3 comments about Salisbury: Victorian Titan (Phoenix Press).

1. This is not just a book of immense intrinsic value. It's a book of real historical importance as one of two biographies of Salisbury published recently which entirely reassess his standing as one of the leading English statemen of the latter part of the nineteenth century, ranking alongside Gladstone and Disraeli.

   It seems incredible in view of the plethora of studies on Gladstone and Disraeli that it's been half a century since any historian has made a full-scale re-evaluation of the life of Robert Cecil, third Marquess of Salisbury, three-times Prime Minister and architect of Queen Victoria's glittering Empire.

   And yet he was a man arguably of greater intellect than either of these two other late Victorian "giants". Disraeli wrote rather affected, stylized novels; Gladstone turned out unreadable religious tracts. Salisbury, on the other hand, produced stimulating and pithy articles in the Saturday and Quarterly Reviews and delivered parliamentary speeches at least as memorable as those of the other two statesmen.

   But few historians have really come to grips with Salisbury in recent times. One had to look into Barbara Tuchman's epic "The Proud Tower" to find a chapter that did justice to the colorful, quirky patrician figure who performed sometimes dangerous chemical experiments in his spare time, was one of the first to introduce electricity into his home, rode around on an enormous tricycle and who was always ready to chat to strangers, even lunatics.

   Perhaps historians have been too ready to downgrade Salisbury's standing because of his inherent conservatism in the domestic field, his endeavors to preserve the status quo. And as to his being a main architect of Empire, this all-too-readily clashes with the modern, probably justified aversion to that theme.

   This book was commissioned by the present Marquess of Salisbury. It says a lot about the open-mindedness of the Cecil family that historian Andrew Roberts was given the task. Anyone who has read his wonderfully debunking "Eminent Churchillians" knows Roberts as an historian of the utmost integrity, incapable of pulling punches. And he pulls none in his biography of Salisbury, whom he paints on a broad canvass, "warts and all". But Roberts's admiration and affection for his subject is never in doubt. The result is a big book about a very big statesman by a young, big, historian.




2. Victoria and Salibury; two true Titans who, the former, giving her name to the century, and the latter, who helped create the formidable empire which was both reviled and regaled. This book is in the great tradition of "Life and Times" biographies. Mr. Roberts is to be commended for the scope and structure of slowly but with anticipation revealing the aspects of a fascinating man. The chapters on the Boer War and the Realpolitik diplomacy of the African continent are just two elements that should be read for years to come. From a shy and bookish child to the political standard bearer of the Tory Party, this book shows a man with conviction, often callous to some but with foresight which comes through in the epigrammatical style of Salisbury's prose. Thank You Andrew Roberts for your wonderful book.



3. Andrew Roberts has produced a superbly written and wonderfully exciting biography of Lord Salisbury, three times Queen Victoria's Prime Minister. In his fifty-year career, Salisbury won over Disraeli, destroyed Lord Randolph Churchill, charmed Queen Victoria, wrecked Gladstone's hopes for Irish Home Rule, and saw off Bismarck. The book is based on Salisbury's archive at Hatfield House, and on the papers of more than 140 of his contemporaries.

   Roberts records Salisbury's many contradictions. He supported "the right of a minority of Americans to secede from a Union, but not a majority of Irishmen." He opposed socialism as mere confiscation, but upheld the actions of his ancestor, the First Earl, who had confiscated much of Ulster's land between 1607 and 1609, then selling it to City and Scottish businessmen.

   He wrote eloquently against intervention in other countries' domestic affairs. "The Assemblies that meet at Westminster have no jurisdiction over the affairs of other nations. Neither they nor the Executive, except in plain defiance of international law, can interfere with the brigandage of Italy, or the persecutions in Spain, or the teachings of the schools in Schleswig-Holstein. What is said in either House about them is simply impertinence ... It is not a dignified position for a Great Power to occupy, to be pointed out as the busybody of Christendom." And, "there is no practice which the experience of nations more uniformly condemns, and none which governments more consistently pursue."

   Indeed, his Governments annually waged colonial wars in Asia and Africa, adding 2.5 million square miles and 44 million people to the Empire. His war against the Boers was particularly shameful: he claimed that Britain had sovereignty over the Transvaal, although the British Government had ceded this in the 1884 Pretoria Convention. (Roberts grants that Salisbury was `on exceedingly tricky ground legally'.) As Salisbury admitted, "If our ancestors had cared for the rights of other peoples, the British Empire would never have been made."

