2 comments about Nicky Barr, an Australian Air Ace: A Story of Courage and Adventure.

1. Nicky Barr's life and the courage he showed, were almost too unblieveable to be true. His biography by Peter Dornan is wonderfully written and impossible to put down. Nicky Barr was a quiet, unassuming man, but a fierce, aggressive fighter to his enemy in battle, and a great friend to those who knew him. The reader will come away feeling like the latter.
   His wife and true love, Dot, passed away in May 2006 and Nicky joined her in June.
   Thanks to Peter Dornan, for allowing me to know them both!



2. Like the previous reviewer, I could hardly put this book down. It is an amazing story told in cinamgraphic detail. It would have been a good book written as fiction, but to know the stories are all true (I confirmed the outline with an RAAF offical obit) brings a part of WWII to life. Well done Peter Dornan, in taking in so much oral history and weaving it into a compelling story.

3 comments about Cushing of Gettysburg: The Story of a Union Artillery Commander.

1. Before I read this book I had no idea who Lt. Alonzo Cushing was or what he did. This very enjoyable book provided a detailed insight into the life of Cushing as a cadet and through the Civil War until he met his death beside his cannons at Gettysburg. The author provides vivid descriptions of the life of a Union soldier during the war and the terrible battles that they fought. A very engrossing and enjoyable book. Recommended for anyone who likes a good read about mans courage during difficult times.



2. If you visit the Gettysburg battlefield, pause at The Angle and spend a moment beside the monument to Cushing and his men. You will be standing on the very spot described in Brown's gripping account of the battle. Cushing was a distant relative of mine, which makes this book special to me.



3. Mr. Brown is not an historian, only a story teller/
   
   The historical quality of his book is dubious.
   
   His illustration of Frederick Fuger, First Sergeant of Cushing's Battery is in reality a picture of Fuger's son, Frederick W. Fuger, an infantry officer who served in the Spanish American War.
   
   Anyone with a passing knowledge of US Army history would recognize the insignia on the figure's helmet as that of an officer in the 13th Infantry, not the 4th Artillery with which Fuger served all his military career.
   
   Anyone can compile and copy reports. It takes a practiced hand to analyze and present history.
   
   James B. Ronan II

2 comments about The Civil War Diary of Wyman S. White, First Sergeant of Company F, 2nd United States Sharpshooter Regiment, 1861-1865.

1. Wyman White, a sergeant in the second regiment of Colonel Hiram Berdan's elite United States Sharpshooters, has left behind an invaluable source for anyone wishing to know more about what a Union soldier's life was like in the Civil War. At the same time, this book also contains very detailed descriptions of the tactics used by the U.S. Sharpshooter regiments in the many engagements they fought in the Eastern Theater of the war.

   In this book, the reader will find the harsh realities of war frankly depicted, as well as many of the lighter and more humorous incidents which make up the life of a soldier on the front lines.

   If you are a student of the Civil War, of the military, or of the ways people cope with adversity, then you will doubtless find this book fascinating. Wyman White was clearly a careful diarist, and Mr. Russell White has done a superb job of organizing the original material into a readable format, with additional materials at the back of the book that any Civil War scholar can use to direct his or her researches. If you are interested in the campaigns of one of the elite units of the Civil War, then this book is definitely for you.




2. The 2nd United States Sharpshooter Regiment was one of the elite units of the Army of the Potomac. Composed of expert marksmen, this regiment served throughout the war, distinguishing itself on every battlefield on which it fought. Wyman White joined a New Hampshire company of the 2nd U.S.S.S. in November 1861. He served in every battle in which the regiment was engaged with the exceptions of South Mountain and Antietam. These memoirs, written after the war, provide a vivid picture of army life and battle action. His recall of detail suggests that these reminiscences were based on diaries he kept throughout the war. Wyman White's manuscripts is loaded with personal insights, humor, and superb detail of events, personalities, equipage, uniforms, and soldier life. The feisty White provides an important look at the 2nd regiment of U.S.S.S.--most other accounts of sharpshooters were by members of the 1st U.S.S.S. Virtually all aspects of soldier life are covered, from snowball battles to burials. This book is sure to become one of the most important sources not only on Berdan's Sharpshooters but also on the Army of the Potomac.

