The Seven Years' War and the Fate of Empire in British North America

I have read this book three times cover to cover and each time I come away with a new insight as to who we are as a nation and as a people.
This book is fundamentally one of the most important books I have read in my life time and is a must read for everyone, whether or not you are a citizen. The Crucible of War sets the foundation, the stage for who we are as a people and what our country is all about. In my opinion no student, amateur historian or US Citizen can fully contemplate the history of the United States without having read Fred Anderson's Crucible of War. It is the crux of our DNA as a nation. I definitely recommend this to all.

Fred Anderson's Crucible of War is a readable, thoroughly researched account of the French and Indian War that should be a scholarly standard on the topic for years to come. His narrative achieves his goal of writing a book for the general public while satisfying the needs of historians. Anderson's detailed analysis of the events and personalities in the war makes for a fast paced and entetaining read for anyone even remotely interested in the subject.
However the book is not without its flaws. Anderson's careful analysis of the war is excellent, but when attempting to push back "revolutionary" responses to British colonial administration, his argument becomes somewhat muddled. Colonial anger and frustration towards the various British ministries became radical almost from the first postwar tax (the Sugar Act) and had definitely achieved radicalism by the Stamp Act. Anderson's point that these taxes were rooted in the recent war is obvious, but he fails to account for why suddenly colonists resorted to mob violence to voice their opinions. In the end there is no "radical" explanation for colonial opposition to attempted British controls. Instead, Anderson resorts to unimaginative economic interpretations.
Anderson's choice of dates is also somewhat of a hindrance. If his postwar analysis is plagued by lack of radical explanations, the book might be considered too long. He might have shortened his postwar arguments into a briefer summary to support war-related imperial conclusions. However, if his intent was to prove how the war triggered a series of imperial control measures then the book is too short. He abruptly ended his study with the Stamp Act's repeal, but that was hardly the end of Crown-colony tensions.
But these issues do not detract from an otherwise outstanding effort. Anderson's mastery of his subject should make this book required college reading for at least the next decade. He could easily address some of the criticisms raised here by continuing his study through the Revolutionary War. For this war was, among other things, a continuation of the Second Hundred Years' War between Britain and France.

Most people who are not history aficionados find such tomes to be boring and bland reading, useful primarily for falling asleep. Even an objective historian will admit that most history books tend to be dry and uninspiring. Dr. Anderson's work is a rare and welcome departure. It is one of the most well written histories I have ever encountered.
Prior to its release, other histories of the French & Indian War tended toward being narrow, incomplete or seen as at best a precursor to what in American eyes is the more important American Revolution. Anderson's effort puts this pre-Revolution era in its proper perspective, and accurately elevates it to its more vital significance in the global perspective. Instead of being the backwater trial run leading up to the supposedly more important Revolution, it was really part of a world war; and the Revolution more an aftermath than the main event.
It is a balanced narrative. Anderson explains the unfolding events both from the American and British point of view. This makes it easier for the reader to understand the gradual polarization on each side of the Atlantic that led inexorably to Revolution later. He also endeavors to present the French perspective as well as that of the various Indian nations.
What brings the story to life, though, is his skill in blending the strategic events with colorful rendition of individual people and events. As an historian, he is blessed with a 'zoom lens' that equally sees both the little guy and the big picture. His detailed account of Washington's folly in the Ohio wilderness that became the matchstick to ignite world war is particularly poignant.
Along with A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin, Anderson's book is one of the two best histories I have read. I highly recommend both to everyone, even those who seldom delve into history.

Don't know that much about the French and Indian War? You're not alone. As the author notes, the French and Indian War, or as it was known globally, the Seven Years War "figures in most Americans' consciousness of the past as a kind of hazy backdrop to the Revolution." However, this book brings that "hazy backdrop" to life.

There were so many things I learned, that I couldn't mention them all. For example the colonies were hardly a compact unit fighting along with their parent country-the British-against the French. Not only was there great animosity between the Colonials and the British Regulars, but there was also a lot of competition amongst the Colonies themselve regarding land disputes and raising and funding of troops. I also learned that Indians fought on both sides. While the majority fought on the side of the French at the beginning of the war, many of them supported the British once they found that the French could no longer protect their interests.
!
What held my interest most, however, was the writing and structure. For example, rather than interrupt the the thread of his history by giving a long background on each individual being introduced (something I find very distracting when I read histories) Anderson came up with the ingenious idea of using contemporary portraits of these individuals and summarizing their life stories in the captions. He also includes maps drawn shortly after the battles took place. I found these to be a valuable addition to the information presented. The author also does an excellent job of presenting the war in it's global context--something that was usually overlooked in our high school history classes.

The only part of the book I did not care for was the way the aftermath of the war was treated. Once he gets into Writs of Assistance and The Stamp Act, it starts to read a little more like your standard history text. Though, I'll allow, that it could be the terms themselves that made! me feel like I was back in school. Still, all in all, I would say this was well worth the time it took me to read all seven hundred plus pages.

Anderson has done a great job in explaining the significance of the Seven Years War. Showing that this war, and not the famed Revolutionary War, could indeed be of more importance is a great notion, for if the continent were not rid of the French beforehand than Independence might not have been an option.

The Seven Years War is an immensely important war as it altered the politics of a great many nations. This could perhaps be the first world conflict (England, France, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Sweden and later Spain and Portugal; not to mention the fighting in so many places including North America, Europe, West Indies, Africa and India) to take place. Anderson does a good job in explaining how the English, under Pitt, were able to stop the French by maintaining the mastery of the sea and by invading the French colonies and thus stemming the amount of money and men available to be expended on the North American front. Couple this with the French loss of Indian aid and Anderson has made it clear why the English won.

This is a great book for someone interested in colonial North America leading into Independence and I would recommend it to anyone. As with the other reviews, the last 200 or so pages of the book seems out of place, as though it would belong with a book about the Revolutionary War, but it is still useful and interesting to read. When you are through with this move on to Middlekauff's The Glorious Cause and you will have a great understanding of the latter half of the 18th century and the development of the United States.

Fred Anderson's stated goal in writing "Crucible of War" was to produce "a book accessible to general readers that will also satisfy...historians' scholarly expectations." I am pleased to report that he attains that goal as completely as anyone could reasonably expect.
Anderson's subject is a relatively small slice of US history--the conflict known variously as the French and Indian War or the Seven Years War, along with the war's immediate aftermath. His narrative is highly informative. He describes how isolated skirmishes on what was then America's western frontier escalated into a true global war, involving every major European power. He convincingly explains how England eventually came to triumph over her rivals, and to inherit much of France's erstwhile colonial empire. Although his focus in on North America, he does not neglect events in Europe. He then shows how events like the Stamp Act Crisis and Pontiac's Rebellion were inextricably linked to the war and its outcome.
Anderson deserves credit for his skillful blend of diplomatic, military, economic and social history into a coherent whole--he should be a model for other scholars in this respect. Also noteworthy is his clear identification of the interest of the four main groups involved in the North American conflict--the French and their Canadian colonists, the English, the American colonists, and the Native Americans--and his untangling of the conflicts both within and between these groups.
While specialists may end up quibbling with some of the details of Anderson's interpretations, he seems to me to have amply demonstrated his claim that the French and Indian War was an extremely important influence on the revolutionary events of the following decades. "Crucible of War" is a genuine classic of historical writing.

Fred Anderson's "Crucible of War" is an engrossing, detailed, and engaging account of the Seven Years War, known as the French and Indian War to most Americans. The book is thoroughly detailed in its handling of not only the military aspects of the period, but also of the political maneuverings on both sides of the Atlantic. Anderson's narrative also discusses the shift in how both the French and English generals and politicians in North America essentially "co-opted" one another's treatment of and engagement with the Indian tribes and nations.

An earlier reviewer commented that Anderson presents 'not quite revisionist' view that there is no link between this period and American Revolutionary period. I finished the book with an entirely different perspective. Prior to the Seven Years War, the colonies had been more or less left by Britain to tend to their own affairs. However, as Great Britain struggled with the enormous costs of waging a world war and the subsequent peace, she began looking towards the colonies as a source revenue as well as taking a more active role in colonial governance. In the colonial reaction to Proclamation of 1763, the Stamp Act, and Townsend Acts, I saw a "revolution" in the colonial mindset that began to question the relationship between Great Britain and her colonies.