4 comments about The Encyclopedia of the Irish in America.

1. This weighty volume will appeal to holdings with strong Irish history interests: it is compiled by a panel of scholars drawn from various nations and details the Irish people in Ireland and America. The inclusion of listings by state and area allows students to narrow their studies to local Irish history, while the listings include notable individuals, events, and social and religious topics affecting the Irish. A comprehensive and important addition to any serious Irish history collection.



2. I purchased this book as a researcher to assist me in my work and serve as a tool to both speed-up processes and use as a source to back-up my findings. One would imagine that the publishers would have provided accurate information. I found several errors in the information provided which demonstrates a lack of research and sloppiness in proofing of material contained within it. For instance; Judy Garland (a well known Irish American with very public information) is listed as the granddaughter of a FITZGERALD she was a FITZPATRICK ( big difference when you are using the information for research and genealogy and want a reliable source document for footnotes or bibliographies! the errors can result in un-substantiated work and wrong information. There are other errors less obvious but are too numerous to list. In short, this book was a waste of money and time on my part being of no help at all. I question all the data contained in it. The publisher has not provided a correction of the page as requested by me.



3. This encyclopedia is a wonderful source of information that is delightfully synthesized into one volume. The beauty of this book is that it acts as a source of historical information and provides hours of leisure entertainment in one volume. From Bing Crosby to Eamon De Valera, the Irish American relationship is well embraced and honored wonderfully. With reference to the Irish influence in virtually every state, this book provides a unique look at the history of these hard-working and successful immigrants. A must have in any Irish-American household.



4. "Encyclopedia Of The Irish In America", Edited by Michael Glazier. University of Notre Dame Press, 1999.
   
   At almost a thousand pages, this is a big book, listing, alphabetically, many, many Irish Americans, from the very famous to those know only to historical specialists. Further, there are subject sections that are very interesting. For example, from pages 275 to 292, the section, entitled, "Ethnic Relations", gives a concise summary of the history of how the Irish in America dealt with the Blacks, Germans, Italians, Jews and Poles. There is also a state by state examination of the history of the Irish immigrants; some sections are only a few pages (e.g.. Montana), while other state sections (New York, New Jersey) are necessarily larger. If you are interested in which state had the greatest collection of Irish-born, take a look at the table on pages 461-462.
   
   You could spend many a night going alphabetically through this excellent reference, and you will be surprised with the achievements of the Irish-Americans, ranging from their many different occupations to the many awards the Irish-Americans have garnered. Page 635: Audie Murphy, most decorated soldier in World War II. Page 369: Andrew Greeley, priest, sociologist and novelist (his books are listed on Amazon). Page 601: Thomas Francis Meagher, Civil War General and editor. If you wanted to know more about the Irish in America, this book is a good place to start.

No comments about A Child's War (Reflections of Guernsey).

4 comments about Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution (Studies in Maritime History).

1. This is a major revisionist interpretation of British naval policy as conceived and carried out by Admiral Sir John Fisher as First Sea Lord between late 1904 and early 1910. In fact, there appears to be hardly a single conventional assumption about Fisher's policies, and the policies and technical flexibility of the Admiralty during this period that is not subject to reconsideration in the book.

   What I found most interesting was the startling - to me - degree to which senior British naval officers readily accepted the potential for torpedo-armed submarine and destroyer flotillas to change naval warfare, and the amount of effort they were willing to put into devising ways to use this revolutionary potential to reinforce British naval supremacy. The book is filled with descriptions of British investment in submarine technology and the ongoing discussions between naval officers of ways to adapt that technology to British needs.

   According to the book, Fisher's planned great revolution in naval warfare was not intended to be the Dreadnought battleship that his name is still commonly associated with. Instead it was to be a British fleet made up of a combination of battlecruisers with Dreadnought-scale heavy armament, great speed, and excellent gun laying based on analogue computers, designed for overseas force projection; and a submarines and destroyer flotillas designed and deployed for protection of Great Britain and such other narrow seas where they could be used to bottle up potential enemy forces. This assertion is thoroughly backed up with detailed quotes from personal letters and Admiralty memos and position papers, plus the evidence of how Fisher spent funds available to him.

