Stuart LaycockCritiques

The flippant tone of this book works against it at times, but it's a useful survey of British empire building and other military activity.½

Hopefully tongue-in-cheek look at Britain's colonial and military past, and its interactions and impact wherever the action. Useful history, but it's pretty jingoistic and a little jarring given the timing (Brexit, and right-wing populism and resurgent nationalism). That said, I learned an inordinate amount about Britain's global footprint, and I consider myself very well read about Britain's colonial history. Thanks to Stuart Laycock for a book that must have been a gigantic research undertaking given the material covered in incredible detail.½

The book I intended to write (but never got round to), revealing the overwhelming number of countries, 171 or 193 UN member states, where British forces have been in action. The tone is sometimes gratingly (trying to be) comic, but over the piece reveals the wide nature of British intervention and often conquest.

Not knowing anything about Italian history apart from the Roman invasion here in UK and the last World Wars, I was interested in finding out more.
This book does not disappoint. I hadn't realised that they had influences in most countries of the world both good and bad.
It is a straightforward account which is easy to follow and understand.
I was given a digital copy of this book by the publisher Book Publisher Network via Netgalley in return for an honest unbiased review.

The Failed State is a narrative discussion of the collapse of the British tribal system in the late Roman and early post-Roman era. Laycock outlines the existence of and collaboration/antipathy between the tribes of Britain, marshalling the archaeological evidence into a detailed account of the power struggles between the major factions. It is far from a complete account, not really taking the emergin genetic evidence into account and lacking depth outside of southern England but it does offer a convincing scenario around major shifts in power between the various tribes.

Britannia pieces together the evidence that shows the distribution of tribal peoples in Britain prior to the arrival of the Romans. Laycock convincingly argues that the arrival of Caesar can be accounted for in terms of British tribal politics and that the Roman period was in fact an occasion of relative calm holding down the underlying tensions that burst out once Roman authority had declined.

The deconstruction of the myths surrounding Boudicca was a useful and clear exposition as was the brief discussion of the interaction between southern Britain and near neighbours in Gaul, Belgium, and Germany. I would though have liked more on who the Britons were in these tribes - the genetic evidence and emerging linguistic discussion suggesting that links between Britain and the continent are far closer than is supposed by historians such as Laycock.

Equally a discussion of the tribes of Britain could really have done much more in discussing the role of the North. The evidence might just not exist but it would have been useful to understand more about what role the Welsh, Pict, and Gaelic tribes played rather than just the peoples of southern England.

Still, Laycock's argument includes some great snippets such as the role of Commius in the arrival of Rome, the positioning of tribes prior to Roman supremacy and their eventual consolidation into Anglo and Saxon kingdoms in the post-Roman era was illuminating. Still, it is frustrating to read discussions that conflate the Angle and the Saxon and there was not event the allusion to the links between the Angle and the Iceni before the apparently sudden arrival of Anglia.

I ignored most of the discussion around links with Bosnia and Iraq. While my personal experience of tribal society in conflict comes from elsewhere rather than these two cases explicitly, I felt the parallels were limited and the lines at the end of the book about Welsh and Scottish independence were insulting at best.½