One take-away I had from the book was a correction of my long-held misconception that the "French and Indian War" was one war. In fact, at the very least, the argument could easily be made that these were two separate wars, an Anglo-French War (w/Indian allies on both sides) followed by an Anglo-Indian War(s).

I truly appreciated the detail and effort the Mr. Anderson obviously put forth in the text and believe it has helped me gain a more comprehensive understanding of the tumultuous period and events that led to the founding of our great nation.

I am somewhat of a history buff.

That said, this is a book which will relate well to a person with a general historical bent, a history buff or a scholar. As others have said, that was the author's goal, and he succeeded in every respect.

Before I read his work, the French and Indian War was just a footnote in some American history class I took. This book showed me that the War was nothing short of a turning point in Western Civilization.

Equally important, the book was extremely readable. We have all read books that we have to push through because - well, we paid for them and we are going to finish them. This is NOT that book. This is a book that I had to strain to put down. I stayed up late to read it. I looked forward to it all day.

Since reading it, I read the seminal book on the war by Francis Parkman - Montcalm and Wolfe. While it was also excellent, I did not find it nearly as readable. I also found it to lack the breadth of "Crucible." So if you are picking one or the other I would heartily endorse "Crucible." If you are planning to read both - absolutely do so.

Either way, look at the scope of the Seven Years War (as it is known in Europe). France was decidedly beaten by the British - not really on paper - but in reality. What grip France had on the northern part of the western Hemisphere was broken. The pathway for America to spread to the pacific was basically opened. The war laid the groundwork for the American revolution and France's involvement in it. It began to decline of the French monarchy which led to France's revolution. In India, the British became predominant. In many other colonial zones the British became dominant. In Europe, the Prussians under Frederick the Great held off the combined might of France, Austria and Russia to become a dominant player in the ultimate unification of Germany.

Turning point, I would say so.

...most of us would agree, was the American Revolution. After reading this excellent book by Fred Anderson don't be surprised to find yourself thinking otherwise. Certainly you will come away with a new appreciation for the Seven Years War or the French and Indian War as our forefathers called it. The book begins in 1754 in western Pennsylvania with a skirmish between French troops and land hungry colonists led by a young Virginian named George Washington. It is a story about five cultures (English, English colonials, French, French settlers and Native Americans) and the war they fought for control of the vast territory of the Ohio Valley. Anderson tells us it is "a story of violent imperial competition that resulted first in a decisive victory and then in a troubled attempt by metropolitan authorities to construct a new British empire along lines that would permit them to exercise effective control over colonies and conquests alike. It is not, therefore, a story that has the birth of the an American republic anywhere in view." Anderson brings his narrative to a close in 1766, long before the revolution. There are 2 areas where the book shines, bringing new insight into our pre-revolutionary history.
1. HISTORY AND CULTURE OF THE INDIAN TRIBES. One of the cultures Anderson focuses on - Native Americans - we all know, is not one homogenous culture at all. The author is brilliant in showing how the internecine history of the eastern tribes brought about the emergence of the Iroquois nation as the dominant tribe in the northern Ohio Valley area. Tribes such as Mingos, Delaware, and Shawnee were almost subservient client states of the Iroquois and this made it very difficult for both the English and the French to negotiate alliances with the Indians. Also, what becomes very clear is that the use of Indians as scouts, mercenaries, and troops was a contributing cause to the atmosphere of "fear and misunderstanding, miscalculation and mischance". This was due to the totally different norms under which Indians fought; rules of battle that neither French nor British practiced nor understood. Anderson explains the massacre following the surrender of Fort William Henry in this light. "The only rewards that the Indians -whether Christian or heathen- had expected were plunder, trophies to prove their prowess in battle, and captives to adopt or sacrifice as replacements for dead warriors or perhaps hold for ransom. When it became clear that the man whom they had called 'Father' [Montcalm] intended to do what no real father would and deprive them of of the reward they had earned, most of the warriors decided merely to take what they had come for, and then to leave". Misunderstanding leading to butchery; the immediate consequences of it being that the English and colonials would never again trust Montcalm. It was not only the French though; such incidents had happened before with Indians in the service of the English. The Indians themselves saw Montcalm's interference in their plundering as cause for concern; "never again would Indian allies flock to the French colors". The circle of mistrust was now complete.
2. NO LINK WITH THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. Perhaps the greater contribution of the book is the 'not quite revisionist' but certainly an alternative view of the events of the period. In the years 1758-1760, following an English victory and with the demise of New France, Anderson sees a change in the relationship between Britain and her colonies. The British government he says became convinced "that the only rational way to deal with the American colonists was to exert control from Whitehall." Anderson portrays the Stamp Act, the Townshend Act and even the Tea Act as means by Britain to exert local control. He is convincing with his argument that the reactions by the colonists to these acts "did not reflect a movement toward revolution so much as an effort to define the nature of the imperial relationship". Despite the focus of the book on the period between 1754-1766, Anderson makes one of the most powerful statements of the whole book regarding the decade prior to the revolution. "Between 1766 and 1775 lay a decade-long effort to deal with the legacies of a great war and a prodigal victory - an effort that instead of solutions generated a constitutional stalemate. Until the shots rang out on that bright spring morning [April 19, 1775 at Concord, Massachusetts], the Britsh empire had remained a transatlantic political community made up of subjects who, despite their differences, questioned neither their common allegiance to the Crown nor their common British identity".
Treat yourself to this thoroughly enjoyable and well written history; it is sure to be a work that is referred to for some time to come.

This is a rather large book (746 pages in the main body, another 88 pages of footnotes). Actually, I only finished the first portion - a bit over half - up through Amherst's capture of Montreal, which effectively ended French control of Canada (or New France). The second part of the book deals with continuing conflicts with Indians and the growing unrest of the British colonies. Maybe I'll come back to that some day.
There is a tremendous amount of detail in this book, covering a period about which I know relatively little. It starts off with an incident in Jumonville's Glen in the Ohio Valley in May 1754. A small Virginia military force led by Lieutenant Colonel George Washington ambushes a small party of French regulars. The French quickly surrender, but events get out of control. Before Washington can stop it, Indians accompanying his force massacre the French commander (Lt. Jumonville) and several of his men. This is the spark that ignites the French and Indian War.
There are a few drawbacks to the book. On the plus side, there are several maps towards the beginning of the book that include just about every locale mentioned in the text. Sprinkled throughout the text are a collection of fine contemporary maps and sketches of the various forts and battlefields mentioned in the text. These are extremely interesting. However, there is a deficit of maps depicting approach marches and topography. This is a relatively minor inconvenience, however.
An interesting point Anderson makes is his contention that General Wolfe's capture of Quebec was really just dumb luck rather than a masterstroke by a military genius. In fact, he contends that General Wolfe was so ill and demoralized that he landed above Quebec and engaged the French in order to die a military death - to commit suicide, as it were - and then let his second in command, whom he despised, extricate and withdraw the force. In the event, the battle becomes the pride of Great Britain, and he gets a hero's death far beyond anything he could have expected. Anderson also downplays the importance of the fall of Quebec, subordinating it in importance to the naval battle of Quiberon Bay in which the Royal Navy defeated France's capability to succor the survivors of Quebec and thereby dashed France's hopes of retaking it.
This is an excellent book, although I would have preferred more coverage of Rogers' Rangers. It's length, however, couldn't hold my interest