No comments about Lachlan McIntosh and the Politics of Revolutionary Georgia.

No comments about John Wesley (Ambassador Classic Biography Series).

5 comments about Alexander: The Ambiguity of Greatness.

1. Much of Alexander's life is shrouded in myth, and legend. A legend himself, Alexander conquered most of the known world, before his untimely and mysterious death in Babylon.
   The young conquerer was renowned for his military tactics and power, yet cursed today as a mass murderer, a tyrant. Is the god-like enigma a genocidal butcher, or a hero?
   In this down to earth account Guy MacLean Rogers accurately paints a picture of Alexander's life and times, his victories and...well, victories, the young king never lost a battle. The author clearly displays respect for the conquerer, but in a way not making his biography too bias. Overall, this scholarly and fascinating work, drawing not only on modern evidence, but the accounts of the ancient world, is amazing and interesting in its words, and awing in its message. After more than 2000 years, Alexander comes back to life.
   However, I was a little dissapointed with the final chapters summarizing his life and trying to analyze the king himself, his personality and role in history. The author seemed a little too wowed by the conquerer, and basically stated that he was not a tyrant, that he was a just ruler for his time, without giving thought towards the other side of the argument. I found this assessment less useful than just the history of his life.



2. You can tell that Guy MacLean Rogers deserved a PhD from Princeton after reading this well documented and backed up biography. A man who studied Alexander's life for around 60 years, Rogers has an incredible understanding and new perspective on the life of Alexander, the King, statesman and general. Rogers uses plenty of sources releant to what he is discussing while collecting his own thoughts in turn creating a collaborative arguement where you can learn so much about Alexander and the Macedonian deserved to be called 'Great'. I suggest anyone who is looking at or studying Alexander should definitely purchase this hardcover. Also anyone interested in history or learning about a time so different to ours, this book will challenge you intellectually and deepen your understanding of the history of Europe, Asia and even Africa.



3. wow! in my mind this is the best book for alexander the great.
   I like this book so much cause type face is clear and big so my
   eyes is not hurting after few hours reading this kind of scholarly work,and he talked about diffrent views about alexander's opinions.most alexander's biography talks about only authors own view point,but this book shows how much impact
   was given to us causing alexander's campaigns...
   I recommand this book to who want to know more about the greatest general of all time ALEXADER THE GREAT!



4. I have read over two dozen books covering Alexander - some with a very positive view on the young Macedonian conqueror (such as this title) and some with very dark and negative views about him. Being that he was a figure of pre-Christian antiquity some 2300 years ago and that very little writings and actual facts remain from that era, Alexander has thus become as much of a mythological legend as a true historical figure. Very often, the writings of historians (from ancient to modern) are mere reflections of how they perceive Alexander through their own prisms of personal values, morality and views on history. It is interesting, even outright fascinating, how this enigmatic figure elicits such a wide range of emotions and perspectives from historians and readers alike - from that of irrational idolatry and adulation to outright hostility and venomous contempt.
   
   This book is, overall, quite favorable towards Alexander. It doesn't try to hide Alexander's faults as a human being and the war atrocities that Alexander is responsible for and for which he regretted. It is an easy book to digest compared to many other Alexander biographies, which often tend to get mired in scholarly prose and obtuse academia. The writing is clear and concise and flows in a way that is meant to educate and inform the more casual modern reader, not impress other scholars of ancient history. At the same time, it is thoroughly researched and you can tell that Rogers has a deep understanding of the era in which Alexander lived as well as before and after.
   
   The impact of Alexander cannot be overestimated although it has become fashionable for the anti-Alexandrian school of historians and scholars to extrapolate on the negative aspects of Alexander's conquests and brutal suppression of resistance and revolt. What I'd like to ask of some of these armchair kings and generals is: What would YOU have done if you were in his position? What would you have done differently if you were just appointed king at the age of 20 and there are many around you willing to kill you and your loved ones to attain what you have? We're talking about 2300 years ago and people still kill unremittingly all over the world TODAY when it comes to the grand human pastime of attaining and wielding power.
   
