Hero of the Empire: The Boer War, a Daring Escape, and the Making of Winston Churchill by Candice Millard (PDF)

Description

From the bestselling author of Destiny of the Republic, this thrilling biographical account of the life and legacy of Wintson Churchill is a “nail-biter and top-notch character study rolled into one” (The New York Times). At the age of twenty-four, Winston Churchill was utterly convinced it was his destiny to become prime minister of England. He arrived in South Africa in 1899, valet and crates of vintage wine in tow, to cover the brutal colonial war the British were fighting with Boer rebels and jumpstart his political career. But just two weeks later, Churchill was taken prisoner. Remarkably, he pulled off a daring escape—traversing hundreds of miles of enemy territory, alone, with nothing but a crumpled wad of cash, four slabs of chocolate, and his wits to guide him.Bestselling author Candice Millard spins an epic story of bravery, savagery, and chance encounters with a cast of historical characters—including Rudyard Kipling, Lord Kitchener, and Mohandas Gandhi—with whom Churchill would later share the world stage. But Hero of the Empire is more than an extraordinary adventure story, for the lessons Churchill took from the Boer War would profoundly affect twentieth century history.

User’s Reviews

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐Churchill’s Boer War experiences have been the subject of multiple Churchill memoirs, a book, a feature length film & a PBS documentary. Many Churchill biographies devote lengthy sections to the topic, most recently Simon Read’s 2015 Winston Churchill Reporting (96 pp.)What does Candice Millard have to add to the oft told tale? Well, a little bit. A positive of this work is that it includes additional detail not usually found in the story, though strictly with regard to peripheral matters: Boer leaders, those who aided Churchill’s escape, etc. The best addition is an explanation of the mental state of prisoners of war.Millard also shows an excellent narrative writing capability. She tells the story of the armored train incident and Churchill’s capture and escape very well.Despite these positives, the book deserves only 2 stars (at best). Its inaccuracies and contradictions are numerous, central to the “Hero” (Churchill) and undermine the primary tenets of the author’s thesis.Churchill was a complex man continually involved in complex affairs. He also operated within a complex political system which varied considerably from the American system. It is no surprise that the author struggles in her effort to master both the facts of Churchill’s personal story & the British parliamentary system of the late 1890’s. She was trained as a journalist, rather than as a historian, and this is only her third book. The first two dealt with American political figures.The author’s thesis is three pronged: (1) Despite his high risk efforts to win medals in combat in order to make a name for himself in order to launch his political career, Churchill had “failed to win the medals that mattered,” had returned from each war “no more distinguished or famous than when he left,” and was just another inconsequential son of an aristocratic family. He was, thus, “desperate” to find another war and “a serious battle” in which he could distinguish himself. (2) Churchill’s electoral failure in the 1898 Oldham bye-election was due to his impatience. He had run for Parliament before he was “ready.” (3) The Boer War transformed Churchill in a way that prepared him to win on his next try in the 1899 general election and become the man he became.The author fails to substantiate the first two and does not even try on the third. There is no question that Churchill became a “Hero of the Empire” due to this episode. It did not, however, make him a different man than he had been. It was critically important, turning a 1.6% electoral loss in 1898 into a narrow 1899 win of less than one half of 1%. (A 23.6% losing share in 1898 turned into a 25.30% winning share in 1899–a razor thin 222 vote win.) The author tries hard to embellish the story beyond that and severely damages the credibility of the book in the process.The book’s credibility is also badly damaged by irrelevant material, glaring contradictions, myriad errors and puzzling gaps in the story. The latter three are all serious problems, dealing, as they do, with Churchill himself. Specifics follow:Irrelevant material– The author appears to lack confidence in both her grasp of the details of Churchill’s life and her ability to support her thesis. Her response appears to be to fill space with “background” on matters peripheral and even irrelevant to the central story. For example, there are multi page digressions into Shaka Zulu and Gandhi, neither of whom have anything to do with Churchill. Shaka was long dead by this time and even the Zulu generally did not figure into Churchill’s story. It is worth noting that Gandhi was a leader of stretcher bearers in the Boer War, but he had nothing to do with Churchill’s Boer War either.Major gaps in the relevant material: Following Churchill’s escape & return to action, he had multiple adventures which are overlooked. He was at the bloody battle of Spion Kop. This is mentioned only in passing without any of the interesting details. Later, Churchill had a miraculous escape when his horse bolted leaving him trapped in open ground at the mercy of the Boers. He was saved when a lone British scout came around a hill & gave him a leg up as they rode for dear life under Boer fire. An egregious omission is the story of Churchill’s heroics at the Battle of Diamond Hill. His general, Ian Hamilton, tried to have Churchill awarded the Victoria Cross for valor only to be rebuffed by Lord Roberts and Kitchener, both of whom disliked the brash youngster. Perhaps the most astonishing omission is the tale of the multi year dispute between Churchill and Haldane regarding Churchill’s solo escape from the prison camp after all three would be escapees had tried and failed. That is the major controversy of the entire story.Why would multi page digressions into figures irrelevant to Churchill’s story be included while a major controversy, Victoria Cross worthy heroics and a miraculous escape, all be omitted?Contradictions: If Churchill was so “desperate” for a battle in which to win military glory, then why did he resign his Army commission? How was he to win a medal as a civilian? No answer is provided. (The reason was twofold. 