After reading "Crucible of War," my first question was "Why can't other history authors lay out books as reader-friendly as Fred Anderson?!"
Although Anderson's writing is not as interesting as Robert Massie and his information contains a few gaps in it, the beauty of this book is the layout. It has everything an avid history reader could ever want.
The first thing that will catch your eye is the maps in the first few pages. Anderson has included nine maps covering the areas he discusses in the 862-page book (746 pages of text) showing key cities, rivers, forts, easy-to-read topography, and indian tribal lands. Finally, a book where the reader doesn't have to scramble for an atlas every other page or use another book's maps to figure out where things are. Every key item Anderson hits on will be easily labeled in his maps. The only thing missing on the maps are troop movements, but with his descriptions in the text, it's easy to figure out where everybody is.
The second thing about the layout is the quick referencing tools. Anderson has divided the book into 10 parts and 74 chapters. Before each part, he gives a one paragraph summary as to what the major events are in the section. Before each chapter, he lists the month and date in which the chapter's topic takes place, giving the reader an easy chronology to follow throughout the book.
Another feature is the illustrations. Anderson has included over 50 illustrations of people and places spread throughout the book which gives the reader a view into what the towns looked like and the style of dress in the period. The pictures also help to put a face on the major players in the book.
The book can also be an outstanding reference tool for college students. Aside from the quick references within the chapters, in the back is an 85-page Notes section and a 25-page Index. The Notes section contains more information on the chapter footnotes and where Anderson got the information in case the reader would like to further delve into the topic. What more could a student ask for?
As for Anderson's writing, I found it to be generally easy reading (in comparison to other history works) that has a wealth of information. He's very complete in discussing his selected topics and I never found his work to be dragging. And although he skips back-and-forth between the colonies and the continent, it never was confusing.
If there was one thing missing, it was more coverage of the war in Europe. Anderson includes information on who was fighting whom and who won which battle, but he does not go into the depth of the battles like he does for the conflicts in the colonies.
The last section of the book covers the impending crisis that was brewing for the British in North America. It reminded me very much of Massie's "Dreadnought," where it covers the escalating tensions, but very appropriately stops short of getting into the actual armed conflict.
I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in colonial history, the founding of the United States, or military history. And if you're a college student, you will not find a better reference work!

the store introduced an extremely helpful feature with the "Look Inside this Book" function. Unfortunately, the "Introduction" to Fred Anderson's "The Crucible of War" isn't among the pages prospective buyers can peruse online. Reading this book is a delightful, but substantial undertaking. Before starting this 750-page tome, do yourself a favor and carefully read the nine-page introduction to determine if this is really the book you want to read.

First, let's be clear: this is NOT a military history of the French & Indian War. Many of the tepid reviews below express frustration that Anderson didn't write the book they wanted or thought they were getting. In fairness, the cover featuring Wolfe's heroic and idealized death on the Plains of Abraham and the quote from John Keegan claiming that Anderson's work compares favorably with Parkman's classic makes the issue more confusing for the potential reader. But Anderson clearly lays out the primary motivation and objective in writing this book in the introduction - and it certainly isn't to write the definitive military history of the French & Indian War, let alone the larger Seven Years War, of which North America was but one (albeit central) battlefield.

Rather, Anderson's objective is to place the events of the Seven Years' War in their proper historical perspective and, above all, to trace the enduring legacy of the wartime interaction between colonists and their ostensible countrymen: the British regular army, their officers and the Crown-appointed officials serving there. The author notes that there has long been a vigorous debate in academia over the central motivation of the participants in the American Revolution (i.e. was it purely class-based materialism as argued by those of the so-called "progressive" school, or more idealism and commitment to republican principles at maintained by "neo-Whig" scholars?), but striking (and misleading) agreement on the Stamp Act of 1763 as the fundamental point of departure. Anderson argues that this has obscured the importance and centrality of the Seven Years War in shaping the thoughts and actions of the colonies and Whitehall, alike, and ultimately leading to a war of independence that neither side originally sought nor wanted. The 1760s were thus not the pre-revolutionary years that Americans think of them as, but rather "post-war" years.

Anderson is a gifted historian and an enviable writer. Few people could have written a history this rich, this authoritative and yet accessible. If you approach the book as it was intended - a penetrating history of the seminal event of the eighteenth century and the social and economic consequences it wrought in America and England - you are sure to be more than satisfied.

This is an admirable effort to cover all aspects of the Seven Years War in North America. Most readers are not familar with the size and scope of this world wide conflict in the 18th century which had far reahing results beyond the America's. What the author has tried to do is tie in all the conflicts that were going on in Europe, the Carribean, and India, and relate them to events occuring in North America. This is an admirable concept, and one which needs to be done in order to have a greater understanding of the period. The author has also tried to carry the story beyond the French and Indian War and explain the gradual drift that lead toward eventual Revolution in Britain's colonies. The author's main thesis is that for too long we have simply studied the events leading up to the American Revolution without considering the earlier period. This is all laudable and good, but where the book falls short is in its military descriptions of the French and Indian War itself. Many of the battles and campaigns described are scant in their details. The author also spends too much time with rather dull Indian negotiations. True these were important events, but their description is too long. I would have preferred a more comprehensive account of the war itself, which has not been done in any recent works. For a book comprising over 700 pages, one should emerge with a very complete account of the conflict. The book would have done better with just the French and Indian War and perhaps Pontiac's rebellion. There has already been alot written about colonial America working toward Revolution with Britain. A glossary of British and French regiments which served during the conflict also would have been nice. Notwithstanding these shortcomings, this is still an impressive historical work. The writting is clear and flows nicely. But it is not the deffinitive work on the subject. Those wanting that should still refer to Francis Parkman and his volumes on the French and Indian War.

Few American history students will readily relate the French and Indian War to worldwide events, let alone the struggle on the European continent in the Seven Years War. Anderson masterfully weaves a highly readable, very well-researched tale that presents the reader with the complex components of the war: attitudes of the colonists toward self-government, England; British policies concerning their American possessions and subjects; Indian relations with the colonial governments and merchants. Moreover, the Crucible of War superbly translates the maneuverings and machinations of colonial, Briton, Frenchman and Indian into international grand strategy, and argues that the French and Indian War represented the culmination of British empire on the North American continent.
Anderson's book is a boon for the novice as well as well-versed historian, amatuer or otherwise, in this period. It is an easy read and his endnotes are a valuable resource for the more serious. Also, Crucible of War is replete with maps, a seeming requirement for any history book to be widely popular.
It is somewhat rare that a contemporary work will quickly earn the moniker 'classic,' but it would not be surprising if Crucible of War is placed on that level soon, if it is not already. An indispensible book for one's library.

Let's get one thing straight at the onset: this is not an easy book to read. For me, there were numerous references to unfamiliar American Indian tribes, unknown British generals, and a host of geographical names that all sounded exactly alike; consequently, I had to backtrack several times to clarify who was fighting whom and where. It was, however, a very rewarding book to read and worth the extra effort. It completely revamped my previous (misguided) impressions of the French and Indian War, impressions, granted, that lingered from elementary and high school history classes long ago from which I gathered the idea that the war was a local, American conflict in which George Washington showed the British how they should fight the American way, and which led to the colonists realizing they did not need England any longer so a few years later, they declared independence. (Naive, yes, but some of those ideas instilled early on die very hard.)
In a logical, stepwise manner, Anderson explains how the French and Indian War was part of a global conflict, illustrates the social conflict between the colonists and British soldiers, and clarifies the different allegiances of various tribes of American Indians (to mention but three of the many well-developed themes in this book).
At the same time, he gives detailed descriptions of the battles, political infighting in England, and simultaneous European developments. Pulling all of these strands together is no small task, but Anderson accomplishes it admirably and, best of all, in extremely readable prose.
There are also ample pictures and maps (to help sort out all the place names), a detailed index, and extensive end notes.

Prof. Anderson set high goals for this book. He aimed to produce a book that is attractive to general readers and a significant scholarly contribution. To accomplish the latter, he aimed at writing a history of the Seven Years War in North America that avoids the anachronistic pitfall of viewing it from the prespective of the American Revolution. Similarly, he aimed at giving just coverage to the imperial dimension of the War and all combatants; French, Canadians, Colonial Americans, British, and Native Americans. In addition to these ambitious goals, simply writing a substantial book on the Seven Years War requires some courage. This topic was covered masterfully by the pioneering scholar, Francis Parkman, in one of the peaks of 19th century American literature, and is analyzed in depth by the great 20th century scholar, Lawrence Gipson. Anderson accomplishes all his aims in a smoothly written and comprehensive volume. This is simply an excellent book. Prof. Anderson is remarkably erudite, as comfortable describing British politics as he is in analyzing the activity of Native Americans. Because of a lively writing style, this book is never ponderous. Several points deserve specific mention. Drawing on a wealth of recent scholarship, he emphasizes the role of Native Americans as independent and important actors in this conflict. He is particularly good at setting the North American conflict in the appropriate global perspective. To Anderson, the Seven Years War was an epochal event that formed the basis for Britain's subsequent Empire and set stage for the American and consequently, the French Revolutions. While he avoids seeing the Seven Years War through the prism of the American Revolution, he is very good at showing the ways that the experience of the Seven Years, both as experienced by the British and by the Colonials, set the stage for later conflicts. Interestingly, his conclusions on this topic are very similar to those reached by scholars who work backwards from the Revolution, for example, Robert Middlekauf in The Glorious Cause, part of the excellent Oxford History of the United States. This book required over 15 years of effort and it was time well spent.

