5 comments about Caligula: The Corruption of Power.

1. The title seems to be a bit of a misnomer for the title of Barrett's book. The reason is that while he does exploit much of Caligula's corruption, it is in essence a refutation of much of the traditional teachings about Caligula's madness and depravity. In fact, Barrett seems to discredit these common views, thereby substantially ameliorating the conventional perception of Caligula's corruption.
   
   Point being: This is a common theme throughout the book, that of contradiction. He cites example after example from Suetonius, Dio, et al of egregious behavior by the ruler, yet invariably discredits virtually each and every bit of fact on the matter by impugning the interest of the original sources' claims.
   
   Being merely a casual fan of the Caesars, this was not the book for me. While copiously researched and quite well-written, it reads too much like a dissertation and not enough like a book. I would highly recommend studying up a bit on Caligula for the lay reader before tackling this book. I must admit i did find much of it interesting and compelling, and for the scholar or avid Roman reader, this book seems to posit some contrarian views as well as comprehensive history and context which could greatly benefit your knowledge. But if you are just looking for an overview on C's life and a pleasurable read with a little more sizzle about his "corruption", I would recommend looking elsewhere.



2. While I must admit that this book is a must read for those interested in the politics and extravagences of the Roman Caesars, this book does little to "prove" what the author intends to prove: that Caligula was just a victim of circumstances. The author goes out of his way to show the reader that good ole little boots did nothing that his cohorts did not do as well (see references to Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius). The author tries to put a certain spin on the rumour mill of the day pertaining to Caligula by stating that Selonicus, Dio, et al. have a grudge againt him and that is why they were unappealing in writing about him. The bottom line is that Caligula was a depraved, sick human being given the power of a god and much more than willing to accept and play the role. Any justification for his actions would be irresponsible and not accepting of the true facts.



3. I found that this book most suprisingly has one of the most detailed and exhaustive bibliographies on obscure and hard to find references for Julio Claudian numismatists and iconographers. You don't need college to have a greater understanding of princeps Gaius Caligula. Worth the price of the book.
   
   Joe Geranio



4. While I fully understand Professor Barrett's reason for writing this book, i.e. to give a fully rounded and balanced perspective of the reign of the first century Roman emperor Caligula, I have to say it was poorly structured and poorly executed. Professor Barrett obviously does not wish to demonize his subject by listing lurid (and possibly spurious?) details of his reign, yet he has leaned so far in the other direction that he has given us an almost Pollyannish view. I realize that we are looking back at the reign of Caligula through the haze of almost 2000 years of history and I realize that many of the people who have written on his reign were either hostile to him or simply working with incorrect information, but are we to believe that they all wrong? We all know why Caligula is such a compelling figure from history: because of the tales of the horrific nature of his reign and the debate as to whether he was, in fact, insane. Professor Barrett would have us believe that Caligula was simply a "conceited, ill-mannered, and rather irresponsible young ruler." I find it hard to believe that Caligula was murdered after four years in power simply because he was ill-mannered. The book starts with promise but goes downhill from there. Professor Barrett moves through Caligula's four years in power so fast, the reader never gets a sense, positive or negative, of what his reign was really like. While chapters discussing his campaigns in North Africa, Germany and Great Britain should be important parts of the book, the author spends so much time discussing people, places and events peripheral to the story and debating the historians that the reader comes away, at best, confused. Other chapters were discussed in this same, confusing way. Moreover, why were chapters discussing relations with the Jewish people and Roman structures that Caligula built placed at the very end of the book instead of at the beginning where they could put his reign into perspective? I looked forward to reading a book that would shine a light on Caligula from all sides but this book is definitely not it.



5. Barrett takes a very stoic view of Caligula. This view is much different than the crazed man that is typically written about. Caligula is treated with an almost indifferent attitude, that does not yield any myths about the man we have heard about throughout time. What we see is an educated man, that typically made well thought out decisions. Barrett's Caligula is drawn from historical of Caligula's day, and other documentation that was written about him during his life.
   
   Barrett's style lends itself a bit to the dry side. While many points are typically well documented, the book is not an easy read. Paragraphs are of uniform size, long, and informative. Unless you like this style of reading, this may not be your best choice.
   
   The book gives a very well rounded view of Caligula, history portray's him as one of Rome's most Infamous rules. In fact, he wasn't an extreme ruler, and others after him would adopt some of his tactics. From a historical perspective this book is an excellent resource, and I would recommend it if you are looking for an indept study of Caligula and his times.

2 comments about The Muse of the Revolution: The Secret Pen of Mercy Otis Warren and the Foundingof a Nation.

