin, namely what motivated him personally. Lambert offers ample supporting evidence to rightfully balance out a listing in the ship of history so we can see its full hull.

Lambert's text suffers from two smaller historiographical dilemmas. First, with the modern image of Franklin as a failed explorer, even a buffoon, pursuing an irrational national dream that suffered from a ridiculous sense of imperial bigotry, Lambert had quite the large sea to cross to convince us differently. This he accomplishes. At least for me with overwhelming and deep and convincing research on Franklin and magnetism. But he quite unsurprisingly is too often forced to defend this new impression of Franklin too strongly and to dismiss or ignore other aspects of the existing Franklin lore that might still be true. Just because, for example, science and magnetism played a much more significant role than historians normally credit, does not mean that nationalism and imperial bigotry did not play as or more significant a role. As with space exploration, science drove the detailed planning and objectives, but there would have been no human in space if not for national ambition and fervour and international politics.

Second, without some fairly deep background knowledge of Franklin and his many expeditions, it would be somewhat difficult to follow the depths of Lambert's arguments. He assumes a lot of the reader. That can be fine - nothing wrong with targeting a more learned reader - but in assuming so much, while trying to convince us much of the inherited view is wrong, it is sometimes hard to sail along with him and his arguments. Plus it leaves the sense that he has hastened over facts that are clash too much with his thesis. The endless detail of the scientific community and personalities, and how important science was to them is for me endlessly fascinating. If I had more knowledge of the history of the science, I'd be better able to weigh Lambert's views; but as it is, I know too much that doesn't seem to fit. Which is really unfortunate because I thoroughly enjoyed this book and think it is a critical addition that fills a very significant hole in the historical literature, in regards to both the re-casting of Franklin and the importance of scientific discovery at least on a par with geographical discovery.

With these two Franklin biographies now written, and Franklin's image now less superficial and caricature, there is a real opportunity for some historian to write a complete history of the man, free from the confines of having to attack an existing image or defend a contrary view. The historiography is ready for it. Something along the lines of what McGoogan has done with Rae and Lady Franklin, filling in the huge gaps in their backstory, before the events with which we are all familiar, and bringing them back to us in three dimensions. The history for its own sake, freed from the chains of prior interpretation and personal agenda. Something along the lines of what William Battersby does in James Fitzjames: The Mystery Man of the Franklin Polar Expedition .

This reads more like a biography of Sir John Franklin, rather than the specifics of the tragedy of his last expedition. Excruciatingly detailed and Lambert seems to put Franklin on some scientific or naval pedestal every chance he can get, which is all well and good, but it also reads defensive of him. I know a lot of books have flawed Franklin for various reasons, this book tends to feel like a lashing out against them. It is meticulously plodding the detail and importance of the magnetic science of the day, even going as to say that this was one of the primary reasons for the fated journey (yet nearly contradicts his own declarations in the evidence), and I won't even begin to tell you how annoying it is to not have a worthy MAP of the final voyage. Romanticized paintings are nice in a book, sure, to evidence the cult of Franklin legend, but give the reader a good solid map of what you are talking about. The book is OK, well researched enough, and the "Politics of a Tragedy" section is fascinating, but with the defensive perspective and not really specific to what the title of the book indicates, it is a little misleading. The conclusion of the book really nails the Franklin fate on the head; using only the existing evidence and weeding out any speculation. For that part, the book is well done.

Despite my interest in polar exploration, this book was a slog (I confess I skimmed a lot of it) and flawed in many ways, some general and some perhaps because I wasn't the kind of reader the author was writing for. In general, it is almost fatally flawed by the lack of maps showing the region Franklin and the other explorers were exploring (there is one tiny map tucked into a group of plates but neither it nor the other plates are ever referenced in the text). Second, the bulk of the book is not about Franklin and his quest, but about the ins and outs of British politics as it affected naval, scientific, and exploration policies in the 19th century, and about the efforts of Franklin's widow to find out what happened to him. Third, it is endlessly, endlessly detailed about the above -- more than I ever wanted to know. Perhaps a scholar of naval and scientific policies of the 19th century would enjoy this book, but not a general reader like me.

Fascinating history, but the writing could be better. Every so often, the author grasps for the appropriate word, and misses. The occasional paeans to various commanders and other deserving worthies would be improved by being rewritten as Hallmark cards or cribbing from the plaques on statues. Fortunately, that's the least part of the book.½

I picked this up as a companion book to the Aubrey-Maturin series, trying to get a little more background. Contains a good amount of useful/helpful data, great graphics, nice analysis of the place and role of naval strength during this period. Recommended.

Great little reference book. Picked this up while reading Neil Stephenson's Baroque Cycle so I could follow the sea battles between the Dutch and England in late 1600's.

As you might expect, Lambert being a naval historian, this work concentrates on Nelson's professional achievements, and leaves poor old Emma quite in the shade. Quite right, too; it isn't Nelson's love life that makes him interesting. Good accounts of the major actions (although the maps are somewhat pre-owned), and sound analysis of Nelson's tactical and administrative abilities. The work does require some knowledge of the Nelsonian navy - as one reviewer pointed out people are mentioned without any explanation as to their background - but given that, a very thorough (but compact) survey of Nelson's career and his impact on the nation and the Navy both in life and after death. My only quibble is that he protesteth a bit too much in his earnest attempts to clear Nelson of any wrong-doing whatever, and he makes his hero come across as a bit of a plaster saint sometimes. (Although to be fair he does not attempt to conceal that Nelson was also a hypochondriac, an egoist, and a right drama queen). Good read.