In this book on colonial and imperial history, 1754-1766, Fred Anderson sweeps the Seven Years War out of the periphery of our historical memory and revitalizes it through new insights with this comprehensive tale. Namely, that this conflict led to changes in the structures of the British and French Empires which in turn led to the American War of Independence. He shows how the British policy was changed in its attitude toward the colonies throughout the war and how the colonists themselves were changed in the aftermath of the war by those policies as they were implemented.
With these goals stated he leaps into some of the most engaging history that I have read. Anderson has captured the epic feel of that era by bringing the main actors to life, and not limiting the history to a series of military campaigns. There are economic, diplomatic and cultural considerations that Anderson takes time to address. All actors on the stage of this conflict are portrayed to the exclusion of none. The aftermath of the war is included, ending with the colonial tax acts that are often portrayed as the cause of an 'inevitable' American revolution. Crucible offers a valuable reassessment of their place in history, making them the product of the Seven Years War and not a prelude to revolution.
Anderson's writing style is well suited to both the part time historian and a student majoring in history (undoubtedly professors as well). I would not be surprised if it became a common text in classes covering colonial or imperial history. This is a big, thick and juicy piece of history that will keep you up during the night reading. Enjoy it, for the Crucible is a rare find!

This title is an extremely detailed account of the French and Indian War in North America, with background on the Seven Years' War in Europe. The interweaving stories and abundance of historical British, American, Indian and European characters can be dizzying sometimes, but never boring. Especially well written chapters include those on the fall of Canada (esp. Montreal), Fort Ticonderoga, and the British involvement on the Continent in the German states.
Also, a very interesting collection of plates created from artwork done by British officers during the war is included as a chapter entitled "Scenographia Americana".
Finally, the real draw is Fred Anderson's tilt as a professor: the war is shown in the larger context of how the British first struggled to gain supremecy in North America and western Europe, and then how they struggled to maintain it.
Although it may be a little difficult to digest at times, this book will be very rewarding for people who love both colonial and 18th century European history, and those who want a detailed interpretation of events that led to the American Revolution. Just be prepared to invest some time.

The fat 700+ pages should not deter the reader from starting this wonderful start-to-finish history and story. The start and finish is pegged at each end with none other than our own George Washington, and the pages go by swiftly. The audio version of the book, read by a king's-Englishman voice-over, is good listening, but you really need the book to see all those excellent old drawings, maps, and illustrations. Because of the huge number of events and personalities - American, Indian, English, and French - it is nearly impossible to spend much time on any particular one (any one except George Washington, of course), as this would make the book an arm-breaker to carry around.

At the beginning we almost have an "uh oh" when the author, bow-tied professorial picture on the dust jacket and all, launches into the importance of the native Indian population in this war. He easily could have spent the book ranting about only this point, and the work would be less interesting and far less read. This fair point, not often recognized, though, was made and then put into perspective. The bigger point was that the French and Indian War was the first world war in history. Not a total war, which had to await Napoleon, but a war that spanned the globe in extent.

One can wonder if in France this war is called the "English and Indian War," or if there were Iroquois archives, the "Four-Faced English and French War" by our native citizens!

Can a professional historian produce a book that represents both a contribution to scholarship and a narrative interesting and accessible to the reading public? Fred Anderson answers the question affirmatively in his "Crucible of War" a comprehensive narrative of the Seven Years' War.
The great value of Anderson's work is that it places the Seven Years' War in context. The French and Indian War, as it has come to be known in American historiography, was but part of a larger, global struggle for imperial supremacy. The great value of Anderson's study is that he places the war in the context of this larger conflict. Ample (and justified) attention is paid to political developments in England, to battlefields in continental Europe, in India and the Carribean. The result is that the reader learns much of the differing British and American perspectives preceding the American revolution.
Anderson's narrative proceeds in a chronological fashion (as well it should) and is filled with vivid descriptions of the battles, political maneuverings and major personalities which animated the War. For one relatively uninformed about American colonial history, I found this work fascinating, very well written and a welcome analysis of the antecedents of the Revolutionary War period. It is also a much more manageable read than the cumbrous, multi-volume study of Lawrence Henry Gipson, upon which Anderson relies heavily. This will surely be regarded as the best one-volume synthesis of the Seven Years' War in North America for many years to come. I would recommend it to anyone interested in American colonial history, the British Empire or even 18th century military history.

The fat 700+ pages should not deter the reader from starting this wonderful start-to-finish history and story. The start and finish is pegged at each end with none other than our own George Washington, and the pages go by swiftly. The audio version of the book, read by a king's-Englishman voice-over, is good listening, but you really need the book to see all those excellent old drawings, maps, and illustrations. Because of the huge number of events and personalities - American, Indian, English, and French - it is nearly impossible to spend much time on any particular one (any one except George Washington, of course), as this would make the book an arm-breaker to carry around.

At the beginning we almost have an "uh oh" when the author, bow-tied professorial picture on the dust jacket and all, launches into the importance of the native Indian population in this war. He easily could have spent the book ranting about only this point, and the work would be less interesting and far less read. This fair point, not often recognized, though, was made and then put into perspective. The bigger point was that the French and Indian War was the first world war in history. Not a total war, which had to await Napoleon, but a war that spanned the globe in extent.

One can wonder if in France this war is called the "English and Indian War," or if there were Iroquois archives, the "Four-Faced English and French War" by our native citizens!

Can a professional historian produce a book that represents both a contribution to scholarship and a narrative interesting and accessible to the reading public? Fred Anderson answers the question affirmatively in his "Crucible of War" a comprehensive narrative of the Seven Years' War.
The great value of Anderson's work is that it places the Seven Years' War in context. The French and Indian War, as it has come to be known in American historiography, was but part of a larger, global struggle for imperial supremacy. The great value of Anderson's study is that he places the war in the context of this larger conflict. Ample (and justified) attention is paid to political developments in England, to battlefields in continental Europe, in India and the Carribean. The result is that the reader learns much of the differing British and American perspectives preceding the American revolution.
Anderson's narrative proceeds in a chronological fashion (as well it should) and is filled with vivid descriptions of the battles, political maneuverings and major personalities which animated the War. For one relatively uninformed about American colonial history, I found this work fascinating, very well written and a welcome analysis of the antecedents of the Revolutionary War period. It is also a much more manageable read than the cumbrous, multi-volume study of Lawrence Henry Gipson, upon which Anderson relies heavily. This will surely be regarded as the best one-volume synthesis of the Seven Years' War in North America for many years to come. I would recommend it to anyone interested in American colonial history, the British Empire or even 18th century military history.

I loved this book. And though it may make any readers of this review question my sanity, I found parts of it humorous. Professor Anderson cites the England's ardous struggle to not only drive the French from the Ohio Valley, but to bring under control, the English allies, the American Indians. A succession of unsuccessful Colonial governors added to the mother country's problems. What England had not forseen: the Colonial's English love of freedom! Before reading this I had immersed myself in Scottish history. By contrasting England's treatment of the rebellious Scots with their treatment of American colonials, it soon became evident that the minute the Puritans set foot in Massachusetts, England should have "thrown in the towel". For away from the crowded conditions of London, the lack of individual opportunity, the Pilgrim's coming to a land of "milk and honey" with natural resources which could make them rich, the colonials exploited the charters given them by the mother country. Aided and prodded by the likes of Adams, Jefferson, Joseph Warren, Sam Adams and Hancock, events began to chip away at England's control over her eastern seaboard. If the colonials became discontent, they merely moved west, away from England's control. There were many factors contributing to England's loss of her American colonies: distance from the mother country, ignorance of the vastness of North America, and the English attitude of racial superiority, half-hearted attempts by fellow Englishmen to bring the colonies under control. Professor Anderson's chronology of all of the events starting with 21 year old George Washington's encounter with de Jumonville on a mountain in southern Pennslvania, gives the reader a marvellous grasp of what transpired in North America in the latter half of the 18th century. I recommend this book highly for the amateur historian, teacher, or pleasure reader..

