The History Book Club discussion

This is the Glossary thread for the book discussion of Hero of the Empire: The Boer War, a Daring Escape, and the Making of Winston Churchill by Candice Millard.

by Candice Millard

This is a Spoiler Thread.

This is a British History, Military History and Prime Minister selection.

Q&A with Candice Millard

Candice Millard talked about her book, Hero of the Empire: The Boer War, a Daring Escape, and the Making of Winston Churchill, in which she recalls the actions of future British Prime Minister Winston Churchill during the Boer War.

Link: https://www.c-span.org/video/?415788-...

This post is from Jeffrey - it was moved from the non spoiler discussion thread to the glossary.

Jeffrey wrote:

I have read all three of her books and thought River of Doubt was her best.

by Candice Millard

The River of Doubt Theodore Roosevelt's Darkest Journey by Candice Millard Candice Millard Candice Millard

This work is certainly well written and thoroughly researched. It is a very typically, old fashioned history in the style of British Imperialism where we see dead, white men fighting a war for supremacy on a chess board were the pieces representing the indigenous peoples are rumored of but missing from the board. Although the Boers learned their manner of fighting from their own contests with the South African peoples, I think I only remember Shaka Zulu mentioned once. Other large groups that inhabited the area and defined the culture like the Khoisan are only referred to in passing. Inclusion would have added richness to her rendering of the historical record. However she is not a professional historian but a popular writer of history in the fashion of Bruce Catton for example. Listening to the interview referenced by Bentley is a good idea. She has gotten advances by her publisher which allow her to research her subject on site. She is a very successful and enjoyable, popular writer of histories. All of her works are very readable.

Bentley wrote: "This post is from Jeffrey - it was moved from the non spoiler discussion thread to the glossary.

Jeffrey wrote:

I have read all three of her books and thought River of Doubt was her best.

[boo..."

Bentley wrote: "This post is from Jeffrey - it was moved from the non spoiler discussion thread to the glossary.

Jeffrey wrote:

I have read all three of her books and thought River of Doubt was her best.

[boo..."

Why should Zulus and Shaka be mentioned at all? Even if "...Boers learned their manner of fighting from their own contests with the South African peoples", as you say, this is irrelevant. Boers obviously developed a very succesful GUERILLA warfare, with hit-and-go tactics, that is totally different to the Zulu attacking system [the horns of the bull etc]. Thanks for the review, I will read this book, after I finish "Hero of the Empire"

No problem whatsoever - we are happy to have you - all of the discussions begin on September 1st and there is a syllabus of what we will be covering on each thread.

Bently, do we have an estimate for when the discussion thread will be opened?

Miltiadis wrote: "Bentley wrote: "This post is from Jeffrey - it was moved from the non spoiler discussion thread to the glossary.

Jeffrey wrote:

I have read all three of her books and thought River of Doubt was ..."
Too me it is both relevant and essential. The Boers developed a unique culture after their period of imperial occupation and fled the borders of the cape colony to avoid any mandated changes the British might impose. Their culture was absolutely affected by the indigenous people and, in part, defined by that conflict. Aside from that, the resulting research style would be like trying to write about the American Revolutionary period without referencing the Amerindians.

The discussion thread still appears to be frozen and the period for discussion has started so I will post here

Millard talks about Churchill's belief that he was destined to be a great leader and gives us of an assessment of his childhood experience of growing up in Blenheim Palace at the family's ancestral home. Is this childhood experience something reasonably to be inferred from growing up in such palace among such highly elite people or is this to be seen as an early indication of personal egotism? My first inclination is to suppose that it is something to expect from the social context as a reasonable expectation for one coming from that branch of society. I don't know where readers are in the book at his moment, but without specifically referring to anything beyond part one, what is your opinion of the impact of Blenheim as a physical space upon its occupants?

I feel like it may have as much to do with the fame and political fortunes of his father and, more so, his grandfather, the 7th Duke of Marlborough, whose presence remained in the home even after his death. But I am sure the physical space and the status it implied affected everyone, including young Winston.

Page 8: "Yet in his open pursuit of fame and popular favor, Churchill seemed far less Victorian than Rooseveltian."

The comparison to Teddy Roosevelt reminded me of my thoughts when reading Andrew Roberts' more detailed coverage of Churchill's youth and young adulthood: First, that Churchill seemed very Rooseveltian. But the more I read of his exploits, I began to question if the reverse weren't more true: That TR was, in fact, Churchillian!