   It's so easy for historians to sit in their school offices and home dens and on some sort of a moral high chair applying the moral values of today to the constant warlike conditions of Alexander's era. If you knew you had Alexander's unruly genius for military command and tactics and you knew you could vanquish the "barbarian" enemy and impose the ideals and culture of your country, would you not have done what Alexander did? How could anyone really put himself in Alexander's shoes? How many people in today's age can even imagine what it was like to be in one of these battles wearing armor and wielding only a two-foot blade sword knowing that you could be struck down or decapitated any moment? But it's easy for us to sit in our couch or behind a computer screen and type, "I could have done better. He wasn't so great. I wouldn't have killed so many people. I'm morally superior than that."
   
   Considering the vast power he attained and wielded over such a humongous territory in such antiquity, Alexander has to be considered one of the most generous and magnanimous monarchs of all time. He could have butchered and wiped out populations on a grand scale - but he didn't. He could have forcibly imposed Macedonian culture, religion, administration and governance on the lands he conquered - but he didn't. He always gave city-states or tribes a chance to surrender. Only when there was resistance and Macedonian lives lost would his wrath be brutal and systematically ruthless. Alexander was virtually generous to a fault to the people he conquered in many cases.
   
   As far as Alexander's influence and impact, it's obvious that Alexander facilitated the expansion of the Roman Empire that came afterwards and the spread of Christianity. How different would the world be today if Christ was born under the domain of the Persian Empire? If you simply follow history - and this isn't hard to see - it's obvious that Alexander built the table for Christianity (as a meal) to be served. The Roman Empire set the table with the trimmings, but it was Alexander who advanced Western ideals on the Middle East through his conquests of what are now Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Egypt. We can't go as far as to say that Alexander was responsible for Christianity, but he facilitated it so that it is what it is today. That's just a simple fact.
   
   I heartily recommend this book to the Alexander novice as well as the Alexander buff wishing to round out his or her collection. It isn't definitive and I'd rate works from Robin Lane Fox, J.F.C. Fuller, and Peter Green higher in terms of exhaustive academia, but this one's easier and more pleasant to read through. There is a timeless mythical element to Alexander to this day and I believe that's why he is such a fascinating figure. Some of the truths will never be known, leaving us to forever ponder the details, the gaps in his story, his motives, and the intrigues of his most amazing life. Alexander is a figure who will undoubtedly be studied and debated about for as long as the human race survives. He is indeed THAT pivotal of a figure in human history.



5. Melville, the first among equals, wrote that to have a mighty book, a writer must have a mighty theme. Rogers delivers the "mighty " theme - Alexander - but does not deliver the mighty book. We never really "GET" Alexander: a bi-sexual, alcoholic sadist.The weakness of the title character's development aside, this book shines superbly as military history

1 comments about Confederate Admiral: The Life and Wars of Franklin Buchanan (Bluejacket Books) (Blue Jacket Books).

1. I've just finished CONFEDERATE ADMIRAL and the more I reflect on it the more solid it seems. A great job of professional history and biography. Symonds sets Buchanan in his time, and does a great job of presenting a guy many of us wd not get along with in person, and whose ideas would not pass muster today, but presenting him without judgment in the context of his time and profession. I never felt the author liked him, but I never felt he disliked Buchanan either; it felt . . . objective. What a word, how seldom we see objective reporting today! Read this book to see what it means, and to follow a real roller-coaster of a career in a stormy century and time in America. Damn nice writing too. Thanks Mr Symonds!

4 comments about Grown Gray in War: The Len Maffioli Story.

1. This book outlines my own Vietnam history. I'm thrilled that Len mentioned me on page 260--regarding his R&R to Austrailia. Martin Young Maj. USMC Ret.



2. THE STORY OF LEN MAFFIOLLI, ONE OF ONLY 18 MARINES TO ESCAPE FROM A CHINESE POW CAMP DURING THE KOREAN WAR, IS WITHOUT QUESTION ONE OF THE BEST BOOKS I HAVE READ ABOUT THE MARINE CORPS. WELL WRITTEN BY MAJ. B. H. NORTON, THIS STORY DOCUMENTS WWII, KOREA, AND VIETNAM IN REMARKABLE STYLE. HATS OFF TO NORTON AND MAFFIOLI FOR PUTTING TOGETHER A SUPERB STORY. TEN OUT OF TEN!!!