1. We make much of the Founding Fathers of our nation, with barely a nod to any founding mothers. There is the legendary composition of the American flag by Betsy Ross, but even if Ms Ross did so, no one pays attention to her ideas or opinions. We have Abigail Adams, whose recommendation to history was not just that she was married to John Adams, but also that she was a clear thinker and did not confine her frequent letters to domestic or matrimonial issues. And then we have Mercy Otis Warren. Who? Mrs. Warren is little known to our time, although she was well known in her own (and was known as "Mrs. Warren") for publishing plays and poetry with political and revolutionary themes, even though she had to do so anonymously, and for having close acquaintances among other writers and among the leaders of the age. She also wrote one of the first histories of the American Revolution, which, if it is not regarded as a classic, is still consulted by historians specializing in the era. That a woman of her time could have the confidence, perhaps the presumption, of writing history was a surprise to her contemporaries, and argues that she had some sort of greatness and is worth knowing about. _The Muse of the Revolution: The Secret Pen of Mercy Otis Warren and the Founding of a Nation_ (Beacon Press) by Nancy Rubin Stuart is a fine introduction to Mrs. Warren's life, and to the domestic and civil concerns of Revolutionary patriots.
   
   Warren was born in 1728, and besides getting the domestic education all girls got, she was exposed to the books of her brothers, and succeeded when she begged to accompany them to school. Her love of reading, and her introduction to Pope, Dryden, Shakespeare, and others would affect her eventual writing style, but of course she didn't get to go on to Harvard as her brothers did. She married James Warren in 1754. He was a gentleman farmer and politician who was well known by all the more famous leaders of the Revolution. Mrs. Warren became known in her own way, and chief among her friends was John Adams, who would be a mentor and correspondent to her for decades. Adams introduced his young wife Abigail to Mrs. Warren, and the correspondence between the three forms much of the quoted material within this book. Warren's works included plays, satires of the times lacerating the Britons in authority who were oppressing the citizens. It's not fair to say she was a feminist, or even a proto-feminist. Though she thought a great deal about the news of the day, she was deferential. In a letter to her great friend John Adams, having mentioned the subject of patriots opposing Britain, she wrote, "I ask pardon for touching on war, politicks, or anything relative thereto, as I think you gave me a hint in yours not to approach... anything so far beyond the line of my sex." In writing about Mrs. Warren's reactions through the years, Stuart provides delightful insight to the sorts of day-to-day matters that were on her mind. We get to follow, for instance, her involvement in the daunting inoculation process against smallpox, a cure that had many of the aspects of the fearsome disease itself. Mrs. Warren reminds us that no matter how much we cherish our Revolutionary heroes, she spied during the war "a total change of manners" among the rising materialistic class of her countrymen with a new vogue in "profusion, pride and servility and almost every vice," and she was shocked at the "privateering" by those who made their profits in the war.
   
   It is also refreshing to understand that many of the heroes in our bronze statues were but humans, as Mrs. Warren saw them. She was disgusted, for instance, by the ostentation of John Hancock in 1777, as he made his official travels in his gold coach accompanied by fifty horsemen from his private corps of cadets. This sort of throwback to the trappings of royalty was also to offend her when John Adams took power, and Adams was especially upset with Mrs. Warren's depiction of him in her _History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution interspersed with Biographical, Political and Moral Observations_ (1805). The rift was severe, and Stuart summarizes their sixteen letters back and forth on the issue. Only the year before her death in 1814 did Adams deign to correspond again and the friendship was renewed. Mrs. Warren's story is also a reminder that the Constitution that we take for granted was a controversial document even among American patriots. She did not like it, and although her authorship was not known for 140 years, she wrote a treatise critiquing the document. The treatise played a role in the eventual drafting of the Bill of Rights. Stuart's book shows a woman of her times, but one with self-made erudition and with ambitions and influence outside the domestic sphere. It is an excellent summary of the life of an important patriot who made a difference during the times of the Founding Fathers.



2. A fascinating & entertaining account about one of America's forgotten outstanding women. I learned far more about the American Revolution and how it affected ordinary poeple by reading The Muse of the Revolution than I ever learned in my American history class.
   
   L.S.
   Manhattan

5 comments about Robert the Bruce: King of Scots.

1. This is one of the most well written books on Scottish history that I have had the pleasure to come across. Its thoroughly gripping whereas other books about this time period have positvely made my eyes glaze over.
   It takes a deeper look at the politics and war of the time and introduces you to Bruce's fascinating followers James Douglas and Thomas Randolph. This book is a must for those interested in history.



2. Scott's "Robert The Bruce" is a truly enjoyable and fascinating book. One is shown the growth of the playboy Lord of Annandale to the courageous, self-sacrificing warrior king who risks everything to lead his people to freedom. A chunk of history I was not too familiar with, Scott fills in the gaps and describes the situations and major characters in an engaging manner. Highly recommended!



