What do you think?
Rate this book
The Shadows of Empire: How Imperial History Shapes Our World
A masterful, thought-provoking, and wide-ranging study of how the vestiges of the imperial era shape society today.
In this groundbreaking narrative, The Shadows of Empire explains (in the vein of The Silk Roads and Prisoners of Geography) how the world’s imperial legacies still shape our lives—as well as the thorniest issues we face today.
For the first time in millennia we live without formal empires. But that doesn’t mean we don’t feel their presence rumbling through history. From Russia’s incursions in the Ukraine to Brexit; from Trump’s America-First policy to China’s forays into Africa; from Modi’s India to the hotbed of the Middle East, Samir Puri provides a bold new framework for understanding the world’s complex rivalries and politics.
Organized by region, and covering vital topics such as security, foreign policy, national politics and commerce, The Shadows of Empire combines gripping history and astute analysis to explain why the history of empire affects us all in profound ways; it is also a plea for greater awareness, both as individuals and as nations, of how our varied imperial pasts have contributed to why we see the world in such different ways.
In this groundbreaking narrative, The Shadows of Empire explains (in the vein of The Silk Roads and Prisoners of Geography) how the world’s imperial legacies still shape our lives—as well as the thorniest issues we face today.
For the first time in millennia we live without formal empires. But that doesn’t mean we don’t feel their presence rumbling through history. From Russia’s incursions in the Ukraine to Brexit; from Trump’s America-First policy to China’s forays into Africa; from Modi’s India to the hotbed of the Middle East, Samir Puri provides a bold new framework for understanding the world’s complex rivalries and politics.
Organized by region, and covering vital topics such as security, foreign policy, national politics and commerce, The Shadows of Empire combines gripping history and astute analysis to explain why the history of empire affects us all in profound ways; it is also a plea for greater awareness, both as individuals and as nations, of how our varied imperial pasts have contributed to why we see the world in such different ways.
384 pages, Hardcover
Published February 2, 2021
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
March 2, 2021
Samir Puri’s The Shadows of Empire: How Imperial History Shapes Our World is a fantastic dive into the imperial scars that linger around the world and asks “how do the lingering half-lives of collapsed empires continue to shape such matters as security, foreign policy, international aid and global commerce today?”
I had to say, going in I disagreed that we live in a post-imperial age, especially after reading books, such as Immerwhar’s How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States among others, that describe the United States certainly as a modern empire. However, Puri addresses my disagreements in his introduction chapter.
“It is a matter of great significance to live in a world without empires. By this, I mean the end of the formal empires of the past, where an outwardly expanding metropolitan core gobbled up territories via conquest….Rather, the ways in which powerful states dominate others have evolved to become more like informal empires of political and economic influence.”
“I will not argue that we are entering a new imperial age. Rather, my argument can be expressed concisely: twenty-first-century world order is a story of many intersecting post-imperial legacies. When these legacies collide, misunderstanding, friction, schism or even war can result”
“While the USA does not self-identify as an empire, it has become the embodiment of an informal empire. Its global reach includes: military bases dotted around the world; fleets of globally deployable aircraft carriers; strategic alliances on every continent; orbital satellites that guide missiles; technology innovations with global consumer appeal; and economic power underpinned by the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The USA can dominate many parts of the world, or at least it can make its influence telling. For now it remains the country that can intervene militarily virtually anywhere to defend its vision of world order, and its notions of right and wrong. Questions over whether America should be doing any of this have defined global politics for decades.”
With these clarifications, I was onboard for the ride.
Puri breaks down the book into chapters, the first few looking at former colonizers and the impact of Imperialism on their modern politics, while later chapters discuss the regions which are recovering from being colonized. The first half look at Britain, USA, Russia, and the European Union, while the second look at China, India, and the nations of the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Puri does a fantastic job tying realities of our modern world to the lingering scars of centuries of imperial ventures.
One final quote I want to share from the book comes from Kwame Nkrumah, former Prime Minister of Ghana, regarding Neocolonial interactions between former imperialists, and the colonized. “The essence of neocolonialism is that the State that is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality, its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside...Neocolonialism is also the worst form of imperialism. For those who practise it, it means power without responsibility and for those who suffer from it, it means exploitation without redress”
I had to say, going in I disagreed that we live in a post-imperial age, especially after reading books, such as Immerwhar’s How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States among others, that describe the United States certainly as a modern empire. However, Puri addresses my disagreements in his introduction chapter.