Anderson focuses on the war before the revolutionary war--a war we were not told about in our history classes in school, but which we may vaguely recall as the French Indian War.
The strength of this book is that it describes not only the war itself, but places it in the larger world context. Anderson's thesis, which he documents very well, is that this was really the "first world war" in history. It is only because of our peculiarly american-centric perspective that we ignore it in the country. In fact, this earlier war was much more important to the world at large.
In addition, even from our own parochial perspective, the earlier war really did determine (or at least strongly influenced) the outcome of the revolutionary war a decade or so later.
My criticism is with the writing. While much of the book sizzled, at times it became plodding, slogging through yet another campaign which went no where, had no participants we'd heard of, and decided nothing--of course, such was the war. But does the book have to mirror the reality quite so well?
All in all, though, the inforamtion vastly outweighs my concerns about the writing. Highly recommended reading for anyone who wants to understand how we got where we are today.

After reading several histories of the French and Indian War modern historians will probably agree that it is the First World War. It is important to remember this while reading Anderson's book. Because, after all that is his major argument while writing this book.

Anderson also offers an excellent perspective on the role of Native Americans before, during, and after the conflict. While most historians will be satisfied with exploring the during and after, Anderson's opening chapters on the status of Native American affairs gives the book an excellent grounding.

Overall, this is an excellent work on the French and Indian War in American and in Europe and is a must read for historians. However, after having read several books on the subject (specifically, Fowler's "Empires at War") I have found that most historians have yet to touch upon the significance of this war regarding Native American peoples and African-Americans. It was this war that would eventually destroy the indigenous peoples of North America. Additionally, it was this war that would be the basis for the American Revolution, which in turn in the United States' Constitution would uphold the South's "peculiar institution".

Highly readable account of the Seven Years' War in the crucible of North America. Involving the brutal and exhausting confrontations between the British Redcoats, French troops de la marine and the American tribes.

This book is not your typical and, I have to admit perennially enjoyable account of British glory and Empire building at the expense of France. No. Read the title and I can tell you this is most definitely an American academic writing an American history of what is argued an essentially American war. So this is my review of an American perspective from a British point of view. In its favour this makes for both a revealing and detailed account upon the pretty much indispensable role the Indians and American colonials had upon the successful British-led prosecution of the war. If perhaps not winning it then surely preventing it's defeat, the author puts emphasis on factors such as the Indian nations allying with the British or the massive manpower contributions from the often reluctant colonies.

Whether it is intentional or not Fred Anderson portrays the colonialist support for Britain as recalcitrant. The colonial assemblies' unwillingness to either provide provincial troops or support British troops in the first half of the war, a war that was being fought on their behalf against a confident and bellicose enemy puts the war effort into a hew that never really changes into a favourable one, despite what I believe are the best efforts of the author to 'beef' up their importance.

The fact the Americans insisted on being financially guaranteed by Prime Minister William Pitt before they would contribute any sort of significant measures for defence staggers belief and casts a long shadow upon the story of Britain and her American colonies fighting a war together. The often cited intransigence of the "Americans" (or British colonials depending on the author's retelling of failings or successes) tells us that a revolution of sorts had already occurred between the mother country and its American children, years before that schism was forcefully brought into view in the American War of Independence. So, this is fascinating to read for British readers.

The author rifles through every conceivable detail of the story and rarely leaves a stone unturned in the examination of the war's cause, length and reasons for victory and defeat on both sides; from thorough evaluations from colonial taxation to the enthralling fall of Quebec.

For British readers it is worth mentioning that in all areas Anderson tries to give an American side to the war, which can seem strange to those brought up on General Wolfe and the Thin Red Line and not colonial militia soldiers. The sheer intensity of the war and its importance to the development of a global empire are slightly overshadowed by this American point of view.

Moot points perhaps for a book that paints the fullest picture possible of the French and Indian War, portraying all aspects of the British, French, American and Indian.

I have read several books about the French Indian War and colonial history but I don't pretend to be an expert. Therefore, I am only going to point out a few things that stood out to me as I read this book. First, I found it to be an excellent introduction to the French Indian War, well researched, and with solid writing. I reccommend it. At the same time, I wanted more on the French perspective of the war. After all, this is a book about the French Indian War, right? There are many pages devoted to what the British government was thinking and doing, their strategy or lack of strategy, and how they reacted to the news from America. But what were the French up to? I still have no idea. Another reviewer pointed out that the descriptions of battles tended to be cursory and did not include orders of battle and relied on a few eyewitness accounts. In part this is true, but I did not find that it detracted from the book. I was riveted on the chapters about William Henry, Ticonderoga, and Oswego. Not to mention the spectatular descriptions of the battle of Quebec. If you are the type of person who moves miniature soldiers around on a battlefield then maybe you would want more, but for nearly anyone else the descriptions are sufficient. The same reviewer said there was not enough information about New France's economy, and I do agree with this. However, there is a large segment about Bigot and the difficulty of obtaining supplies. Also, Anderson does mention the population of New France and the amount of soldiers they are able to raise. I believe he put the population around 150,000 and he described the process of raising militia. Not to say I wouldn't like some more detail, because I would. Where this book really bogs down is the last two hundred pages. After 1760 there is nothing of interest. How did France react? How did the residents of New France react? Instead, there are many pages about the stamp act which get very tedious. The one standout is Pontiac's rebellion. All in all, this is still a great book.

Fred Anderson states in the Introduction his hope that he's fulfilled his ambition to write a book that combines both narrative flair with scholarly rigour, melding the surface political events of the period to the underlying competing social perspectives and economic constraints of the age. I hazard that he's succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. This is magisterial history writing of the highest order. It is rare enough in any discipline to find scholars who can match their theoretical and analytical skills to a well-honed command of the English language together with an almost intuitive ability for pithy summation, the well-chosen character description and the seemingly-effortless capacity to journey from the personal to the epic. What's interesting is that, as the book progresses, so you can see and feel Fred Anderson's writing gaining confidence. He starts well, and just gets better and better. This ranks alongside David Potter's IMPENDING CRISIS, the works of Richard Hofstadter, Don Fehrenbacher, James M. McPherson and, in another field of history, Jonathan Sumption's yet-to-be-completed history of the Hundred Years War.

Buy it. You won't be disappointed.

Anderson states in his introduction that he wanted to write a popular, yet sophisticated history of the Seven Years War. He succeeds at this with flying colors in "Crucible of War." Using excellent prose and drawing on a large amount of primary sources, Anderson takes the reader from the backroom dealings in Parliament to the footsoldier on the march in Upstate New York. At the same time Anderson advances a novel thesis that the French and Indian War was just an example of just how far apart the Americans and the English had grown apart, and the war merely accelerates the separation. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the Seven Years War, the causes of the American Revolution and History in general.

Crucible of war provides an excellent look at what is arguably the first world wide conflict. From the United States to India this book does an excellent job of showing how France lost most of its world wide empire and the British rose to dominance. The ideas of the American Revolution are born out of this war and the stage is set for slave revolts in the Caribbean. This war is absolutely essential for anyone who wants to study British Empire or the American Revolution. This book is five stars and provides the best account that I have read yet. While others go into parts of the war this is the only comprehensive that really treats the war for what it is. A world war.