3. "Grown Gray in War" is the biography of Marine Master Gunnery Sergeant Len Maffioli. Maffioli served in combat on Saipan, Tinian, and Iwo Jima, during World War II; was taken prisoner by the North Koreans during the Korean War, and later escaped from the Chinese Communists after 6 months as a POW; then saw combat again during Tet, in Vietnam, in 1968. --Thus the tiltle of the book. This is Major Bruce H. Norton's 5th book on and about Marines. It was also a winner in the San Diego Book Awards for biographies in 1997. Skillfully researched and well-written, this book should, in my humble opinion, be required reading for Marines in all grades. To accurately describe the event's of World War II, Korea and Vietnam, is a tribute to Major Norton's skill as a Marine historian. A great read!!



4. As an amateur military historian, I found GGIW to be one of the best written books on and about the Corps that I have ever read. While Len Maffioli will serve as the epitome of a Marine Staff NCO, I know, too, that Major "Doc" Norton has done a masterful job of putting Len's life on paper. The amount of research required by Norton was, no doubt, incredible. Students of the Marine Corps, students of WWII; those who are interesetd in the POW experience and the Korean War, and those who want to learn about the War in Vietnam, should add this book to their library. My hat is off to MGySgt. Maffioli for his heroic service to his country, and to Major Norton for having the wonderful talent of making it all seem so real -- from the page to the brain. Whoever said Marines can't write? Well done... Semper Fidleis. A retired Marine fan in South Carolina.

2 comments about Lee and His Army in Confederate History (Civil War America).

1. With the skill of a surgeon, Gary W. Gallagher dissects the myths and legends surrounding Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia, past and current, to reveal a fascinating new look at the "marble man". Positioning himself squarely between the Lost Cause proponents and the current pack of revisionists, Gallagher relies on primary sources (newspapers, diaries and letters of civilians and soldiers, official correspondence) and careful, well-reasoned analysis to discover the real truth surrounding Robert E. Lee, and in the process lands an effective blow worthy of the general himself upon both sides. Gallagher's claims that Robert E. Lee was indeed an able proponent of modern warfare (though I would dispute the term modern) and also a capable administrator fully capable of being as strict or lenient with his subordinates as the case required breathes new life into the continuing quest to discover this fascinating man and effectively destroys the myths held by both sides (ironically enough, both sides often seem to wind up arguing both sides of the same coin) that Lee was first of all a member of the landed Virginia gentry far too short-sighted and stuck in the past for command of the Confederacy's main eastern army as well as being far too gentlemanly to deal strictly with subordinates. In fact, Gallagher presents Lee, through his own words and letters, as a man fully aware of the forces arrayed against him and as one who from the beginning knew full well that the Confederacy needed to marshall all of its resources in order to win the war and gain independence and that tough decisions and hard sacrifices would be required, and that a strong government would be required to take charge in order to ensure this was done and coordinate everyone's effort. Also, the idea that Lee "bled" his army to death (the fact that Lee's army at the beginning of the 1864 Overland Campaign was basically the same size as it ever was seems to have escaped the notice of many) also comes across as rather weak thanks to Gallagher's fine research. The weakest argument Gallagher refutes is that Lee's myth was wholly created after the war, and he does this by proving most emphatically that Lee and his army were indeed the primary source Confederates looked to for hope as well as the national symbol of the Confederacy (much like Washington's Continentals) worldwide. The fact that the main part of Grant's thrust against the South hit here against Lee proves this as well. However, do not mistake Gallagher as a Lost Cause proponent in disguise; though he defends the points Lost Cause proponents make that are actually rooted in fact, he spares them not his swift, sharp sword in pointing out the concerted effort to preserve and protect the memory of the Confederate armies, and Lee in particular, by shaping history through their own eyes. Also, he cuts like a knife through as many of their arguments as those of the revisionists, who, in their zeal to cut through the myth of the Lost Cause (and rightfully so, since we must be as objective as possible) often go too far and wind up rejecting legitimate conclusions and research in favor of their own modern myth. In conclusion, Gallagher, the good professor has taught us all a valuable lesson; look not through the lens of your own eyes to view history, but search ever more diligently for the real facts and take nothing for granted. Though I'm sure we all carry our own biases (I fully admit my admiration for Lee, and I fail to see how anyone can remain truly and completely aloof), we can all separate ourselves, at least partially, from our opinions in order to get at the facts and reach reasonable conclusions, as Gallagher has so beautifully done. Good job, Professor Gallagher.