“It is a matter of great significance to live in a world without empires. By this, I mean the end of the formal empires of the past, where an outwardly expanding metropolitan core gobbled up territories via conquest….Rather, the ways in which powerful states dominate others have evolved to become more like informal empires of political and economic influence.”
“I will not argue that we are entering a new imperial age. Rather, my argument can be expressed concisely: twenty-first-century world order is a story of many intersecting post-imperial legacies. When these legacies collide, misunderstanding, friction, schism or even war can result”
“While the USA does not self-identify as an empire, it has become the embodiment of an informal empire. Its global reach includes: military bases dotted around the world; fleets of globally deployable aircraft carriers; strategic alliances on every continent; orbital satellites that guide missiles; technology innovations with global consumer appeal; and economic power underpinned by the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. The USA can dominate many parts of the world, or at least it can make its influence telling. For now it remains the country that can intervene militarily virtually anywhere to defend its vision of world order, and its notions of right and wrong. Questions over whether America should be doing any of this have defined global politics for decades.”
With these clarifications, I was onboard for the ride.
Puri breaks down the book into chapters, the first few looking at former colonizers and the impact of Imperialism on their modern politics, while later chapters discuss the regions which are recovering from being colonized. The first half look at Britain, USA, Russia, and the European Union, while the second look at China, India, and the nations of the Middle East, North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Puri does a fantastic job tying realities of our modern world to the lingering scars of centuries of imperial ventures.
One final quote I want to share from the book comes from Kwame Nkrumah, former Prime Minister of Ghana, regarding Neocolonial interactions between former imperialists, and the colonized. “The essence of neocolonialism is that the State that is subject to it is, in theory, independent and has all the outward trappings of international sovereignty. In reality, its economic system and thus its political policy is directed from outside...Neocolonialism is also the worst form of imperialism. For those who practise it, it means power without responsibility and for those who suffer from it, it means exploitation without redress”
July 13, 2022
This book reads like a prose equivalent of media outlets shouting about how Palestine is a “complicated” issue. Perhaps we can classify this as an ode to centrism. In between some, few and far in between, genuinely insightful observations about the state of the world today, Puri tends to make excuses for imperialism.
The basic premise of the book is that modern nation states project their inherited imperial legacies onto the world. By studying the nations’ histories, thus, one can understand why each nation behaves the way it does, and to what end. By and large, I see merit in this argument however I disagree vehemently with a lot of the stuff Puri writes.
The book features chapters on the US, the EU, Russia, China, India, the Middle East and Africa. Each chapter, except the one on Africa, has a similar structure.; a brief history, then an analysis of each country's actions in the present day and finally some projections in the future. What I take issue with primarily is the historical part. Sure, history is an exercise in interpretation, but perhaps the interpretation should not ignore inconvenient facts and make sweeping generalizations where leeway to make them don’t exist. The United States’, for example, did not forgo its imperial outlook in the 1990’s as the book argues. Yes, it may have reigned in some of its Cold War posturing but if we are talking about imperialism, the imperial outlook continued. We saw “market reforms” in all of Eastern Europe and Russia and the Oslo accords.
Similarly, the Prophet Muhammad PBUH did not create an empire in his lifetime. To describe the Caliphate in words such as empire and imperialism is to equate it with the British or the French empires. That is outright injustice. Puri admits to it partially in one place, writing about how the Ottoman empire was so decentralized it did not fit in with the definition of empires based on mideval European states... but then... he proceeds to equate them nevertheless.
Ultimately this came across to me as a confused book. It’s reminiscent of Tony Blair’s radical centrism where one ends up playing both sides and in the process, doing justice to neither. Very disappointed
The basic premise of the book is that modern nation states project their inherited imperial legacies onto the world. By studying the nations’ histories, thus, one can understand why each nation behaves the way it does, and to what end. By and large, I see merit in this argument however I disagree vehemently with a lot of the stuff Puri writes.
The book features chapters on the US, the EU, Russia, China, India, the Middle East and Africa. Each chapter, except the one on Africa, has a similar structure.; a brief history, then an analysis of each country's actions in the present day and finally some projections in the future. What I take issue with primarily is the historical part. Sure, history is an exercise in interpretation, but perhaps the interpretation should not ignore inconvenient facts and make sweeping generalizations where leeway to make them don’t exist. The United States’, for example, did not forgo its imperial outlook in the 1990’s as the book argues. Yes, it may have reigned in some of its Cold War posturing but if we are talking about imperialism, the imperial outlook continued. We saw “market reforms” in all of Eastern Europe and Russia and the Oslo accords.