As a French & Indian War buff, I have read most if not all of the books describing it including Eckert's "Wilderness Empire," Pocock's "Battle For Empire," Leckie's "A Few Acres Of Snow," and many others, in addition to traveling to and exploring many of the sites of the vast East Coast Theatre Of Operations from Louisbourg in the Northeast to Fort Niagara in the West.
Fred Anderson's book is by far the best for the following reasons:
1. He tells the story within its context as a World War, not just a colonial war as the others have done;
2. He describes the key political decisions, both in North America, and in England that have a bearing on the outcome;
3. He describes the battles on the European Continent, even India, Africa and the Caribbean Islands that have a bearing on the outcome;
4. He describes the major players with more detail and insight than even some of their biographers deliver; e.g., how George Washington evolved as a Military Commander in the five years from his first skirmish at Jumonville's Glen up to his resignation from the Virginia provincials;
5. He tells the inside story of how England's Prime Minister Pitt secured and used the power to defeat the French in fascinating detail and . . . finally, he places . . .
6. The story within the proper time frame not bound by the seven years of other authors, but beginning with a short history of the Iroquois Conferacy and their influence on the War's origins, and continuing past the previously accepted ending point of 1760 so the reader can better understand the influence of this War and its aftereffects on the American revolution.
And he tells the story in easy-to-read language that makes it a joy to read for amateur historians like me.
Because of reading this book, there are some sites on my must-visit list, sites I was not heretofore aware of.
Mr. Anderson, I raise my glass to you - a superlative job.
Jerry Patterson

I had only a standard American student's knowledge of colonial America. This account was a fascinating, revelatory eye opener. It offered facts and suggested implications that had never crossed my mind. In meticulous detail the author recounts the history and dynamics of the French and Indian War; the 7 Years War, British/American colony relationships, American colony/native American relationships and British/native American relationships during the 15-20 years before the American revolution.

I came away with a far more nuanced and detailed picture of the events of the period and the personal and political dynamics of the day. I have a new theory for the origins of the American revolution, confirmation and reformation of my opinions on politics and human behavior, and the satisfaction that comes with new learning.

It's a terrific book, exceedingly well written (with the reader in mind), and probably the best of the 50 or so books I've read so far this year.

The book is really divided into two parts: the first covers the origins and outbreak and course of the war in America - and how it led to the global conflagration we know. This is by far the most exciting and readable part of the book and indeed is hard to put down.

It is much more than just a military history of the Seven Year's War in North America; it examines in great detail, the political, social, economic and diplomatic origins of the war, looking at it from the perspectives of all the major parties: the French, the British, the colonists and the various Indian tribes, and explains how the complex interweaving relationships between the groups that developed over the preceding century culminated in and played a crucial role in determining the course and final outcome of the conflict. The French were outnumbered 30-1 by the British colonies in 1754 and depended heavily on the Indians in a way the British didn't, which gave the French an advantage at the outset of the war, but worked against them in the long run. Ultimately, Britain and her colonies won the war as it won all its wars, by controlling the seas and bringing the full might of its empire to bear. Nonetheless, it took years of bitter fighting and catastrophic defeats to finally subdue the small French colonies. The war in America was all but over by 1759 with the capture of Quebec and Montreal and although we talk of the 'Seven Year's War' to include both the European and American theatres, by rights it should be called the Nine Years War, since the wars overlapped: in America it ran from 1754-1760, while the war in Europe didn't rally start until 1756 and ended in 1763. In a curious dog wagging the tail manner, the war in America actually accelerated, although did not cause the war in Europe, but fed on and into existing continental rivalries, that ultimately worked to Britain's advantage.

The second part looks with the aftermath of the war and how it changed the empire in America and altered forever the triangular relationship between the Indian nations, the British and the colonists and their growing disillusionment and estrangement from each other that culminated in the War of Independence and the Birth of America as we know it.

Although this book can feel long and dry at parts, it is a very insightful look into how the British Empire gained control of North America and then fumbled its governance. The Stamp Act riots and other events leading to the American Revolution look much different when viewed as an aftermath of the Seven Years' War, as this book portrays it, than as a beginning of the United States as other books portray it. This author does a fine job of showing the strengths and limitations of the American colonies under British rule, and even adds his own little "what might have been" scenario at the end of the story, which is quite interesting. Taken as a whole, there are more enjoyable books out there to read through, but this one holds information that no American history lover should be left without.

Don't let the size of this book daunt you -- it is well written and chapters are in easily digestible chunks. Anderson has put together a great overview without sacrificing a necessary level of detail. It is much deeper than just the battles, but delves into the politics and diplomacy of the players involved as well as giving a look at many of the important personalities. Perhaps most interestingly, he talks about Native American policy vis-à-vis the two colonial powers. Recommended for anyone interested in their period of North American history and a good backgrounder for those interested in the American Revolution.

It is with considerable caution that I approach any book that is over 700 pages. This one was well worth the effort and time commitment. Excellent presentation on the French & Indian war period and surprisingly had the added treat of taking the reader through the period up to the Revolution. I liked the last part but I loved the way Anderson wrote the first part. Very good tie-ins; the history just flows! Anderson did an excellent job following one historic thread and then stepping back slightly in time, adds another tread and brings them together as a whole. I'll read more of Anderson.

If you have any interest in early American history, this is a must read. I am always searching for that rare book that has both great scholarship and an author who knows how to tell an exciting story. This book is a page turner. Despite its length, the chapters are short, and each chapter tells a great minature story. It also tells an important story, because most books on the American Revolution focus on how we won the war; the causes of the dispute are given fairly brief treatment. This book goes back and shows the real causes of the rift between Britain and its prize colony. Highly, highly recommended.

I received this book as a gift for my 18th birthday. I was not looking forward to read this massive volume, but very quickly, I couldnt put it down, and finished this book in a week and a half. I avoided TV, the internet and even sleep to read more.
Anderson, like William Manchest, author of "A World Lit Only By Fire", are great story tellers, and informative.
Anderson shows the enormity of this war, the great span of the first world war, which was fought on the fields of Prussia, mountains of Appalachia, trade routes of South East Asia and over the sugar of the Carribean.
My words do not give this book justice, to put it simply, it is a great read and I recommend it to anyone.
-student in Scotland

This serious work of American history does not take the easy route. At over 750 pages, the French and Indian War is described in deeper levels of details and analysis that I ever thought possible. The French and Indian War has always been given short shrift in American History. Probably because it occurred before there was an America, and most of the well known heroes were British Generals. Many of which became the "enemy" during the American Revolution.

The author makes several attempts to portray the French and Indian war as a critical part of the foundation of the American Revolution. This he does. The book is dense and the author spares no expense in describing the events of the time. This book is not for you if you want a quick read. It is almost several books in one. It covers topics such as English politics, the Stamp Act, and Intra-Indian relations in such detail, they could each be their own book. Little is heard from the common solider or settler. They are mainly backdrop to the politicians and generals who form the base of the work. The book is a worthy piece of serious history and I will not be clamoring for another book on the French and Indian War anytime soon

Interested in the birth of the American psyche? Before the revolution the American colonies were driven into a viscous war with their northern and western neighboors, the french and indians. Forced to learn the art of colonianal combat and deep forest fighting in a hostile climate the colonies earned a sense of independence. This war was also dotted with the interested personalities of General Pitt and Montcalm. THis book fills an essential gap in American history. A great read for the military scholar and the political historian.

When I read Shelby Foote's Civil War trilogy, by about page 150 of the first volume, I had become a lifetime Civil War history buff. I now regard that as the most expensive book I ever purchased, because it sparked an interest that resulted in the purchase (and reading) of over 100 other Civil War books. Having just finished Fred Anderson's Crucible of War, I fear that process has begun anew. As Foote's masterpiece created a panoramic portrait of the 1860's, Anderson's work drew me into the 1760's in North America and the Courts of George II and III and painted a vivid and fascinating portrait of the lives of the great and the not-so-great men who fought what probably should be considered the first world war. My interest in the Civil War has always been predominately in battle and campaign studies or in the personalities of great leaders and common soldiers. So when I started Anderson's book, I presumed I would suffer the political stories and enjoy the military content. It is to Anderson's credit as a writer and a story teller that I increasingly found myself rushing through the details of the military encounters and savoring the tales of political combat that truly determined the outcome of this conflict. Anderson's thesis that the Revolutionary War and the events that lead up to it can only be truly appreciated in the context of the Seven Years War is well taken.
In what is, unfortunately, an exception in much history publishing, this book is very well appointed with both maps and illustrations. It is one of the few books to pass the test that (as far as I can recall) every location mentioned in the text is located on one of the excellent maps. As an added bonus, the many period maps and fortress plans are not only well reproduced, but helpful and enlightening as well.