3. This is a great biography of Robert the Bruce. Ronald McNair Scott gives a nice full and fleshed out story of Robert the Bruce and his rise to throne of Scotland. Mr. Scott does a great job following Bruce through his Grandfather and Father's initial competition and ultimately his own attempt for the Throne after the deaths of King Alexander and his last remaining heir. Like most noble families in Scotland of the time they had land and family links to England. The Bruce, Balliol, and Comyn families all dynastic ties and claims to the throne but in the end the Bruce family won out. Mr. Scott does uses well known sources for his biography like Barbour, Fordun and Barrow. Of course they glorify all that Bruce does and spends minimal time on his faults. Mr Scott gives us a general bio that is great for the novice to Scottish history and those reading their first book on Robert. There is a lot of personal story here with some supposed quotes to help you feel you are with Bruce when he knights Wallace, accepts the Guardianship, or when he murders his primary rival John Comyn and claims the throne or when he wins his great victory against the English at Bannockburn. But Mr. Scott doesn't stop there. We see him continue to firm up Scotland's independence against Edward I, II and finally III. We get a vivid view of his great Lieutenants, James Douglas and Thomas Randolph. Bruce finally sees peace in "old age" at 55 and dies with a son and grandson to succeed him. But in the end he was a man with all the faults ordinary man and for all he gained he equally paid a price in family, pain and life. After his death the English rise again and his heirs continue the struggle. But that is another story for another book. Robert the Bruce, King of Scots by Ronald M. Scott is the life of the Bruce as history remembers him today.



4. Scott's book is a biographical and chronological account of Robert the Bruce's accomplishments. It is written to be read, as well as studied and is quite well done from that point of view, forming a coherent narrative, or story, if you like, detailing the life of the King of Scots.
   
   An interesting biography.



5. An interesting read, but you had better like history. No glamour here, just fact telling. I was struck by the ongoing hatred for the Scots on the part of Edward I and Edward II. Bruce gets the last laugh.

5 comments about The Adams Women: Abigail and Louisa Adams, Their Sisters and Daughters.

1. Another winner for Nagel. This book is as good as his other two about the Adams family. I still don't find Abigail very likeable. The pressure she put on her children to achieve broke 3 of them and the lone successful child (John Quincy) turned around and did the same with his children. I really enjoyed the writer's descriptions of Louisa. I hope to see a full blown biography of her someday...she deserves it! I gained a true understanding why John Quincy had the personality he did. Abigail was extremely intelligent and ahead of her time. I enjoyed reading of her true partnership with husband John.



2. Nagel starts his book with a discussion of how happy he is to write another book on the Adames, specifically on the women. He then proceeds to tear the best of them, Abigail Sr., to shreds. Portraying her as shrewish, domineering, and just distasteful, he paints an inaccuratly biased view of an amazing woman who was far before her time. Although I don't know enough of the other women to critque his evaluations of them, I have read Abigails letters at the Mass Historical society and have read countless books on her during the last six months in relation to an intensive research project. I have seen many different "reads" of Abigail from feminist to domestic to maternal...but none so blatantly anti-Abigail. I suppose the world needs dissent to continue to have interesting discourse, but Nagel quite obviously hates Abigail Adams. If you read his book, please temper it with something like Portia, which is admittedly dry, but will give you a good counterpoint to Nagels criticisms.



3. Author Nagel has done a wonderful job of bringing the lives of the Adams women to life. The first part of the book concentrates on Abigail Smith, wife of John Adams and her sisters. Their letters describing their daily lives are fascinating. The various daughters of these women are also highlighted. The only daughter of John and Abigail, Abigail (nickednamed Nabby) is a particularly heartbreaking story. Pushed by her mother to marry a "promising" young man, she becomes the abandoned wife of a cruel alcoholic, living in near poverty. Unable to break away because of the strict moral codes of the time, she succombs to cancer, dying in her father's arms. Almost all of the women of the family were tortured by the alcoholism of either their husbands or sons. Louisa Johnson, the wife of John Quincy Adams is also highlighted. Her unhappy marriage to a difficult man is portrayed sympathetically.

   Even though thiese women lived almost 200 years ago, their stories are timeless. Unable to contol their own destinies, these women nevertheless contributed greatly to their families and communities.




4. Co-dependent relatives? Disfunctional families? Yes, these are modern pop-psychology terms. But Paul Nagel shows that these things existed at least two centuries ago, in one of Americaýs most prominent families.