1) Churchill’s finances were in urgent need of repair. A cavalry officer’s financial obligations were significant and resigning would substantially reduce Churchill’s living expenses. Also, his writing career earned him a multiple of his army pay and being a full time correspondent & writer would allow him to devote even more time to this more lucrative pursuit. Further, contrary to the author’s contention, Churchill was no longer a nobody “desperate” for the right medal by the time of his resignation. He had already made quite a name for himself with his combat service, war reporting, and his books. This fact, plus his performance in public speaking, marked him as a “comer” and were, in addition to his family name, the reasons the Tory party elders chose him as the party nominee for a seat.) If Churchill was as “unknown” as the author claims, why does she tell us just the opposite later in the text? For example: A. Page 99–(Churchill) was “…well known, and widely believed to be on his way to Parliament, if not 10 Downing Street…” B. Pages 59-60–The reader is told that Churchill had become the most sought after and highly paid war correspondent in Britain by the eve of the Boer War, having catapulted past the likes of Kipling and Conan Doyle. Which is it? Was he unknown or well known? Unknown or the most in demand war correspondent in the land thought to be on his to Parliament and even Downing Street?Errors (a partial list):1) Pg 9–Churchill “began smoking cigars” in Cuba in 1895. While his taste for cigars, especially Cubans, was likely enhanced, this was neither his first time to smoke either cigars in general or cubanos in particular. See Hal Klepak’s Churchill Comes of Age: Cuba 1895, pages 168-170.2). Pg 20–The author leads the reader to believe that Churchill had secured assignment to the Sudan Campaign through “no less than the prime minister.” Not so. He was attached to the 21st Lancers, not by the PM, Lord Salisbury, whose attempt was rebuffed by General Kitchener, but by the Adjutant General, Sir Evelyn Wood. Kitchener had the final say on additions to his campaign but Wood had authority to fill vacancies in British army units such as the 21st Lancers. When a vacancy occurred in the Lancers, Wood filled it with Churchill. The 21st Lancers were already part of the campaign as a unit. Hence, Churchill was off to join both the 21st Lancers and the campaign.3) Page 20–The author states that the Sudan campaign was aimed at “Al-Mahdi” and his followers. That is incorrect. “The Mahdi” was Muhammad Ahmad, who led the siege of Khartoum which felled General Gordon in 1885. Ahmad died later in 1885 and was succeeded by his lieutenant, Abdullah bin Muhammad, known as “The Khalifa” or “Caliph.” He was the target of the Kitchener campaign, not “Al-Mahdi.”4) Page 32–Churchill had a “uniquely powerful mother.” That is rank hyperbole and misleading. Jennie held no position of authority or “power.” She KNEW powerful people and could often get their ear. That was worth a lot, but it was far from having power.5) Page 97–Churchill was “particularly furious” when he arrived in Egypt bound for the Sudan upon finding that “the position that had been promised to him had already been given to another man.” How misleading! Churchill neither “lost his place” nor was he “furious.” Both are fabrications. The 21st Lancers had three squadrons–A,B & C. Churchill was to be assigned to B. There was also a vacancy in A. B & C pulled out of Cairo for the Sudan before Churchill arrived. Since LT Robert Grenfell, who was to take the A vacancy, was already on site, the assignments were swapped and Churchill wound up with A and Grenfell with B. Churchill and A Squadron caught up with the others before the Battle of Omdurman. All three squadrons fought alongside each other in the famous cavalry charge. The swap cost Churchill nothing. The author cites Churchill’s My Early Life for the statement that he was “furious,” but it says nothing of the sort. Churchill simply notes that B & C had pulled out of Cairo by the time of his arrival, so he switched squadrons with Grenfell. Saying he was “furious” appears to be pure embellishment and is disturbing.6) The author claims that, from the armored train, Churchill and Haldane saw Boers with wagons pulling what had to be field guns. The cited source is Churchill’s London to Ladysmith and his My Early Life. Both tell of seeing Boers in the distance but neither mentions wagons or field guns. Thomas Pakenham’s The Boer War, cited elsewhere by the author, points out that no evidence of guns was seen and that Haldane pushed further north in the mistaken belief that there were no Boer field guns nearby.7) The author completely misunderstands the nature of Churchill’s first Oldham political race in 1898, claiming that he lost because he was not yet “ready.” That was just not the case. The British system is controlled by the parties to a much greater extent and voters vote the party, rather than the individual candidate, to a much higher degree than in the US. Churchill lost the 1898 race for two reasons: 1) Oldham was a working class district and, as such, Liberal party leaning; 2) The national Tory party was pushing a “clerical tithes bill” which was very unpopular in the district. These are the reasons Churchill suffered a close loss, not his lack of “readiness.” He actually ran ahead of the other Tory party candidate in the two seat race, coming in third to the two Liberal candidates by only 1,293 votes (about 2.5%.) The British inclination to vote the party accounts for why Churchill, despite his new “Hero” status, moved the needle only slightly in the 1899 general election. Critically, it was enough to eke out a narrow win. The author embellishes again here at page 313, saying “They all did vote for Churchill the next time, or at least enough (to win).” She emphasizes the fact that Churchill came in second only 16 votes behind the first place Liberal. True, but he also came in second only 222 votes ahead of the third place Liberal-a margin of less than .5 percent.The author appears to want to leave the impression that his new “hero” status and alleged personal transformation after the Boer War propelled Churchill to a substantial victory in 1899. That appears to be yet another instance of embellishment in pursuit of a more exciting story. The real story is adequately exciting on its own. The author and the reader would have been much better served by a proper explanation of the realities of the British electoral system which pointed out how difficult it was for an individual candidate to run ahead of his party. That would have given proper context to Churchill’s narrow victory–a story just as dramatic.With her writing ability the author could have produced a very fine addition to the voluminous Churchill library. Instead, she has produced a well told story, but one which fails as history due to numerous inaccuracies and omissions and startling contradictions. Of most concern is that she appears more than ready to embellish the story in multiple spots to make her tale more dramatic.I enjoy reading this author. I hope she keeps at it, but with a renewed commitment to telling history both accurately and completely.