I came into this book knowing next to nothing about the Seven Nations War and came away overloaded with information. There are numerous fascinating personalities, the politics of the time are brilliantly described and easily understood, the battles are easy to follow (Something not every author can offer). The author does a superb job relating the war and its aftermath to the American Revolution and establishes the two as part of a historical flow, rather than independent events. Great read.

Although a serious investment in time, and perhaps only for the committed student of the F+I War, this book is well worth it. No other single volume covers the entire period and all of its fronts in North America.

Fred Anderson returns to the French and Indian War - his first book was a wonderful discussion of individual provincial soldiers in Massaschusetts.
This book serves as a tremendous synthesis of current eighteenth century scholarship. He combines the best aspects of ethnohistory in his considerations of the Iroquois' role in the war, and revolutionary scholarship with his discussion of the reasons behind the Stamp Act.
All in all, he restores the war to its proper place in American's historical context. The French and Indian was truly one of the seminial events in the history of this country. Anderson succeeds in making it easy to read, while not denegrating the important intellectual contributions of his fellow historians.
One of the best features of the book is the lush illustations. I've had the pleasure of spending time in the Clements, and his choice of pictures greatly enhances the reading experience!

I'm not a colonial historian by any means but by my reading I thought this was a well put together, comprehensive, and clarifying history of the Seven Years War. I think its most important component is the degree to which it goes to explain the importance of inter-tribe relations as well as Euro-Indian relations as factors in the war's development and outcome. The quick snippets about Frederick's campaigns throughout Prussia were very well written and terrific to read. One criticism is that it that there is not as much contextual information about the pre-war French empire in North America and the Caribbean, as well as background on the war policy deliberations of the French court, as I would have liked.

Other folks have written longer and more eloquent reviews. I just have to add that this is the best history writing I've come across in years and I've read a lot. The story keeps moving; I never lost interest. In a book of 750 pages -- plus notes, most of which I read as well -- that is a heck of an accomplishment.

Good job all around.

I bought this book for my father, who is, among other things, an American history buff. I won't give a syopsis of the book, you can read that above. I will say he enjoys the book immensely, read the whole thing through, and refers to it regularly as needed. It was well worth the price I paid for it as a gift, and he and I were quite pleased. If you're considering buying this for someone who studies this period in American history, don't hesitate.

I enjoyed this account very much. In fact, I had a hard time putting it down to work on my classwork. While it is a very detailed historical account, it reads in many places like a novel. The only problem that I had with the book was that the sources were buried in a end note format in the back of the book and often times was difficult to peruse for source information.

I highly recommend Crucible of War to all history readers. The author Fred Anderson really does a brilliant job at covering this very broad and meaningful subject.
* Highly informative and very readable. For a 700 plus page book written by an authority on the subject, you would expect the book to be a difficult read but the author knows how to keep the subject interesting. The books contains many detailed maps and illustrations that challenge the reader to really understand the geography, logistics and tactics of the war.
* Changes one's understanding of history. A good book can really change the way you look at history. I came away with a greater appreciation of how the Seven Years War created the conditions that brought about the American revolution. Again, I think the author really shows how events unfold in surprising ways which have broad reaching effects.

This is a very detailed and readable examination of the Seven Years War and the "Politics of Empire." This is part of the author's attempt to examine the causes of the American Revolution with a forward rather than a back looking light. The work is peppered with primary sources which are usually informative and entertaining. Compared to Parkman's classic "Montcalm and Wolfe" it lacks much of the poetry but more than makes up for it by factual analysis and fascinating insights. Highly Recommended.

I won't try to restate what so many other reviewers have said in praise of this book, because they're right. Anderson explains more about the Seven Years War than I ever imagined could be told, and why it was truly a history-changing event for so many people. But he also notes how such results were never inevitable, even through the repeal of the Stamp Act which marks the narrative's end. Lots of individual events and people spiraled into the results we now take for granted, especially in the wake of what happened after the mid-1760s.

The book is long but not terribly difficult to read. Anyone who really wants to understand U.S. history and/or that of how the British Empire came to be, simply must read this book.

Read this a few years ago. Recently reread it.

One of the few books on this subject and one of the most informative.

Nicely laid out.

For those interested in this subject, this book is a must read. HIghly informative. Easy to read and understand.

Williamson Murray and Richard Hart Sinnreich in Fall 2000 issue of Strategic Review write "Every once in a while there appears an historical work of enormous merit and scope - one that forsakes the narrow perspectives of too many contemporary historians and casts in high relief what good history really should be." The point of their review is "crucible": the seven years' war and its political and strategic aftermath changed the history of the world everywhere in all aspects. This is a must read for any student of history.

Crucible of War is a history of the French and Indian War. For those who do not traditionally read history the book provides challanges in the level of detail presented. However it was well written, interesting and provided a excellent foundation for understanding the causes of The American Revolution and the development of a uniquely "American character".

If you're looking for a book about the Seven Years' War, look no further than Fred Anderson's "Crucible of War." Superbly written, Mr. Anderson is very detailed and thorough in his narrative. By capturing each battle, event, and turning point of the war so vividly, it makes it easy to imagine yourself in the shoes of any of the great people in this book. I can't praise this masterpeice enough and highly recommend it.

There are only two books that need to be in your library about The French and Indian War. Crucible of War and The French and Indian War by Walter R. Borneman. Both are excellent, but Crucible of War explains everything in greater detail.

Quite simply, this book is the best history I have ever read. This is the definitive account of the Seven Year's War in America, in clear, compelling, and exceptionally lucid prose.

If you care at all about the origins of the USA, you absolutely must read this book.

This is unquestionably a great book, but I sure wish I had bought a large print edition. The print is so small and the maps (which were terrific) need a magnifying glass to read. Also the pages tend to fall out of the book. Having whined all that, buy and enjoy this wonderful book, but, keep tape and magnifying glass handy.

This narrative matches the sweeping drama of its subject, and is currently the major work on the Seven Years' War in North America. It augments Anderson's prior research on wartime Massachusetts with selected archival data and seamless integration of a vast secondary lit. It makes the necessary links among colonial, imperial and Native American participants, but it is not intended as a formal battle history. There's sufficient detail on numerous campaigns, but the goal is to demonstrate the war's global nature and seminal importance in shaping the destinies of America (Canada, Europe, India, Caribbean etc.), and it succeeds well in these terms. Anderson's new periodization--asserting that 1754-66 is a more portentous era than 1763-75--will spark many debates. Its bulk is a little scary, but Anderson has a briefer version in "The War That Made America." No single account can be truly comprehensive because of the conflict's scale and complexity. Reviews do note some flaws, but such strictures only show that there are many sound ways to tell this story. Another recent study is W. Fowler, "Empires at War," also based on manuscript sources but more conventional in its focus on military events.

This book is amazing. Anderson uses a large amount of sources for his argument and he writes very well. Through 700 pages Anderson never loses sight of his stated objective, which is to write about the Seven Years War as a separate event and not the small skirmish leading to the American Revolution that many of us think...a good book...