   Most of the book discussed the Smith sisters --- Mary, Abigail, and Elizabeth. What struck me most about these three is how much they came to rely on each other. This has a good side --- i.e., thereýs always a sympathetic ear to listen, or a shoulder to cry on, or a pair of hands to pitch in when help was needed. It has a ýbadý side too --- for often one sisterýs ýconcerný for or about another bordered on interference. And it seems that the first rule of the Smith Sisters was ýNever raise your own children when they can be passed on to a relative.ý But who knows, maybe that was just the eighteenth century form of ýday care.ý

   The other major chunk of the book describes John Quincy Adamsý wife Louisa: a very fascinating, intelligent, and educated woman ... whose husband probably did not appreciate her. If anything, John Quincy appeared rather wimpy compared to Louisa.

   The final generation discussed in this book is that of Charles Francis Adams and his wife --- also Abigail.

   Throughout the book we are treated to accounts and anecdotes about the various Adams relatives and in-laws. It is amazing how the behavior of these people came so close to disgracing or embarrassing the sitting presidents, John or John Quincy. If it happened today, the Press would be all over it!

   This was the second of Paul Nagelýs books on the Adams family that Iýve read. Like his John Quincy Adams, The Adams Women was informative and well-researched, if a bit pedantic in tone. It brought to life this fascinating family and the era in which they lived.




5. A small book with a large amount of information. The women described in this book are giants to my mind. They provided succor to their men and ran the equivalent of a modern business in their households, and in cases their sisters as well. I would have liked to know them all.

5 comments about Cavalier in Buckskin: George Armstrong Custer and the Western Military Frontier (Oklahoma Western Biographies).

1. I have been an avid reader of Custer related literature
   through the years and this is simply the best book on the market
   on George Armstrong Custer. As a graduate student at Mississippi
   State University and taking a course on the American West I gave
   a lecture on Custer and recommended this book to the class.
   Mr. Utley gives great detail on Custer's life. As with any
   reader of Custer the debate rages on about General Terry's orders
   to Custer and if they were obeyed or not. The author brought
   out something I had not read before and that being the affidavet
   of a cook who overheard a conservation between Terry and Custer.
   A great book on Custer and especially on the Battle of the
   Little Bighorn. Also, being a Civil War buff I liked the way the author mentioned how former Confederate generals were some
   of Custer's biggest defenders after the battle.
   If one were looking for a starting place on Custer this book
   would be the one.



2. This biography of George Armstrong Custer devotes most of its pages to his post Civil War career. Most people only know that he died at the Little Bighorn battle; they know the legend or the symbol, not the real person. Chapter 1 discusses his legend from 1876 to the present. Before his last campaign Custer charged the Grant administration with fraud and corruption. So whether he was a "victim of Grant's Indian policy" or a "foolhardy glory hunter" depended on the politics of the beholder.

   Custer's postwar career depended on the support of Sherman and Sheridan ("Custer never let me down"). Since the Indians kept far away from the railroads, building the Northern Pacific railroad would ethnically cleanse the northern Dakota territory. The railroads were given tens of thousands of square miles of land ("sunblasted in summer, frozen in winter" p.125). They could not be sold to settlers until Indians were removed and neutralized. Settlers would then buy railroad lands, then use the railroad to transport their produce and supplies. The army's task was to implement this political policy; they only followed orders. There were treaties such as at Medicine Lodge in October 1867. But the Indians had no idea that they were giving up the country they claimed as their own (p.59).

   The announced purpose of the Black Hills Expedition of 1874 was to find a site for a new fort, and for scientific exploration. The discovery of gold meant that miners would flock to these Indian lands via the Northern Pacific. The chief geologist, and Lt. Col. Fred Grant, cast doubt on this report: it might have been planted (p.141)! These lands could not be developed while the Indians held title, unless a war was created to negate the treaty (p.147). The Interior Dept. issued an ultimatum to the Sitting Bull bands: move to the Great Sioux Reservation or be driven in (p.156). But the Indians were immobilized in winter! Their failure to migrate was used to start a war. The military campaign started in April 1876. Custer believed that the Indians should be civilized into Christian farmers, but "if I were an Indian I often think that I would prefer to adhere to the free open plains rather than submit to a reservation" (p.149).

   Just before his last campaign Custer testified against the actions of Secretary of War Belknap. Was he looking for some heroic action to gain popular acclaim? Was he suffering from any ailment that could affect his judgment? Chapter 9 discusses the "Judgments" on the defeat. Utley wonders if Custer received his chest wound at the beginning of the battle, and this demoralized and confused their defense? This would account for much that is puzzling about the battle (p.199). Those paintings of "Custer's Last Stand" are imagined. The Sioux fired their rifles and arrows from long range while concealed (p.190). They were too smart for a "Charge of the Light Brigade".