But yes, for Churchill it appears to be about the notoriety. For Roosevelt I think it was always about the adventure--at least until 1901, which is why McCullough chose to tackle the first TR.

by Andrew Roberts

by David McCullough

In Reply to Jeff

The Roberts book may be a good source for his early years. I haven't read it. My motivation in posting was based upon old memories of reading Churchill's own books. Always dangerous to rely upon old memories but I seem to recollect Churchill writing that he had a distant relationship with his father and was sent off to boarding schools at an early age. He was very young when the family left Blenheim but those early years are an impressionable age and may have imprinted unconscious attitudes upon the young boy. So I was left wondering if the emotional separation from his father would have done the same and given the impersonal atmosphere of the context of his early life more relative importance. All very speculative of course.

I think you are very on the mark emphasizing the role of fame in guiding Churchill's decisions. That is very consistent with what Roosevelt himself wrote of needing popular attention in order to win election to Parliament. He failed in his first attempt and concluded he need to bring something more to his next try. His military career and journalistic efforts were just a path toward political heroism. Millard seems to be telling us his bravery or even rashness under fire was due to his fixed belief that he would rise to greatness and he had to have developed that belief from somewhere.

Will someone provide me the link to the main discussion thread? Thank you!

Amie wrote: "Will someone provide me the link to the main discussion thread? Thank you!"

That thread is not open for comments yet, so we've been posting here. But the link is: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Ok, I am just at p. 40 and clearly there was much more influence in Blenheim of the 1st Duke of Marlborough, but my earlier point remains.

I am enjoying Millard's linking of the eighteenth century hero of the Empire, John Churchill, and his world with that of the coming new hero of the twentieth.

On page 83, we are reminded of the terrible fates of horses in war, some of which the British have recently recognized:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-b...

Also, Millard is carrying on a theme of British hubris in its approach to the Boer threat, and war in general, including the luxuries its soldiers had compared to the Boer. All the while, I can't help but remember the crates of liquor Churchill brought with him aboard the Dunottar Castle, giving very real substance to his romantic hopes and ideas about the battles to come.

P.120 - British military resistance to concealment and other changing warfare tactics for the sake of pride recalls Shaka's soldiers from three chapters ago marching off cliffs to show their loyalty. Madness!

P. 188: Churchill became "restless and irritable." Was he ever not either of those things?

Bentley wrote: "No problem whatsoever - we are happy to have you - all of the discussions begin on September 1st and there is a syllabus of what we will be covering on each thread."

Hi Bentley
Should I be able to find a syllabus yet?
Thanks
Vince

Hello, is this book still being discussed? I just purchased the book because you said that discussion would be from Sep 1 through Dec 2019. But I don't see any comments after 9/21. Just wondering whether this is the official discussion or if I'm in the wrong thread.

Vickie, you are in the right place. The discussion has gone cold but I am still watching and reading.

As far as I know this is the only thread that was opened. I have never seen a syllabus which should have given us chapters and dates. I therefore don't know where else to go or where we are here. The thread seems to get far more views than comments.

I have read the book and as far as I am concerned there are no spoilers in history. I would suggest reading the comments above and add to than as you wish and as you get through the book.

My suggestion for future discussion is to add comments on the possible irony in the tithe. What does this book do toward building or detracting from Churchill's reputation? But that would wait until you have completed the book.

In the absence of any other direction, we should feel free to do as we wish, as long as we play nice.

Jeffrey wrote: "As far as I know this is the only thread that was opened. I have never seen a syllabus which should have given us chapters and dates. I therefore don't know where else to go or where we are here. T..."

Actually I appreciate the message from Vicki and the other comments and I too, after waiting have started the book.

Could I suggest, I will anyway, that one can post on this thread but just list up to what chapter you are at the very beginning.

I am up to three or so and will post a comment for the first two in the coming day or so

Jeff wrote: "Vickie, you are in the right place. The discussion has gone cold but I am still watching and reading."

Thank for your reply. Looking forward to engaging after I read the book. This will encourage me to read quickly!

Vincent wrote: "Jeffrey wrote: "As far as I know this is the only thread that was opened. I have never seen a syllabus which should have given us chapters and dates. I therefore don't know where else to go or wher..."

Seems reasonable to me.

On Chapter 7

I would not call this book a "page-turner." So far, the author has presented a very one-dimensional character in Churchill.

That's probably true. Churchill may actually have been a simple kind of man. Not sure of the chapter numbers but after the armoured train even it should turn more interesting.

Well, I should clarify a little. I think that the author presents information that is indicative of a more complex figure -- the relationships Churchill had with others, his activities, travels, and written works -- but when she assesses or interprets him for the reader, she focuses only on one aspect -- his political ambition. Frankly, it's beating a dead horse (LOL!) I'm glad to hear that it will get more interesting. Thanks!