   The plans of Admiral Fisher and others in the British Admiralty were developed in largely hostile political environment. The British government during this period, and the opposition political parties, were intent on reducing British naval expenditures, and not at all interested in developing the ability to expand British ability to project naval force overseas. Therefore, Fisher and his allies had to act largely in secret, while disguising their true goals from most of their political masters.

   This book has a lot of trees in its forest. I did not find it easy reading, and I would not recommend it to someone with only casual interest in British naval history or the history of naval technology. To fully understand appreciate the book's thesis and scope, the reader must be willing to delve along with the book's author into British domestic politics, British foreign policy, and a host of technical issues beyond those mentioned above. I personally found it difficult at first to fully understand why, given that Fisher had much of the Admiralty behind him, and that Winston Churchill, the First Lord of the Admiralty from 1910 up to 1915, also had great faith in submarine and destroyer flotillas to control narrow seas, the Royal Navy didn't manage to make the changeover desired by Admiral Fisher. The way I finally understood it, it comes down to one basic fact, Fisher, Churchill and their allies in the Admiralty simply did not have enough time. Not enough time to educate and prepare the politicians and the British public, not enough time to nurture the necessary submarine building industry in Britain or in one of the Dominions, and not enough time to guarantee a completely united front in the Admiralty needed to quickly push through such radical change in naval policy. Given that it was less than a decade between Fisher's appointment as First Sea Lord and the outbreak of WWI, that is probably reason enough.




2. An interesting book on the politics of defense spending and its relationship with grand strategy and domestic politics. Tedious at times, and often unbalanced as to proving the grand point and instead focusing on partisan minutae, this book is still interesting to consider; you have to commend Lambert for his exaustive research behind the common assumptions. He did major work in the primary sources.

   The point is that much of the arms race theory before WWI is not genuinely correct. The motivations for the growth and posturing of the British Navy prior to WWI had less to do with fear of Germany -although using that fear was an effective tool- than with a naval revolution by the Admiralty's First Lord, Sir John Fisher. It is an intersting foray into the dynamics of defense spending politics, and how that ultimately impacts capabilities and strategy.




3. This is a superby researched book, though it falls flat on its major premise, that Fisher and the Royal Navy were ahead of the times in terms of naval strategy, armaments or hwat not.
   
   Also the book is a misnomer, as it's more on the rivalries amongst the Board of Amiralty than on Fisher, and its dubious claim that Fisher pioneered the so called "flotilla defense" by submarines and torpedo boats stretches credulity, as Fisher is notorious for NOT beleving in a Naval War Staff, or any war plans at all.
   
   The author also neglects, being a fan of Fisher, to point out that the latter's morbid fascination with "battle cruiser" led to the fiasco in Jutland, though all British historians and apologist will claim that they may have lost a battle there, but ultimately won the war!



4. In Sir John Fisher's Naval Revolution Nicholas Lambert has provided a comprehensive analysis of the policies of Admiral Sir John Fisher and the Royal Navy in the ten years before the outbreak of World War One. Displaying a remarkable command of the source documents Lambert examines grand strategy, tactical concepts, national financial policy and politics with great skill and fluidly moves between these seemingly disparate subjects with ease. It becomes apparent as Lambert dissects events that much of the research that has went on before on this subject and which forms the basis for many people's ideas about era is superficial and incomplete.
   
   This is a complicated subject but Lambert's grasp of narrative and clean clear prose makes it easy for the interested reader to follow the string through the maze that was British naval policy in the Fisher era. Lambert makes it clear that Fisher was not appointed First Sea Lord in 1904 to introduce the dreadnought battleship/battlecruiser but to cut naval spending. This fact spurred Fisher to introduce new technologies to maintain Britain's naval supremacy when that supremacy was increasingly under threat from a number of quarters. Lambert puts emphasis on Fisher's ideas about the use of flotilla craft. These were small submersible boats and surface craft armed with torpedoes that could close the narrow seas around the British Isles to enemy battle fleets thus freeing the British fleet to roam the high seas, bringing battle to the enemy and protecting her own huge ocean trade. Lambert shows how on the eve of the war, the Royal Navy was on the verge of stopping battleship construction altogether on favor of flotilla craft. This is new ground.
   