3. This is a very short biography (just under 200 pages, not counting the pictures) of one of the most flamboyant and controversial military figures in our nation's history. Volumes could be written about George Custer, and indeed have been, and yet still there could never be a consensus as to the man's character, his skill as a warrior, and the amount of blame he should shoulder for charging headlong into immortality when he and part of his regiment were wiped out at the Little Bighorn. Custer is one of those figures on whom it would be difficult to write a good biography in 500 pages. Somehow, Utley has done it in 200.

   This work is by no means thorough, but rather provides a good introduction and outline of Custer's life. Not a lot of detail is provided about any one phase of Custer's adult life--boy general, frontier greenhorn, Indian fighter extraordinaire--and yet there is enough information here to get a good idea of what Custer the man must have been like. I think it is outside of the scope of this book to psychoanalyze this complex individual, or to analyze his several controversial achievements, from Civil War battles to an Indian attack on the Washita River to rushing into battle at the Little Bighorn without the necessary reconnaissance, and yet Utley manages to put things into a perspective that at least seems reasonable and fair, if not conclusive. His section on the Little Bighorn battle is concise, to the point, and objective, and, though he tends to imply that the blame for Custer's death cannot be fixed entirely on Custer's rashness, yet he does not attempt to deify or exonerate the man wholly from blame.
   
   This book was meant to be a short introduction into Custer's life, and in that it fills its purpose completely. For students seeking a deeper and more thorough understanding of Custer, however, a larger work is needed. Still, this book is immensely valuable in that it provides a short, objective, and concise narrative of the life of George Armstrong Custer.




4. Robert M. Utley is probably our most thoughtful scholar of George Armstrong Custer and his ultimate demise at the Little Bighorn in 1876. He has studied Custer since a boy, including writing his Master's thesis on him and spending years as a guide at the Custer Battlefield site in Montana. One of Utley's purposes behind writing this book was to "coerce me into deciding what I thought" of Custer. It's pretty obvious by the end that he thinks pretty highly of him, despite all his faults. Custer was a man full of contradictions: he demanded obedience to orders from others but didn't feel he needed to obey orders himself; he could be cruel to some while favoring select others; he was generous and selfish, egotistical as well as modest. (Perhaps the biggest contradiction was how one of the most successful Civil War cavalry generals could come to so ignoble an end.)
   
   Men either hated or loved him; few were indifferent - thus the controversy regarding his actions on the Little Bighorn. Utley believes that Custer acted as one would expect a self-assured, ambitious, enterprising (critics, of course, would use different adjectives: self-serving, glory-seeking, impulsive) officer to act at the Last Stand, even though he had limited information, and finds more fault with Reno's and Benteen's inaction at the crucial moment when more decisive action may have saved the day. But no one will ever know with total exactness what happened that day, which is why the legend of Custer looms so large. And for Utley that is the "significant Custer," the one that has made the biggest "impact on human minds." Utley writes about that Custer with critical admiration, and one appreciates the controlled, clear-eyed appraisal. It's the best short biography on Custer out there.



5. This is a great concise work of biography and history, written by one of the greatest living historians of the American West. I think some of the reviewers miss the point:this is a biogtraphy first, and an analysis of Little Bighorn secondly. This is probably the best bio of Custer for the interested to start with because of its meticulous research and the brevity of its length. Once you read "Cavalier in Buckskin" do not be surprised if you seek out Utley's other fine works of Western and Native American history. Utley's a class act, and so is this fine work which combines the best of academic and popular history. If you're at all curious-READ IT!

5 comments about The Rothschilds (Kodansha Globe Series).

1. This is a very well written history of the Rothschilds. I recommend it for those interested in a strong overview of the family.



2. There are very few families in history that have managed to maintain a tradition of excellence over several generations -- "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" is the rule. The two notable exceptions to the rule are the Medici and the Rothschilds.
   
   I purchased this book thinking that the author would provide some insight into how the Rothschilds achieved their long-standing record of success. Unfortunately, Mr. Morton is merely a sycophant, apparently incapable of providing the kind of detailed analysis the question calls for. Instead, he constantly marvels at how this family of rag merchants from Jew Street in Frankfurt ended up hobnobbing with the crowned heads of Europe. That is certainly an accomplishment of sorts, but absent any kind of descriptive analysis, it is little more than fodder for People magazine. Indeed, one can argue that the recent decline in the family's fortunes is due to their emulation of European aristocracy.
   
   A far better book on the same topic is the two-volume set, "The House of Rothschild: Volume 1: Money's Prophets: 1798-1848 and The House of Rothschild: Volume 2: The World's Banker: 1849-1999. After reading Mr. Morton, it is both refreshing and illuminating.



