Andrew D. Lambert

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 show more 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. show less

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 show more 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. show less

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 show more 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 . show 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 show more depictions of battle flags and their meanings, how ships communicated when underway, how weaponry was used and stored, etc. Still, quite informative. show less