Similarly, the Prophet Muhammad PBUH did not create an empire in his lifetime. To describe the Caliphate in words such as empire and imperialism is to equate it with the British or the French empires. That is outright injustice. Puri admits to it partially in one place, writing about how the Ottoman empire was so decentralized it did not fit in with the definition of empires based on mideval European states... but then... he proceeds to equate them nevertheless.
Ultimately this came across to me as a confused book. It’s reminiscent of Tony Blair’s radical centrism where one ends up playing both sides and in the process, doing justice to neither. Very disappointed
April 8, 2021
Puri provides excellent historical context to today's international political landscape. Organized by major geographic regions he explains the history of each, how they have developed culturally and changed over time. He relates this to the diverse visions that shape tensions in today's political rivalries and economies.
July 17, 2021
Imagine having a conversation with a learned scholar about the present state of geopolitics and the events which brought the world here. In many ways, Puri's book is such a conversation.
The world is painted with broad brush strokes premised on theoretical postulates put forward by a scholar. To be sure, the reader benefits from the snippets of information especially to place world affairs in a broad historical context. Note there is no deep dive into history in this book. It's a dashboard into history from a thousand feet up in the air.
'The Shadows of Empire' is for readers with an academic bent and pre-existing broad knowledge of history. Otherwise, pick up a history book longer on facts and shorter on abstract trends.
The world is painted with broad brush strokes premised on theoretical postulates put forward by a scholar. To be sure, the reader benefits from the snippets of information especially to place world affairs in a broad historical context. Note there is no deep dive into history in this book. It's a dashboard into history from a thousand feet up in the air.
'The Shadows of Empire' is for readers with an academic bent and pre-existing broad knowledge of history. Otherwise, pick up a history book longer on facts and shorter on abstract trends.
July 5, 2021
Samir Puri starts out with the observation that we are now 30 years into a world without empires for the first time in millennia (a point that depends to some degree on how one counts countries like the United States, China and Russia). But he argues that the dissolved empires of the past still cast a shadow over the present and shape the way nations see themselves, each other, and are a source of both problems and strength. He offers an unflinching criticism of the overseas, non-contiguous imperialism practiced by Europe but also puts in context with the contiguous empires like the ones in the Middle East, the Soviet Union, and China and the problems and benefits associated with them.
After stating his argument, the bulk of the book is a single chapter for each empire (the United States, UK, the EU, Russia, China, India, Middle East, and Africa) from its beginnings to the present with a certain amount about how the imperial legacies shape the present. This leads to a certain amount of rushing through vast swaths of history, a combination of history, political science, journalism, with a bit of personal narrative thrown in. All of it seemed perfectly reliable but at times the organizing principle is worn a bit thin and instead one has a world history.
Overall much of the book does not seem particularly original (and the parts that were new to me were about areas I don't know a lot about so I suspect they weren't wildly original either), but it still is successful in weaving together a lot of the past with its implications for the present and presenting an often subtle and non-judgmental account which makes the judgements it makes all the more powerful.
As to specifics, here are a few from each region.
--The United States. Puri argues about the divided legacy of a country whose identity centers around having freed itself from an empire but then becoming an empire, describing how its ambivalence gave way to enthusiasm for a set of wars that for more than 150 years have been fought overseas, often on the other side of the world, with far flung allies and bases all over the world. The tension and ambivalence shows up in US politics with the isolationism, in the good and bad sense, that also runs through our politics (most recently in the form of Donald Trump).
--The United Kingdom. Among the least original chapters because the UK's empire is so straightforward, I still learned about the Indian aspect of it, how it went from commercial to political, and the disconnect between the British view that they had made the country and India's own strong identities that it already had.
--The EU. He interprets it as a post-imperial empire, made in a voluntary way.
--China. He describes how China's was always expanding contiguously but rejected traveling further for discovery or conquest. Then it was conquered itself and today it defines itself as the dignity that comes from throwing that conquest off. Beyond some of the areas it controls/incorporates like Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong it is now making inroads around the world in through the Belt and Road Initiative and other efforts. But it still considers itself anti-imperialist and makes that one of its arguments as it expands.