   Fisher was faced with four other areas of crisis which this book delves into: financial constraints, manpower limitations, ship deployment policies and forging new tactics that would take advantage of the developing technology that was changing the face of naval warfare. Lambert also makes clear that the senior officers of the Royal Navy in the decade before the war were not operating in an intellectual vacuum, countering the unfortunate impression that many historians have fostered that the navy was resistant to new technology, unable to think critically, and too lazy for deep analysis and staff work. While a number of hidebound ignoramuses had managed to reach high command, most senior officers were energetically working to exploit the emergent technologies to the full extent.
   
   Lambert's story of the Royal Navy before 1914 presents a picture completely different from the accepted one. It is one that is wholly convincing and presents a more satisfying explanation of what happened, and why, than we have had before. I recommend this book to those who are familiar with the subject and have a desire to go deeper into it. You won't be sorry.

2 comments about Beckett Remembering/Remembering Beckett: A Centenary Celebration.

1. This book is very useful for scholars working on Beckett and also for the more casual reader. I particularly like the Knwolsons' reprinting of some important critical works on Beckett that they feel have been neglected in Beckett studies. I also liked J. M. Coetzee's short piece on Beckett.



2. while this book does have some really interesting parts in it i felt that some of it was either rehash or simply stuff I couldn't care less for (Beckett as a golfer for example).It's sad that all the interviews with Beckett are pre-WWII because I'd really like to hear his thoughts on the trilogy,Godot,so on. Beckett's thoughts on the Joyces are really interesting and the rare photos throughout the book are great as well, many I'm sure can only be found here.I'm actually only half way though this book so these are only my thoughts so far but I'd recommend picking up a Beckett bio before this book (I can recommend the one by Deidre Bair since I've read it).

3 comments about Who was Saint Patrick?.

1. It is doubtless that Irish medieval Christianity differs from the rest of the Christian world not only because of the difference in the date of Easter or the tonsure's shape. All the historians agree that that was an exceptional type of religiousness. To understand this difference one has to look back to the very beginnings of Irish Christianity and to its founder - St. Patrick. This is a figure about little certain is known. All the knowledge we have we derive from two of his writings Confessio and Epistola ad Coroticum. Thompson in his book discusses line by line these writings speculating about their explicit and implicit meaning. This resembles a deductive work of a detective and requires a broad knowledge not only of history itself, but also geography, theology and mentality as well as of course - medieval Latin and paleography. He also discusses a controversial figure of Palladius in a relation to St. Patrick as well as Coroticus and his conflict with the Saint. This book is addressed to people truly interested in the matter and is a serious, scientific work, one of the most discussed among the historians, yet it is written in a simple, comprehensible way, making reading it a real pleasure for history adepts as well as history students. It discusses all the controversies among the historians about certain details of St. Patrick's life, from the date and place of his birth to his death, so that a reader may not only get to know the author's point of view, but also of other historians, and try to judge him/herself. Thompson, however, is very convincing in his way of writing and gathering evidence justifying his opinions. He also treats the opinions of his opponents - historians with a witty, yet mischievous sense of humor. The author leaves us not only with a broad and detailed knowledge about the Saint but also with some open questions left for further future investigation.



2. I got E.A. Thompson's _Patrick_ because it was billed as a book for those interested without Latin. Unfortunately, it did little to sate my curiosity about the man.

   This has much to do with the state of "Patricology" as a field. In the 1960's, D.A. Binchy delivered a lecture that convincingly showed that all the secondary sources on St. Patrick were untrustworthy guides to the actual man. This left "Patricologists" with Patrick's two writings, comparative anthropology and archeology to work with.

   With so little to go on, Thompson approaches his subject with what amounts to a passage by passage exegesis of _The Confessions_ and _Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus_. The only assumption that Thompson sticks with throughout his book is that Patrick was an awful composer of Latin. Fair enough, after all Patrick confesses the want himself, but you can see how it leaves Thompson room to lean this way or that without much justification. When it's convenient, Patrick is just incomprehensible; other times he "must" have meant x.

   Most startling, the exegesis rarely tries to fit the Biblical allusions -- of which Patrick's writings are rife -- into the senses Thompson argues for even though they would seem to be the most obvious clues. Thompson appears to dismiss the great majority of them as a literary convention of the times.

   Thompson doesn't even back up his other interpretations consistently by referencing the audience Thompson deduces for each work. This at times leads him to contradictory outcomes.