3. I enjoy some of the conspiracy theories involving the Rothschilds. Of course I stop well short of anti-Semitism. Just fun coffee shop conspiracy talk give me a break. I bought this book for a buck at a used book store hoping to find a little more dirt on the famous family. There was some dirt but it is glossed over with phrases like "but he was the black sheep of the family" and "a ruthless but brilliant business maneuver" etc. etc.
   I am usually reading more challenging material so I was surprised how fast a read it was. There is important history here but it is so steeped in blatant flattery and celebrity worship that I felt a little ashamed for having read it - kind of like how one feels after watching Entertainment Tonight. Well that is an exaggeration. There has to be a better history of the Rothschild's out there but if you see this one for a dollar at a used bookstore I won't recommend against picking it up.



4. Buried in this detailed narrative are colorful and interesting phrases like "In one day, he reduced the bank's gold reserves by almost 100,000 pounds." This deals with an enraged Nathan Rothschild almost sinking the Bank of England by cashing hundreds of small notes, because the bank would not cash his notes which would be, uh checks. Ok, confused? The whole book is like this. Dramatic stories covering Mayer Rothschild from a German Jewish ghetto creating success and amazing good fortune. Sons and strong family power continue the legacy-financing princes during war, to controlling Brazil. Accounts describing Napoleon to Hitler.
   Counting houses and branches in England, Germany and throughout Europe. You want to read these stories but the script is flawed OR at the extreme height of high intellect. I think the former. I am employed in finance and banking-and I cannot follow the threads!
   And yet there are descripive, powerful passages that keep you turning the pages. The fact that the House of Rothschild is credited to Mayer having sons, as Morton starts off, is a telling statment but he buries you in all these individual accounts as decades roll by and the dynasty becomes mythic. The pictorial section is wonderful and perhaps paints a clearer picture than the text of a book, whose paperback cover claims to be a "Number One Best Seller."



5. This book takes me back to a magical time, when sovereign finance held potentates at bay, and when bankers were literally masters of the universe. In the absence of universal taxation by governments, raising funds for war and peace is the sole, nearly impenetrable domain of the sovereign banker. To say that the historiography of finance capital, or more appropriately, 'haute banque' is much, much better than Lord of the Rings and Rowling's tomes would be an unforgivable travesty.

5 comments about Blue Blood.

1. I was expecting much better. I was excited to read this book because I really like stories about the NYPD. I gat halfway through and put it down. I have not picked it back up. Too garbled and too much detail. I could not keep track of the characters.



2. I won't bore you as long as this book bored me. Conlon spends far to much time reaching back through the generations of his family and not enough time telling us what it was like to be a cop in NYC.
   
   It's not a bad book... unless you are looking for a book about what it's like to be a cop in NYC.
   
   "Boot" is a far better book from the point of view of a rookie officer.



3. This book is less about cops and robbers and more about the author's family tree. Not that this is a bad thing, it just was not what I was expecting.



4. I don't follow best seller lists or follow any Oprah type trends, but I love reading crime novels, mafia type stories, true crime, etc.
   
   My neighbor dropped this off as a recommended read so I got to it. I have to agree with the majority of reviews here that it would have been much better had it been shorter.
   
   I enjoyed reading about the history of the Bronx, the corruption, and even his family background, but it was very disjointed. You go from reading about a buy and bust and the next page he's in a graveyard talking about his dead uncle. Then the next page he's talking about 9-11. Its pretty hard to follow.
   
   The part I enjoyed the most were the politics and manpower involved in buy and busts, but it didn't have too many details with this. Every instance was short and small time stuff and usually his take was from a rooftop. There was only 1 case that lasted a few pages where there was actual weight involved with lookouts and door alarms but again ended quickly.
   
   I guess I was expecting more detailed experiences, especially since he worked narcotics in the Bronx, but it just seemed unfulfilling. If it had been shorter and different experiences having their own chapters it would have been a much better read.



5. While I agree that this book is at times a bit long winded with perhaps too many anecdotes where a few will do, I'll stake my reputation as a New Yorker that Eddie Conlon gets his subject 'right.' This is the real deal. Although Law & Order is entertaining, it's basically fantasy. Eddie Conlon captures the personalities of his characters, the local political and personal politics of the inner workings of New York, and most importantly he writes very well--easily transitioning from capturing New York dialogue to using description in a near Henry Jamesian accuracy. He can convincingly transcribe a police's sergeant's seven-word sentence that contains the f word 4 times and on another occasion can use the verb 'gainsay' as though it were le mot juste. He puts it all together in an interesting if not exactly captivating narrative.

4 comments about George Thomas: Virginian for the Union (Campaigns and Commanders).

1. General George H. Thomas was a Southern born Union officer who commanded the outstanding Army of the Cumberland and he was one of the great generals of the American Civil War. In military circles he will forever be known as "The Rock of Chickamauga". However today, for a number of reasons, he is relatively unknown to the American public.
   