--India. This was one of the more interesting and complex chapter about questions about whether it counts as conquest if it is neighbors like the Mughals vs. the English and what it means when the conquerers adopt the local customs and get incorporated, the multiple identities and backgrounds in India, the current debate over the historical legacy of Gandhi's non-violence and inclusiveness vs. Bose's violence, and the way there is no undisputed common history so the BJP and Shiv Sena are creating their own version of a Hindu-only history.
--Middle East. Another excellent chapter, too much to summarize, but two interesting points: (1) the Ottoman Empire was a relatively tolerant multicultural place and when it dissolved many of the problems it had suppressed exploded out, especially when groups didn't get their own homes (e.g. the Kurds) and (2) Turkey has defined itself by not having a history, it created a nationalism based on a new spelling that means people can't read anything from more than one hundred years ago, a new national identity, and that this has (he argues) helped pave the way for the dictatorship and cult of personality.
--Africa. He describes the scramble for Africa and how its consequences resonate through to today with misdrawn borders, tribalism that was alternately created and ignored by the Europeans, and African leaders who blame foreigners to deflect from their local problems.
After stating his argument, the bulk of the book is a single chapter for each empire (the United States, UK, the EU, Russia, China, India, Middle East, and Africa) from its beginnings to the present with a certain amount about how the imperial legacies shape the present. This leads to a certain amount of rushing through vast swaths of history, a combination of history, political science, journalism, with a bit of personal narrative thrown in. All of it seemed perfectly reliable but at times the organizing principle is worn a bit thin and instead one has a world history.
Overall much of the book does not seem particularly original (and the parts that were new to me were about areas I don't know a lot about so I suspect they weren't wildly original either), but it still is successful in weaving together a lot of the past with its implications for the present and presenting an often subtle and non-judgmental account which makes the judgements it makes all the more powerful.
As to specifics, here are a few from each region.
--The United States. Puri argues about the divided legacy of a country whose identity centers around having freed itself from an empire but then becoming an empire, describing how its ambivalence gave way to enthusiasm for a set of wars that for more than 150 years have been fought overseas, often on the other side of the world, with far flung allies and bases all over the world. The tension and ambivalence shows up in US politics with the isolationism, in the good and bad sense, that also runs through our politics (most recently in the form of Donald Trump).
--The United Kingdom. Among the least original chapters because the UK's empire is so straightforward, I still learned about the Indian aspect of it, how it went from commercial to political, and the disconnect between the British view that they had made the country and India's own strong identities that it already had.
--The EU. He interprets it as a post-imperial empire, made in a voluntary way.
--China. He describes how China's was always expanding contiguously but rejected traveling further for discovery or conquest. Then it was conquered itself and today it defines itself as the dignity that comes from throwing that conquest off. Beyond some of the areas it controls/incorporates like Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong it is now making inroads around the world in through the Belt and Road Initiative and other efforts. But it still considers itself anti-imperialist and makes that one of its arguments as it expands.
--India. This was one of the more interesting and complex chapter about questions about whether it counts as conquest if it is neighbors like the Mughals vs. the English and what it means when the conquerers adopt the local customs and get incorporated, the multiple identities and backgrounds in India, the current debate over the historical legacy of Gandhi's non-violence and inclusiveness vs. Bose's violence, and the way there is no undisputed common history so the BJP and Shiv Sena are creating their own version of a Hindu-only history.
--Middle East. Another excellent chapter, too much to summarize, but two interesting points: (1) the Ottoman Empire was a relatively tolerant multicultural place and when it dissolved many of the problems it had suppressed exploded out, especially when groups didn't get their own homes (e.g. the Kurds) and (2) Turkey has defined itself by not having a history, it created a nationalism based on a new spelling that means people can't read anything from more than one hundred years ago, a new national identity, and that this has (he argues) helped pave the way for the dictatorship and cult of personality.
--Africa. He describes the scramble for Africa and how its consequences resonate through to today with misdrawn borders, tribalism that was alternately created and ignored by the Europeans, and African leaders who blame foreigners to deflect from their local problems.