2. This book is a collection of Gallagher's essays published elsewhere. In this format however, they take on an added dimension and explaination of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia and its commander, Robert E Lee.
   Gallagher begins by examining Lee's Maryland campaign, Fredericksburg, Gettysburg and the army's campaigns in 1864. His conclusions on the Battle of Gettysburg and its effects on the Confederate home front are particularly interesting. He concludes that the battle was not the overwhelming defeat to the Army of Northern Virginia and the Confederate home front that it would later be portayed as by historians. He makes the argument that the loss of Vicksburg was seen as a vastly bigger loss and Gettysburg was more seen as a small defeat or even a victory because of Meade's failure to chase the Confederates in retreat.
   Gallagher also includes an interesting essay evaluating the claims of some historians that Lee was not fighting a modern war with modern tactics and if he had done so, the Confederacy would have been better off. He ably demonstrates that indeed Lee did understand the difference in technology such as the minie ball and its impact on strategy and tactics.
   However, the best essay is Gallagher's essay on the Lost Cause "myth". Gallagher explains that many of the claims that were later associated only with Lost Cause historians such as Jubal Early or Douglass Southall Freeman, were actually developed during the war and immediately following the war prior to any claims made by Early and others. Thus some of the "myths" such as the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Union as part of the central cause of the Confederacy's defeat, is actually true. He draws the wonderful and correct conclusion that to dismiss the Lost Cause myths in their entirety does a major disservice to the historical profession and that discussing those Lost Cause claims that do have a basis in fact is not in fact giving any legitimacy to any neo-Confederate point of view concerning the centrality of slavery to the origin of the Civil War.
   The one quibble, and the reason I gave this book four stars instead of five concerns Gallagher's essay "Fighting the Battles of Second Fredericksburg and Salem Church." I really couldn't find a point as to why this essay was included in the book, unless it was to demonstrate a hard and fast friendship link between Early and Lee that Gallagher does build upon in his essay on the Lost Cause. However, I still think the essay about Fredericksburg really doesn't belong in this format.

2 comments about Trafalgar's Lost Hero: Admiral Lord Collingwood and the Defeat of Napoleon.

1. Collingwood was an outstanding naval officer who contributed much to England's maritime victories during the Napoleonic wars. Unfortunately, he lived and worked along with Britain's greatest, most controversial, and most fascinating admiral, Horatio Nelson.The immense volume of literature about Nelson has overshadowed interest in the life of Collingwood. While we know an immense amount about Nelson's life and career (read Sugden's new biography of only the first part of Nelson's life), we know little about Collingwood. His childhood and early career are almost entirely undocumented, posing a challenge for a biographer. His later life shows him to be a sailor of skill, a brave and aggressive fighter, and, in all likelihood, a better diplomat than Nelson. This book is pleasantly written, a quick read, and probably tells us as much about Collingwood as can be unearthed. Collingwood was not as complex and fascinating a personality as Nelson, but he comes across as a solid officer, and a kind person. Worth reading to fill in some gaps in our knowledge of this remarkable period in naval warfare.



2. On the whole, this proves to be an pretty interesting biography on Admiral Cuthbert Lord Collingwood. Since not much is known about this man and his career, that made the book even more interesting par say.
   
   The book appears to be well written and researched. The lack of primary sources seem to hampered the author. But its pretty clear that the author covers most aspects of Collingwood's life and his naval career. What will surprised most readers appears to be Collingwood's close friendship with Horatio Lord Nelson who appears to be Collingwood's total opposite in personality. The book appears to be geared toward the novice reader although its informative for all readers. If there were any great weakness in this biography, it may be that the author appears to be over enthusiastic about his subject as if Collingwood can do no wrong.
   
   But on the whole, this biographical work does justice to Lord Collingwood and managed to bring this naval warrior from under Lord Nelson's shadow and give him a bit of little lime light of his own. While the book tries to paint Collingwood in the same likeness of one of these fictional naval heroes, the book clearly shows that Collingwood is definitely no Aubrey, Hornblower or Bolitho. I strongly recommended this book for those whose interest in Napoleonic naval history remains high.