   Any author writing a biography of George Thomas is faced with a major hurdle in that most of Thomas' private papers were burned at his request when he died, and the fact that he died suddenly of a stoke soon after the Civil War which left no chance for a memoir. The author addressed these problems by relentlessly researching every collection of Thomas Papers available and reviewing as many private letters that he could. Other authors may have done this also, and used them to influence their writing, but Mr. Christopher Einolf has done more. He quotes from the Thomas letters giving the reader a glimpse of the real Thomas.
   
   The author uses an understated writing style that I think would have been appreciated by Thomas himself. He lets the facts speak for themselves in many cases and lets his readers draw their own conclusions. However he is not shy about sharing any new understanding of Thomas that he has reached. His description of how Thomas' attitude about blacks changed, from one of a conventional Virginia land owner to a real Civil Rights advocate and that this change came not so much as an evolutionary process but more of a `frame-break' moment after the Battle of Nashville when he saw for himself how well his black troops fought, gives us a new major insight into the man. This view came as a revelation for me as I never agreed with some early Thomas biographers who assumed Thomas had some innate goodness in him that would not allow him to treat blacks unequally. With his aristocratic Virginia upbringing, it did not make any sense. To me Mr. Einolf's analysis rings true.
   
   The author's battle descriptions and analyses are very good with the notable exception of the Battle of Chattanooga. He basically subscribes to the standard `miracle theory' or to luck, as he has the soldiers saying, for the great success at Missionary Ridge. He states that `military historians' say the artillery was badly placed, and that the Union soldiers could scurry up the ravines unseen by enemy soldiers. This may be true, but the author misses the point that the prime factor in winning the battle was the effort of General Joseph Hooker and the fact that Thomas delayed his attack as long as he could to allow Hooker time to flank the ridge from Lookout Mountain. Confederate veterans on high ground and in good defensive positions would ordinarily not have been worried about any Federal charge, but with the added knowledge that a Union Corps was marching across their line of retreat, they decided it was time to skedaddle. That aside, the author's description of Stones River, Chickamauga, Nashville and the other battles is very good and his conclusions are astute.
   
   Mr. Einolf's chapters on Thomas' post war actions and decisions during the occupation and the early reconstruction periods are given the detail they deserve. The author shows how Thomas had a unique perspective on the situation due to his being a Southern gentleman, a Unionist and knowing first hand the qualities of the black men who fought for their freedom. These two chapters really differentiate this book from other Thomas biographies.
   
   In his concluding chapter entitled "Thomas in Historical Memory" Mr. Einolf goes into the reasons for loss of Thomas' place in history. This makes for very interesting reading especially in what he has to say about the Southern Historical Society. While I personally think he is too mild with regard to Generals U. S. Grant and William T. Sherman in their treatment of General Thomas during the war and later in their memoirs which contributed to the loss of George Thomas in history, Mr. Einolf's opinion on this matter has merit.
   
   Overall this biography is excellent and a very creditable addition to the literature on the American Civil War.



2. Volume 13 of the "Campaigns and Commanders" series, George Thomas: Virginian for the Union is the in-depth biography of one of the Union's most prominent and successful generals, who was at one time considered for overall command of the Union Army. Remembered today as the "Rock of Chickamauga", George H. Thomas was a slaveholding Southerner who chose to fight for the North, and his experience with the heroism of black soldiers on the battlefield forever changed his view of African-Americans, transforming him into a defender of civil rights. While George Thomas: Virginian for the Union makes a solid case for Thomas' integrity and competence, neither are Thomas' flaws and ill decisions neglected. Notes, a bibliography, and an index enhance this evenhanded appraisal of a truly remarkable commander.



3. Anyone who is mildly interested in history should read this biography. Mr. Einolf has thoroughly researched George Thomas and while providing an extensive account of his life, he has managed to create a work that is entertaining. Civil War buffs should enjoy this work as it shares an interesting and valid view of loyalties to fellow man and country.



4. In reading about the Civil War, I was intrigued by the story of Union General George Henry Thomas. How fortunate that Christopher J. Einolf recently published George Thomas: Virginian for the Union. This book does much to introduce 21st Century readers to this once famous general who has pretty much dropped off the radar screen.
   
   The background of George Thomas is very similar to Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Coming from a prominent Virginia family, Thomas went to West Point, served in the Mexican and Indian Wars, and then taught at West Point. But unlike Lee, when the Civil War began, Thomas placed his oath to the Constitution above his loyalty to his family and his state and sided with the Union. He never saw his homestead or his sisters again.
   