Ostensibly, this book is a comprehensive history of the Seven Years War (known as the French and Indian War in America) and its affects upon the British Empire in North America. In fact, the focus of this book is on the triangular relationship between the American colonists, the Indian tribes struggling to maintain a balance between the warring European empires, and the power struggles of British parliamentarians, rather than the war itself.
Fred Anderson, a university professor, writes well and he avoids a narrow, parochial viewpoint in favor of a broad canvas that depicts the struggle as a multi-dimensional global conflict. Unfortunately, Anderson often only scrapes the surface and fails to provide real detail on important issues, like what was the actual balance of power between New France and the British colonies (figures on population, economic productivity and military potential would have been useful). Instead, Anderson spends many tedious pages detailing various treaties with Indian tribes, inter-colonial bickering and the land interests of the Penn family. The real weakness of the book is that Anderson fails to properly address the meat and potatoes of this subject: the military campaigns fought between 1755 and 1760 for the control of Canada. Anderson eschews details such as order of battle, casualties or analysis in favor of selected eyewitness accounts, which add little. Major military operations are glossed over quickly: the siege of Louisburg gets only four pages but the post-war land squabbles between Connecticut and Pennsylvania get six. Only eight pages are spent on the Battle of Ticonderoga in 1758, but more than thirty pages are spent on the Stamp Act. The only exception to this is the climatic Battle on the Plains of Abraham, which Anderson dismisses as a "dubious battle" that was neither decisive nor brilliantly fought. In his most controversial interpretation, Anderson claims that the British General Wolfe blundered into the battle without a plan, as part of a suicidal death wish. No evidence is presented to support this revisionist accusation, nor does Anderson disclose how he knows what was going on in Wolfe's mind. This leads to a second weakness of the book, which is that while many historical characters parade through the chapters, they remain ciphers because the author makes little effort to detail their backgrounds or pre-war experience.
This book desperately needs several appendices, covering topics such as a list of the British regular units that served in America during the war, a list of colonial units raised and war-expenses of each colony, and capsule biographies of all the major participants. Anderson does provide some additional detail in the 85 pages of endnotes, but he often finds it sufficient to cite a source without telling the reader what additional information it contains. To be sure, Anderson's book is impeccably researched. Yet the book is sadly lacking in detail on many important topics, including Britain's naval superiority and economic mobilization, both of which were crucial to the outcome. Interesting topics, such as the creation of Roger's Rangers and the British condoning of scalping are glossed over. In order to make sense of Anderson's sketchy detail, I frequently had to consult other books on the war. A 746-page volume should not force a reader to conduct so much extra legwork. French perspectives are also given short shrift, and their strategic objectives are never explained (what did France hope to gain?). After the fall of Montreal in 1760, France drops out of Anderson's account and we hear no more of them - which is pretty ridiculous given that the effect of losing Canada upon France is never discussed. In another area, Anderson's use of colonial-era maps, while quaint, was a poor choice since they are very difficult to read and hence constitute only useless eyewash.
Finally, the real crux of this book comes down to one issue: Anderson wants to break from standard historical accounts that depict the war as merely a prelude to the American Revolution and instead, to portray it as a stand-alone event that did not inevitably lead to revolution. However much his intent, Anderson actually does tend to use foreshadowing of future British-American friction throughout his narrative. At heart, Anderson is a colonial-era historian and his main interest is in the political and emotional ramifications of the war. Indeed, less than half of the book is actually devoted to the war and the last 180 pages are pre-occupied with post-war taxation policies. Nowhere does Anderson summarize the war's human and financial costs, which are certainly more germane than the antics of various colonials in frustrating British customs policies. Contrary to what other reviewers might claim, Fred Anderson has not written the definitive account of the Seven Years War or even come close; most of his work covers well-trodden ground with few new revelations. If you want to learn a lot about the Stamp Act, read this book. If you want to learn a lot about the Seven Years War, keep looking...

This book is interesting and well written in the first few hundred pages, but after the war is over, it could have had 250 pages or so clipped from it. In fact, the last 300 pages start becoming dry as Melba toast. Again, the first few hundred pages are decent and worth reading. After that, I was pulling my hair out wanting to finish this book.

I thought this was a good book that could have done with leaving some footage on the cutting floor. The story is at times gripping, and Anderson has worked. But I felt in the end that I preferred the original Parkman take rather than this reshoot.

Other 3-star reviewers have made valid comments, which I need not repeat. Here are a couple of additional aspects of the book which were greatly disappointing.
First, this huge book has NO BIBLIOGRAPHY! It is as though Fred Anderson does not think his readers will want to look at Anderson's sources. This is not what you would expect from a "professor".
Second, at least the first part of the book was mostly lifted from Parkman's histories. But if Anderson even mentions Parkman, I couldn't find such mention. Maybe this wholesale lifting from other authors is the reason for no bibliography. How deliciously ironic that Anderson received the Parkman Prize for this book, as the year's most important contribution the American History. It makes one wonder: were the judges for this prize related to the persons who awarded one of our elected officials the Nobel Peace Prize? Oops. Returning to seriousness, I value the reader reviews here at the store.com much more than commercial recognitions and praise.
Third, is Anderson's arrogant disparagement of important persons, with no need to explain the reasons for his assessments.
An example is the way he asserts that Washington "stumbled" when he attacked the French under de Jumonville. Anderson fails to note the connection between Gov. Dinwiddie's francophobic attitude, the Virginia legislature's refusal to fund adequately an effort against France, and the fact that it was Dinwiddie who gave Washington his orders. For an author who presumes to know the motivations of important characters, Anderson strangely fails to consider the possibility that Washington was doing exactly what Dinwiddie wanted: creating an incident which would cause Virginia to begin moving against French encroachments. One doubts that Dinwiddie would have promoted Washington, if Washington had been the blundering idiot portrayed by revisionist Anderson.
Anderson gives Franklin the same cavalier dismissal. His description of Franklin's contribition to Braddock's campaign (pp 92-3) should be compared with Parkman's penetrating analysis (Library of America, "Parkman, 3 vols in 1: "France and England in North Americe Volume II", pp 981-2) In his effort to diminish Franklin, Anderson even equates that almost universal genius with some political figure almost none of us have even heard about.
It's not just Washington and Franklin who receive Anderson's dismissive treatment. William Pitt (Elder), we learn from Anderson, was a man of "astonishing, almost megalomaniacal, ambition." And George III came from a line with the genetic trait "to loathe those princes in line to succeed them" -- a trait "almost as genetically fixed" in them "as their protruberant eyes, prominent noses, and petulant expressions". (p 125) The same paragraph which jabs at George III and Pitt, also states as a criticism, that Pitt "had no patience for the mundane concerns of patronage and voting discipline." How can this be the product of megalomaniacal ambition? Was Anderson aware that he was contradicting himself within a single paragraph?
Please keep in mind, both Washington and Franklin were monstrously "ambitious".
If the reader employed Anderson-like thought processes to describe Anderson himself, the kindest conclusion one might reach is that the photo of Anderson on the jacket cover shows a man genetically predisposed to be a pretentious comedian.
If you read this massive work, you will find a great deal of information, written in a decent style; but I would suggest that you be alert for Anderson's pervasive interpretations of events and personages. and be prepared to discount them. And. oh yes, The French-Indian war was one of the many preludes to American rebellion. Demographic pressures were leading in the direction of independence; and England's systematic efforts to hamstring the colonies precipated the rebellion. The Seven Years War was by no means as overwhelmingly important as Anderson makes it out to be. One view of that war sees it as merely a major episode in the ongoing war/competition between England ahd France. But there is no valid viewpoint that would fail to see that the formation of the United States of America was the premier event of the 18th and 19th centuries.

I believe this book should be required reading. I read this book twice. The first time I read this book was while on assignment in Washington right after 9/11 and the second time at home. Anyone who is a citizen of the United States should read this book to get an understanding of how we came to be as a country and a people. In my mind, it is one of the foundation reads of an education.

Kindest Regards,

DM Cooney

I know bad writing when I read it, and this is bad. This is a long book, but mostly because the author chooses to write a paragraph to express a sentence. And the observations he does make are banal. For those of you looking for well-written and well-conceived history, this is not your book.

"Crucible of War" is historian Fred Anderson's incredible, and incredibly readable, history of the Seven Years' War, a European conflict whose North American phase is known as the French and Indian War. In a lengthy but accessible account, Anderson demonstrates the ways in which the struggle for empire in North America during 1754 to 1760 led directly to the American Revolution of 1776.

The Seven Years' War was the final round in the struggle between Britain and France for control of much of North America. Anderson starts with Virginia militia leader George Washington's ill-fated foray into the Ohio country, which triggered the conflict. The French, who relied heavily on woods-savvy Canadians and Indians, won most of the early fights. The British government, under the leadership of the legendary Prime Minister William Pitt, would eventually find ways to apply superior force and logistics. The struggle has a dramatic climax at Quebec in September 1759 and an actual conclusion at Montreal in September 1760.

The descriptions of the fighting are detailed and vivid, backed by some excellent research. The real meat of the story is the evolving relationship between London and its North American colonies, already on separate paths in their ideas of proper government in the 1760's. The war crystallized many of those differences, while the clumsy ways in which Britain handled its victory made further conflict almost inevitable. This is an excellent narrative history, full of exciting details and thoughtful analysis. Highly recommended.