⭐Nobody does it quite like Candice Millard. She finds relatively obscure historical events – the assassination of President Garfield, the Amazon adventure of former President Teddy Roosevelt, and here the young exploits of Winston Churchill in South Africa – and turns them into absolutely top-notch popular history. Her narratives are compulsively readable. My only complaint is that she hasn’t written more.Young Winston Churchill was, to put it mildly, a man on the make. “There is no ambition I cherish so keenly,” he told his younger brother, Jack, “as to gain a reputation for personal courage.” He was as good as his word. Before he was 24-years-old he had experienced close order combat in Cuba as a journalist observer, seen comrades hacked to pieces by Pashtun warriors in Malakand on the Afghan border, and became separated from his regiment in the desert sands of Sudan in the war against the Mahdi.But it wasn’t enough. “[Churchill] wanted not simply to fight,” writes Millard, “but to be noticed while fighting.” He was, in short, a “medal hunter.” And none of his previous adventures had resulted in the public acclaim that he so hungered for. Churchill was, Millard stresses, quite literally willing to risk his life for fame and glory. After defeat in his first stand for election to the House of Commons in 1899, Churchill seized on the conflict in South Africa as the stage upon which he might finally achieve his seemingly unlimited ambitions.Churchill would join the war not as a soldier but as a war correspondent for a respected British daily newspaper, the Morning Post. And he was not just any war correspondent, however, but the most highly paid one in England. Despite his youth and relative inexperience he had established a strong reputation as a fearless man with an unusual skill as a writer. In the glowing words of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the young Churchill was “the greatest living master of English prose.”Churchill left for the front on the same boat that carried the recently appointed British general in chief, General Redvers Buller. The dashing young war correspondent was intent on beating the 30,000 British reinforcements to the front. Many in the British Army at first held a low opinion of their Boer adversary, but not Churchill, who wrote that they were “the finest mass of rifle-armed horsemen ever seen and the most capable mounted warriors since the Mongols.”Through a mix of pluck and ingenuity, Churchill had placed himself about as far forward as was humanly possible for a young British war correspondent in South Africa in late 1899: the small outpost town of Estcourt some 50 miles south of the British forces besieged at Ladysmith in Natal Province. In hopes of getting an even closer look at the fighting – and hopefully finally setting his eyes on a real Boer fighter – he volunteered to accompany a dangerous (and relatively pointless) armored train expedition out of Estcourt in the direction of Ladysmith. The venture was an unmitigated disaster for the British as the Boers effectively ambushed the train on its way back to Estcourt, killing five and taking 60 prisoners, the intrepid journalist Winston Churchill among them.The Boer ambush of the armored train and Churchill’s conspicuous gallantry in the ensuing melee were front-page news all across England. “He had become not only the talk of the city but the subject of widespread praise and admiration,” Millard writes, “something he had long felt deserving of, but had certainly never been before.” Unfortunately, Churchill was in no position to enjoy his newfound fame. He vehemently protested his imprisonment, arguing that he was a journalist and civilian non-combatant. The Boers, however, were not about to release so famous a captive as the son of a British Lord, especially one who had famously maligned the Boers in the past.Millard writes that Churchill absolutely detested captivity and the slovenly guards assigned to prevent his escape from their makeshift POW camp in Pretoria. “[From] the moment he had raised his hands he had hated his captivity with an intensity that surprised even him … So much did Churchill loathe his imprisonment that the experience would stay with him for the rest of his life.” All he could think about was escape, no matter the dangers involved.On December 12, 1899, after a month in captivity, Churchill dashed over the back wall of the prison. His two fellow accomplices were unable to join him. He would have to fight his way through 300 miles of hostile Transvaal territory on his own. “Failure being almost certain,” Churchill later wrote, “no odds against success affected me. All risks were less than the certainty.”The situation for the British in South Africa was bleak in late 1899. Anticipation of a quick and easy victory were dashed by a series of shocking defeats during a short period known as Black Week, none bigger than General Buller’s decisive defeat against Luis Botha at the Battle of Colenso on December 15, 1899. General Buller, nicknamed “the Steamroller,” was unceremoniously sacked after just three months in South Africa. The British, Millard writes, were desperate for heroes. News of Churchill’s dramatic escape from captivity and his treacherous overland flight to safety were just what the British public needed.Churchill’s saga was again front-page news. He was, Millard says, exactly what the British wanted in their heroes – “resilient, resourceful and, even in the face of extreme danger, utterly unruffled.” After stowing away on a train for some 70 miles east of Pretoria, he debarked to find himself, quite miraculously, in the midst of British men operating a coalmine in the Transvaal. At much personal risk, his countrymen kept Churchill hidden away in a rat-invested mineshaft for nearly a week before arranging for him to be spirited away on a train headed to Portuguese East Africa (modern day Mozambique) hidden in a giant spool of wool. It really is an almost unbelievable adventure tale. Churchill arrived in Durban, Natal’s largest city, on 23 December to a raucous hero’s welcome. After two full weeks on the run, he was finally safe and, indeed, the “Hero of the Empire.”Churchill leveraged his newfound fame to the fullest, somehow finagling an Army commission as a lieutenant in the South African Light Horse while retaining his role as foreign war correspondent for the Morning Post. He was present at the Battle of Spion Kop outside of the Ladysmith on 23 January 1900, one of the bloodiest fights of the war that left 600 dead and 1,500 wounded. He was also present for the British capture of Pretoria and the liberation of his POW camp in June 1900. Churchill returned to England and was easily elected to Parliament in the same district where he was defeated in 1899. His remarkable career was on its way; his election no doubt owing to his South African exploits.