   While both armies had more than a few eccentric characters in key leadership positions (think Grant, Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, McClellan, J.E.B. Stuart, etc.), Thomas proved to be one of the most steady, consistent but understated generals during the Civil War. His friend and West Point roommate, William Tecumseh Sherman said of Thomas that "He was never brilliant, but always cool, reliable, and steady--maybe a little slow." After the war, Sherman praised Thomas as "the second-best general of the war, after Grant, and argued that Thomas was a better general even than Robert E. Lee."
   His greatest successes were at the Battle of Chickamauga and the Battle of Nashville. His actions at Chickamauga helped to save the Union army from total annihilation and earned him the nickname, The Rock of Chickamauga. He finished the Civil War as the sixth highest ranking general in the Union army behind Grant, Sherman, Halleck, Mead and Sheridan.
   
   While I found George Thomas: Virginian for the Union to be engrossing, it's very long on military information and short on personal facts. The reasons for this are the same reasons that Thomas is not very well known today. First, he had all his personal papers burned upon his death and he rarely spoke to his colleagues about his personal life. He never published his memoirs, unlike many of the key players from the war. He also was the first general to die after the war at the young age of 53 (in 1870). Three friends wrote biographies of Thomas after his death and respected his wish for privacy. This book doesn't even contain a photograph of his wife, Frances. Frances was also a very private person, and they had no children. While I would have preferred more personal information, I can't hold it against Einolf is very little is available to researchers.
   But despite this shortcoming, George Thomas is still an excellent book and one that I would strongly recommend to others.

5 comments about Genghis Khan: Life, Death, and Resurrection.

1. This book is supposed to be an attempt to chronicle the life and times and onward historical march of one of the world's greatest yet most forgotten conquerors and statesmen, by a modern investigator who visits the land of his origins, and tries to trace his clues and history from there onwards. Whereas the author can be said to have succeeded in doing this somewhat, his "onspot" attempt at trying to relive Genghis Khan and his times turn into a amateurish, personal travelogue tale, narrated in the typically perky and cocky style of an ordinary, mediocre Britisher that is evoked in such people when they are confronted with something awesome... The resultant declarations and comments on G.K himself and his legacy, together with an assortment of other such comments on present day Mongolia, its culture and people fall far short of what such a book should set out to do, and tend to deviate from the real purpose of such a venture.



2. Mainstream historians may object to some of the claims in this book, but John Man has created quite a readable mix of travelogue and history. This is more a work of interpretation, rather than direct research, as Man has combined his own past learning about Genghis Khan and the Mongols with his modern-day travels to Mongolia in search of surviving relics. So do not expect newly detailed research breakthroughs, because this is one of those "living history" books. One particular problem is that Man uses a lot of conjecture and opinionating when tackling gaps or contradictions in the historical record. But in the end, we do get a very good summary of all the present knowledge on Genghis and his descendants, and Man engagingly discusses this very intriguing and complex historical personage. This especially applies to how Genghis was surely a genius in military strategy and administration, and was a remarkable leader of men, while also being responsible for the destruction of dozens of classic cities and the slaughter of probably a few million people. Man also discusses the sheer hugeness of the Mongols' empire-building practices, why these once-anarchic nomads decided to destroy every settled civilization in the known world then return to their simple pastoral lives, and how Genghis has been deified as both a god and a devil by multiple societies ever since. Add to this Man's exploration of the modern landscape and the Mongols' ongoing influence, and this conjectural but still very readable book really shows what made Genghis and his boys tick. [~doomsdayer520~]



3. It was said of the Mongol Empire under the great Kahn that a virgin with a hundred pounds of gold could travel from one end of the empire to the other with no fear of losing anything. Now I'm not so sure you could make it accross Central Park.
   
   On the other hand if you were in a city being approached by his army and you were told surrender or we're going to kill everybody and flatten the city you might think of the Mongols in a different light, especially when you were aware of some neighboring cities having been flattened.
   
   For so important a figure in history, as Genghis Khan, we know so little about him. And here in the west we know even less. We do not study his ways of warfare (the Mongols weapons, tactics, strategy, morale, ruthlessness were all better), or his laws that controlled a huge empire.
   
   This book is an excellent rendition of the history of Genghis Khan and of the search for more information about him. I's easy to see why the story so captivates John Man. It makes me want to go to Mongolia, a place that hever held any interest to me before.



4. Read both this book and Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford. John Man spends too much time describing his own travels which was not why I bought the book. Jack Weatherford's book is far more informative and covers not just the life of Genghis Khan but his lasting influence on the world.



5. I am no expert on Genghis Khan and picked this book on an airport. I really enjoyed reading this book. There's really not much to complain about at the same time, this isn't extraordinary. I must say that this book is full of information, maps, and makes a good read. Your time wouldn't be wasted if you read this book.

No comments about Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave, Written by Himself.