   Also, having read a translation of Patrick's works I wouldn't have guessed that he was such an awful writer. Perhaps his Latin grammar fell way short, but the sense generally seems to come right through, in translation anyway. If Thompson means that Patrick's grammar was off, that would really not mean much vis-a-vis his skill as a writer given that grammar is only a tool for conveying meaning. If you can do so without it, you don't need it. The read also begs the question: how is it that such a miserable piece of prose managed to survive 1500 years when nearly nothing else did? This is especially surprising if, as Thompson argues, Patrick's contemporaries didn't think of him as that much of an august personage. In any case, Thompson does not address this question.

   I gave this book three stars because it is plainly written and easy to follow. (Although there are many places where Thompson appears to be addressing his colleagues more than the general reader.) I think you could glean an idea of Patrick and his times by reading E.A.'s book. At times it can be pretty funny, although a tad twee.

   Thompson recommends for further reading _The Life and Writings of the Historical St. Patrick_ by R.P.C. Hanson, a layman's version of _St. Patrick: His Origins & Career_, which was published in 1968 and as of 1985 was "likely to hold the field for many a year." I haven't read it so I can't vouch for this. Although it's outdated, I would recommend over Thompson the narrative section of Bury's _The Life of St. Patrick and His Place in Hisory_ for beginners interested in him.

   Note: No endnotes, all extra commentary in footnotes. His bibliography doesn't indicate which publications would be good for the Latinless reader. It appears to be addressed to the specialist.




3. For the 'man in the street', like myself unable to confront the Latin texts, this is a magical account, written with understated authority and un-academic fluency - but, to my mind, with convincing authority, not to mention mercurial wit. I've read it twice.

1 comments about Stone Cold.

1. Another excellent piece of work by one of the best authors to write on The Troubles in Northern Ireland. As with all of his works, "Stone Cold" is well written, fast paced, throughly researched, and fascinating. The book follows the life and times of a notorious Loyalist Protestant murderer, Michael Stone, who became a free-lance assassin, killing IRA suspects and innocent Catholics under the guise of 'protecting his community'. Dillon was able to build such a comprehensive study of Stone, in part, due to his multiple interviews of the mass-murderer himself. Reading Stone's very detailed accounts of his own murder operations was a veritable 'how-to' manual for modern assassinations, replete with counter-forensic and operational planning advice.
   
   Dillon successfully weaves Stone's killing sprees into the overall war that raged in Northern Ireland for thirty years, exposing British government collusion with the Loyalist paramilitaries which allowed cold-hearted terrorists like Stone to ravage Northern Ireland's communities.

3 comments about Spirit of the Blue: Peter Ayerst: A Fighter Pilot's Story.

1. Excellent book of the author's experiences--I had a hard time putting it down.



2. This is NOT an "excellent book of the author's experiences." In the first place, the author is writing about someone else's flying career, not his own. In the second place, the book isn't written in an engaging or vivid manner. Instead, it links terse quotes from the flying log of a WWII pilot with descriptions of where the pilot was posted, etc. I found it very easy to put down.
   
   But judge for yourself! Here's what the author chose to put on the book cover:
   
   "I would commend this excellent story to young and old if they wish to have an accurate and truthful account of someone whose knowledge, experience, and integrity will convey, particularly to younger readers, the courage and qualities that were the making of the free world as we enjoy it today."
   
   If you want a terrific account of what it was like to be a WWII fighter pilot, try: "Thunderbolt," "Sinking the Rising Sun," "Samurai!," "The Second-Luckiest Pilot," "The Big Show," or "Big Friend, Little Friend."



3. I've not read this yet, it's a gift for my significant other. It's in great shape. I can hardly wait to give it to him when the time is right. Thanx josie padilla

5 comments about The Real Diana.

1. I enjoy reading every detail about Princess Diana I can get my hands on, good and bad, so I can get some idea of what this person was like. I have adored Diana since I was a young girl.

   However, this book was very biased against Diana and basically does make anything positive written about Diana seem as though it was just written to please the Princess.

   Also, she pretty much says that Diana was sleeping around long before Charles did, yet other books I've read indicate not only was he with Camilla, but also did cheat on Diana even around William's birth with a lady in Canada that he saw on and off even while he was just with Camilla.

