Dominic Lieven. In the Shadow of the Gods. The Emperors in World History.

     This is an easily read opus of a noted political scientist, a good man and a great erudite. Yet, it demonstrates that no erudition can replace sound historical methodology and original research, whether in archives or the field. First, the choice of the subject is based on Anglo-centric translation. This is a vagary of the latter that we call Chinese Huandi or Tianzi an Emperor, while the ancient rulers of Siam or Khmer Empire are called "Kings" as well as Egyptian-Greek rendering of "Pharaoh" is translated as the "King of Egypt". Empire can be defined as "Military-political dominion over polities with disparate socio-economic structure". If this, or similar definition are taken, most Chinese and Egyptian polities, as is properly mentioned by Lieven are not empires. Nor it will be surprising that the title of Emperor springs from Proconsul Imperium, which simply meant "A Commander of the Armed Forces". The rulers of the Roman Principate insisted that it was not "the King", Rex. 

    Second, Prince Lieven follows in the footsteps of Joseph de Mestre. Unholy Abbot considered the Kingdom of France as as close approximation of the Kingdom of G-d as is possible in this world. Lieven transfers this understanding to the British Empire. Nothing can compare with its political system, prowess of its military, its economic successes or its culture. Its horrible genocidal acts in Ireland and the Indian Raj (comprising modern India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) are not mentioned. 

    Third, he, as a brilliant conversationalist, is sometimes prone to the off the cuff remarks. For instance, he claims that the murderous Sultan Abdul Hamid built a modern Turkish Army, which supposedly exhibited "stellar performance" against the British, French and the Russians in the First World War. Gallipoli still hurts despite it being a poorly coordinated operation practically in Istanbul suburbs. In fact, the Turkish Army never succeeded in a single World War I offensive except for its "victory" in Armenian genocide. Lieven again mentions Peter Durnovo together with completely innocent Count Witte as prophets of doom advising against the war with Germany as a precursor to the socialist revolution in Russia. "Durnovo memorandum" is an easily identifiable fake. Moreover, Durnovo was hated by Nicolas II for his heavy-handed methods in running St. Petersburg police department -- for instance, raiding Brazilian Embassy to search for the letters of his mistress --- and was personally asked never to show up in the Council of the State. So he could not advise the Tsar on anything.