Vickie wrote: "Well, I should clarify a little. I think that the author presents information that is indicative of a more complex figure -- the relationships Churchill had with others, his activities, travels, an..."

Very interesting post. So I would read that as saying the author was presenting Churchill simplistically where there may be characteristics that render his personality as more complex. I have seen Churchill's paintings and they might be considered as evidence of greater complexity. HIs best works are landscapes and the same has been said of Hitler so I'm not sure if this is an instance of complexity or a counter instance.

If we eliminate his travels that are associated with colonialism and military service and same for his writings, could you expound further upon how they contribute to his complexity? I think we might look at the same and see them as serving a simplistic, pro Churchill agenda also.

I'm not proposing to do so myself; I wouldn't consider myself knowledgeable enough to do so. I'm only asking to further the discussion and really not trying to revive horses living or dead.

Chapter 12

No sorry, I can't really expound on anything about Churchill's youth, except what I'm learning in this book. If we eliminate his military service and writings, I would say let's have a more in-depth look at the relationships he had -- his love interest, his fellow journalists, fellow soldiers, etc. (I guess we can't eliminate his military service!) Very little time is spent on these relationships -- a short phrase here and there is all. We get little glimpses that people found themselves liking him, found him surprisingly generous and sympathetic, and, in at least one case, found him lovable. He had a sense of humor, and he was able to let by-gones be by-gones, in the case of his nemesis. It was evident that for the first 9 chapters, the author was intent on reinforcing a theme that Churchill was singularly driven by political ambition and self-aggrandizement. Chapters 10 and 11 gave a little more dimension to his character, and I guess I'll see where it goes from here. The big train event is about to happen!

Comments up to the end of Chapter four
So here we have a young man, at the eve of the British-Boer War who is obsessed as previous comments have said with fame, power and success.
He seems to have obsessed with it from his youth and his family background and history certainly seems to be a platform to go from.
He is a published journalist and author already at this young age and has a seemingly convincing and charismatic character but not enough to get him, yet, elected to Parliament.
He took his failure to be elected badly and seems to have idled around until the idea of the war in Africa as a possible way to win the glory he seems to have so desperately been after.
What seems not to have been mentioned in the previous comments, unless I missed it, is a recognition of his courage (or foolishness if one wishes) and notable risk taking in pursuit of his goals. Also it seems after these early martial experiences his belief of his invincibility in terms of getting hurt.
Really interesting at the end of the fourth chapter is the thought of if many of the war seekers in England before the war had similar personal goals at the forefront of the efforts to go to war and the ease with which it seemed Churchill got his audiences to favor war.
An additional passing note, American not necessarily international, is that, with the hard bound copy looking at the cover photo and the last photo in the photo section in the book is that maybe we Americans should consider Pete Buttigieg too old to run for President (joke I think)

Chapter five ‘
So Churchill gets the to journalist job in the company of the likes of Rudyard Kipling and Arthur Conan Doyle (I guess I have to find some Churchill written stuff to read) and he gets top dollar.
And it sms with his preparation he prepares to go in luxury. I cannot fathom how he expected to keep track of and transport all the liquor he bought. ‘ but that he prepared so for HS comfort as well as the mission is interesting.
Butler was a very successful British officer with experience in many campaigns including fighting previously in Africa ‘-should be interesting to see what he actually does and how it is presented.
Interesting that so many of the British seem to have felt that the Boers would be easily defeated.

Vickie wrote: "Chapter 12

No sorry, I can't really expound on anything about Churchill's youth, except what I'm learning in this book. If we eliminate his military service and writings, I would say let's have a ..."

Very persuasive reply. Yes, the author focuses upon Churchill's ambition to the exclusion of others and the rest of the book isn't going to change the focus.

Vincent wrote: "Interesting that so many of the British seem to have felt that the Boers would be easily defeated."

Is it strictly white or Western bias that keeps feeling this way? See Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and others, not to mention the first Boer war.

Vincent wrote: "Comments up to the end of Chapter four
So here we have a young man, at the eve of the British-Boer War who is obsessed as previous comments have said with fame, power and success.
He seems to have ..."

If you look back to message 8 I mentioned the formative years growing up in Blenheim Palace and I think his ambition and belief in his invulnerability traces back to that. I think Churchill was driven to take risks by his ambition and sense of self. That may represent courage or it may just have been that risk taking was something he had to take to achieve his goals. Ambition required courage. Churchill had both.