   I've seen some recent interviews, and other published books which actually cite NAMES of people who have nothing to gain now the Princess is dead, and dispute what this author has to say.

   So it is fun gossip, albeit cruel, but take it with a grain of salt.

   Also, I could not find documentation of Diana's abortion anywhere, and I would think by now more explicit details would have come out about it. This is the first and last I've heard of it and would really like to know if it is indeed true.




2. Lady Colin Campbell may not be the best writer I have ever read, but she writes the truth, and what is better than that for a biography? The people who don't like this book are the ones who don't seem to be willing to ever think that their beloved Princess of Hearts could be a vengeful b*tch, who was a bit off in the head, or that Charles was not the devil Diana wished him to portrayed as.
   
   As it has been widely reported by pretty much everyone who knew the Princess, including her own family, she was very vindictive and a known liar. So read her accounts with a grain of salt (or a shaker), then read this book. Nothing is black and white, so remember the gray matter. I also reccomend Piers Morgan's new book to show the side of Diana many don't want to admit she had.



3. This is a vicious book written by someone who obviously hated Diana, Princess of Wales. And if anyone is 'mentally ill' it is Lady Campbell. I understand 'lady' Campbell had a very strange childhood. Apparently, her parents could not decide whether she was a boy or girl! And I think it created a 'crack' in her brain.
   
   Diana paid dearly for standing up for herself and getting out of her pathetic marriage. Her husband was a Prince who turned out to be a selfish toad. She was definitely a lamb to the slaughter. And as for saying that Diana was schizophrenic that is postively ludicrous!



4. Vile, vituperative, vicious, and about as "true" as the "Lady" in front of the "author's" name, this cowardly piece of fantasy isn't worth buying to burn.
   Don't bother reading it, unless you go in for the kind of story headlined in the supermarket tabs, featuring lurid photos of the "Two-Headed Martian Child."
   If so, read on--you just might find Hoffa and see Elvis while you're at it.
   Stars??????? Are you kidding?!



5. to actually read a full story of Diana's life, rather than the glossy image we've all been fed for years. Very interesting book.

3 comments about Oliver Cromwell (Reputations Series).

1. Cromwell is an amazingly enigmatic figure in spite of an incredibly public career. He was revered and feared by the people around him to the point where they could not know him the way they knew each other - from the time he assumed the leadership of the English Revolution, he became an object of awe, a force of nature, a figure so much larger than life that he seemed above even the most extraordinary of his peers. This book goes a long way toward helping the reader understand Cromwell the man riding the crest of English history.



2. I have always been interested in European history, particuarly English History. I bought this book with the hopes of learning objectively (or at least as objective as a person can be) about a truly forceful and powerful man. For better or for worse, Cromwell was certainly a tranformative individual in the course of human history.
   
   I was disappointed in a big way. The author spends a lot of time trying to absolve Olvier Cromwell of any guilt, claiming that what's publicly known about Cromwell is simply the "Public" story.
   
   So what was the great unveiling of knowledge that will exhonerate Oliver Cromwell? According to the author, well, he was a religious man after all. Somehow in the authors mind (and many other unfortunatly) being religious presupposes ethics, honesty and integrity - all in the name of God to massacre people. Are we to write-off all the misdeeds he did to his fellow man because he was religious? If anything, religion has been used against man as a weapon for cruelty, torture, subjegation and killings. According to the author the argument boils down to this: Cromwell was a religious man, like our illustrious president, Dubya, Who feels it necessary to translate the word of God for us plebians, and feels justified to act according to the messages he received. Its these dangerous justifications that have caused a great deal of danger to this planet. It makes you wonder how the Religious Right will one day interpret this invasion of Iraq.



3. Oliver Cromwell will forever remain an engimatic figure as he was both a reluctant leader and a military dictator at the same time. Davis' look into his lifely is incredibly fraught with attempts to justify his actions as being for the overall "good" despite how much "evil" he committed. While I do not believe that this is a book to "condone the war in Iraq" as one reviewer put it, it is extremely biased and any researcher using it must be careful not to take everything Davis' says to heart. As my favorite English professor used to say, "Take everything written with a grain of salt." What is a fact is that Mr. Davis is an extremely well versed historian and expert on Oliver Cromwell. It can also be a difficult read if you have no interest in the time period, the man and feel no love toward Cromwell. Otherwise, it is something every European historian should own.