May 18, 2021
A very informative, sometimes fascinating, overview of empires throughout world history—their ascendancies, declines, and reasons thereof; their effects on their builders, their destroyers, and their subjects, both immediate and lingering through history. The common view (or at least mine) of empire was of the British example of a “developed” European country building an empire by colonizing “undeveloped” distant regions of faraway continents. Here, the British Empire receives a chapter of its own, but other European colonizers (such as France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Italy) receive only brief mention (some none); these are instead looked at in a chapter on the European Union’s “post-imperial project” in the context of their present incarnations as EU members. Other chapters look at the United States’ “imperial inheritance” of lands first colonized by Europeans (British, French, Spanish) and its expansion from there into a 50-state nation and beyond that on an informal global scale; Russia’s historical imperial expansions westward, southward, and eastward since the tenth century through the days of the USSR up to the present post-Soviet era; the two sides of China’s experience of empire as conqueror in central and eastern Asia until its own humiliation by European powers and Japan in the 19th and 20th centuries; India’s experience of empire under the Mughals and then the British and after independence and partition; the Middle East’s “post-imperial instability” resulting in part from boundaries drawn by former colonial powers after World War I; and Africa’s “scramble beyond colonialism,” saddled with a legacy of authoritarianism and economic dependence after the European nations' scramble for Africa in the late 19th-century. The historical groundings of these chapters are well done (and vastly expanded my knowledge and understanding through the wealth of information transmitted in very readable chapters), but the author’s attention to how these histories inform what is going on in today’s word—international tensions and power relations; many nations’ internal politics; economic and cultural relationships, etc—and how they may continue to shape future global developments is also laudable. At first, I was a little disappointed by the chapter organization by region but now see the historical experience of imperialism has varied so greatly from place to place and over time that much might be lost in a different organizational structure. Coincidentally, reading this dovetailed nicely with my recent fiction readings of Ayad Akhtar’s Homeland Elegies (immigrants from Pakistan in the US pre- and post-9/11) and Gina Apostol’s The Revolution According to Raymundo Mata (the beginnings of the anti-Spanish revolution in the late 19th-century Philippines) and my current reading of Viet Thanh Nguyen’s The Committed (Vietnamese refugee experience in France in the 1980s, sequel to The Sympathizer, in which the same narrator is first a refugee in the US and then repatriated and reeducated in Vietnam).
March 14, 2021
Awesome reading of this book, but I disagree with the author's writing of the Middle East.
August 31, 2021
This book is a survey of how imperial history has affected both imperialists and the subjugated. While the premise behind this book is a good one, the author spreads himself too thin taking on too many "empires." This results in a polemical tone and an overly simplistic presentation. It would probably have been better to examine one empire in detail to show how empire continues to effect choices made in the present.
May 13, 2021
Very interesting - A summary of the history of empires throughout the world over time and the effect on the world today.
August 26, 2021
Great read. Very easy to understand. Not on the level of Paul Kennedy's Rise and fall of great empires.
Still, good introduction to world issues
Still, good introduction to world issues
January 1, 2023
I’ve been waiting for a book like this that offers historical context about contemporary geopolitics without being preachy or boring. This is a highly readable and informative book that helps the reader make sense of current events with greater depth and background knowledge. I appreciate the author’s careful curation and explanation with as little ideological commentary as possible—such a rare treat in a world with so much unsubstantiated opinion!
July 12, 2023
A sweeping overview of empires across the world and their legacies in world affairs and mass psychology.
I did enjoy this book. Brevity did require ommision of minute details and the main overarching themes of world history are clearly presented. The writing style is reflective of an academic text to some degree. This is a minor issue and easily overcome. The author tried to present events in a neutral tone.
I did enjoy this book. Brevity did require ommision of minute details and the main overarching themes of world history are clearly presented. The writing style is reflective of an academic text to some degree. This is a minor issue and easily overcome. The author tried to present events in a neutral tone.
November 29, 2023
Puri writes with total security brain and his understanding of Empire in the United States fails to recognize settler colonialism as an aspect of imperialism itself. He is far too kind to pro-colonial narratives throughout and while he acknowledges atrocities were committed under colonialism, he generally gives too much attention towards the benefits. I also think his writing on imperialism in Russia and China is at its core Eurocentric.
September 30, 2021
It's a good, down-to-earth book but sparse on the details. I mean it's a good book, and I like how he did the book. But he could have gone more in-depth with things. Oher than that it's a good read.
September 23, 2023
Great read. An unbiased review of how imperial legacies influence modern state decisions and individual thought.
April 27, 2022
Muy buen libro. Nos explica las conexiones de los imperios con el mundo actual. Un libro didáctico y fácil de leer. Muy bien explicados los hechos históricos.
April 20, 2023
Really clear and succinct world history. Lots of great information.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews