I'm looking to choose a book to explore the history of the British empire. I want the book to be readable and enjoyable. I'm interested in the tensions between Britain and other empires/states, as well as the economics and politics of the empire (and I read that Ferguson specializes in economic/financial history). I also would like to learn about the positive/negative effects of colonization around the world.
At this point, I'm deciding between Ferguson's Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World and Darwin's Unfinished Empire: The Global Expansion of Britain. Which would /r/askhistorians recommend for a casual reader like me?
I've heard concerns that Ferguson is too revisionist, in that his book is a counter to the leftist critiques of the empire. Is he a little too revisionist?
In addition, does either book get bogged down in anecdotal material (of which I'm not a fan)?
Any thoughts on Darwin's thematic approach rather than chronological? For someone relatively unfamiliar with the history, is this a downside?
Should I choose a different book altogether? I appreciate all suggestions, though I ask that the book be of reasonable length (I'm not looking for a massive and comprehensive history of everything regarding the British empire).
Thanks in advance for all responses!
John Darwin's work is much, MUCH better. It's true that Ferguson does some economic history, but after some fairly good quality early-career research, he has turned out a string of increasingly poor quality and often sloppy or selective works. I strongly recommend against Ferguson, and particularly his book on the empire which ignores or downplays literally a generation of scholarship in Britain, Commonwealth, and post-colonial countries that articulated a broad range of critiques of the empire. Ferguson's argument amounts to "it wasn't that bad because other empires (Nazis and Japanese) were worse." That's an argument to serve political purposes, not to contribute to an understand of the British and imperial past.
You mentioned that he pushes back against "leftist" critiques, but while Ferguson himself might agree with that, it's important to recognize that the critiques of empire are truly broad and certainly not limited to Marxian ones. Indeed, one fact of the British Empire that is simply impossible to ignore (though Ferguson does his best!) is the extent to which it was based on coercion.
In any case, Darwin is a far better alternative. If you want something more economic, look up Jeffrey Williamson. I disagree strongly with his conclusions about the economic history of industrialization and how it related to the empire, but he's an honest scholar who does worthwhile empirical research.