⭐What is not to love about this book. Any age can read it as it is a part of history not just Winston but England and South Africa and bravery. Here is a man that knew he would survive whatever he engaged in. A very very brave man and there is no one to follow in his footsteps. He love England to the very end.

⭐excactly as described couldn’t be happier

⭐Following Manchester’s classic Goodbye Darkness I tried to read The Last Lion. I failed but largely because I was too young. This book reads like a classic boys own adventure. This book was over too soon a few things occurred. First I got a way better understanding of the Boers particularly Both and their brilliance on the battlefield. Second it made me want to pick up the Last Lion 30 years later. This was an excellent book

⭐Uncovers a rarely discussed period of Churchill’s life. Also gives a brief introduction to the 2nd Boer War

⭐Molto interessante sia la vita di Churchill da giovane che la guerra contro i Boeri della quale sapevo ben poco, salvo qualche reminiscenza di storia del liceo e la “mistics” Scout!

⭐

Keywords

Free Download Hero of the Empire: The Boer War, a Daring Escape, and the Making of Winston Churchill in PDF format
Hero of the Empire: The Boer War, a Daring Escape, and the Making of Winston Churchill PDF Free Download
Download Hero of the Empire: The Boer War, a Daring Escape, and the Making of Winston Churchill 2016 PDF Free
Hero of the Empire: The Boer War, a Daring Escape, and the Making of Winston Churchill 2016 PDF Free Download
Download Hero of the Empire: The Boer War, a Daring Escape, and the Making of Winston Churchill PDF
Free Download Ebook Hero of the Empire: The Boer War, a Daring Escape, and the Making of Winston Churchill