I don't think Churchill had to do much to promote the appreciation of war. I think both public acceptance and and Churchill's private acceptance were part of the social context of that time. This was the age of imperialism. Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism provide context. Countries developed just like humans did using Darwin as an example. Countries competed on the stage of international commerce and trade. The fittest countries survived and the economies of the governing country expanded and provided more wealth and opportunities for their citizens. This was the world view at the time.

Jeff wrote: "Vincent wrote: "Interesting that so many of the British seem to have felt that the Boers would be easily defeated."

Is it strictly white or Western bias that keeps feeling this way? See Korea, Vie..."

That's a very pertinent question. In the case of this particular war I suspect we need to keep nationalism in mind. That was another very dominant and persistent "ism' but one we can more readily understand. The British certainly fought more than their share of wars and took pride in" king", country and their military. I suspect they thought the Boers were little more than a paramilitary bunch of irregulars who should not have presented a threat. Millard does a creditable job of conveying the British frustration with their losses and notes the blame they presented to their military leaders. I don't think this is peculiarly western. We could probably find similar attitudes among asian leaders and third world dictators. But yes, we have certainly exhibited and abused that spirit of pride.

I think the liquor was intended to be used to entertain others as well as himself - visitors, 'sources,' people with whom he wanted to interview or build a relationship.

Jeffrey wrote: "Vincent wrote: "Comments up to the end of Chapter four
So here we have a young man, at the eve of the British-Boer War who is obsessed as previous comments have said with fame, power and success.
H..."
I have to agree that the audience, the British, were ready to accept war. But it seems to me notable that Churchill´s support of it was further spurred by his want of a personal opportunity to impress.

Chapter six ‘ so the Boers are presented as freedom loving folk who are ready and experienced at preserving their freedom. Although this maybe a story of Winston I think that Ms. Millard took a good opportunity to put aside the Brits and Churchill for the moment and present the mind set, history, culture and experience of the Boers. And also to have an introduction to Mr. Botha the Boer leader. For me the book gets more engaging.

Chapter seven ‘- in transit and upon arrival the British Buller, Churchill and all learn that the Boers are fighting well if not winning. One of Churchill´s friendly acquaintances was already killed along with a famous general and other notable officers.
The Boers notice that the Brits have a large supply situation with much in terms of gear and equipment while they seem to have themselves and what they carry on their horses. ‘ interesting the trivia on Burberry´s. So Buller wants to wait for more troops and supplies and Churchill, and other correspondents, are clamoring and hurrying to get to the fighting. - (what to me is so far missing in this book are more specific maps for each chapters content)

Agree on the maps!

Chapter 8 - Millard gives us more background on the history of the Boers and the Africans and their strengths and values. So I am thinking that there are no apparent heros in this story - but the Boers are getting more of my sympathy. Churchill arrives at Estecourt while Buller is still waiting for troops and supplies and the Brits at Estecourt seem not ready for the Boers. I notice that here we are getting to where the maps inside the covers are useful and making it easier, for me anyway, to follow and understand the content.

Chapter 9 - so Churchill winds up tenting with two other correspondents who he seems to get along with. That Atkins compares him to Teddy Roosevelt and that after their train ride Amery can find common ground with Winston. The weakness of the position of the British and the exploration of Churchill's character (being able to laugh at himself) is telling and I guess that Atkins and Amery both wrote on the subject as their books are referenced in the footnotes.

Chapters 10 to 12 - these chapters provide a view of the efforts and emotions (thinking friends are dead and injured) and the British, so far, attitude of superiority. The trip towards Ladysmith that Churchill and Atkins went on - after vowing they wouldn’t risk that again - gave the Boers a very good opportunity to attack and kill many brits and take captives - our hero included.

Chapter 26 -- Yawn. I'm sure something great is coming... .

The End. For me this story was a flat and dull dictation of facts. It had no literary merit. It elicited no emotion, and it was not worth reading, even for the information. Ugh, so disappointed.

Sorry you did not like the book Vickie. Seems many folks liked the book because of the information given. Each book resonates with the reader or not.

Contrary to Vicki, I enjoyed the book ... It gave insight into Churchill’s character, especially in light of his later careers ...

I thought it did too but every book has a unique impression on every reader.

I was surprised but I always says that a respectful, civil rating is up to each and every reader.

Does this group discussion accept minority opinions too? This is how I express myself. I am a passionate reader.

Anyway... I have located a book that I would like to recommend on the same topic as the discussion.

by Violet Bonham Carter

The Boer War is only a small part of the overall work, but it covers the story with more excitement and literary style.

Thank you, Vickie. I’ll certainly check it out.