No comments about The Spiritual Journey of George Washington.

5 comments about The Age of Napoleon (Modern Library Chronicles).

1. This newest addition to the Modern Library Chronicles series is not a history of Napoleon but a snapshot into this time in France, although by his very nature the man defines the times. For a short biography of Napoleon, take a look at Paul Johnson's slim volume and for a fuller context of Parisian history read Alistair Horne's The Seven Ages of Paris. This book, the Age of Napoleon, is Alistair Horne's examination of one of those particular ages and the man at the centre of it. The book is arranged by topics as opposed to a chronological history so basic familiarty with European history will be an advantage. The author also repeats himself, at times, as the story moves back and forth. But this book will give the reader an idea of these tumultous times and either lead them to further reading about Napoleon the man or work as a refresher to a previously read biography.



2. Engaging and informative, Horne manages to present his vast knowledge of Napoleon and his age in an almost conversational tone that-while full of rich historical detail-manages to be scholarly, riveting and often quite humorous. For example, in addition to learn about the numerous ways Napoleon's two decade rule transformed Europe, we learn that his wife and Empress Josephine's wardrobe contained 666 winter dresses, 230 summer ones and only two pair of knickers. If one wishes for a direct introduction to Napoleon and his influence, The Age of Napoleon is an excellent place to start.



3. For those seeking a biography of the man or his military accomplishments, this book does not fit the bill. Horne focuses on the political, economic, artistic, and scientific accomplishments of Napoleon and the Napoleonic Regime. So this book focuses on an area not covered by most authors. Since Napoleon is a topic that many authors have attempted, Horne focuses on an area not usually written about. Napoleon changed a lot in France, and Horne outlines both his accomplishments (Code of Napoleon for law, and scientific research) and his failures (theater, opera, and literature).
   This is not an easy read, despite its brevity. It is a read that will enlighten a Napoleonic historian. However, the subjects and concepts are more difficult to understand than the
   military victories.



4. Horne's pithy little book is certainly not a good introduction to Napoleon the man, general, or emperor, nor a comprehensive history text on France. It is, however, a valuable collection of his most lasting and significant policies, ambitions, whims, excesses, successes, and failures.
   
   Horne writes with the facile hand of an expert in his element, yet this book will certainly prove most valuable to the casual rather than novice or advanced scholar of Napoleonic France. It covers his rise to fame, deceptively humble power-grab, impressive reformist tendencies and initiatives, his staid morality contrasting personal hypocrisy, as well as Napoleon's creation of a new and (at least in theory) merit-based aristocracy, as well as the advent of modern French culture. Colorful episodes featuring his beloved Josephine as well as other flames and vixens are recounted.
   
   This will be a nice addition to a Francophile shelf, but only a sketchy entry text for the curious.



5. This is a good book about Napoleon the man. Alistair Horne is a supreme writer. He covers the good in Napoleon, but balances it with his shortcommings. He illustrates the influence Napoleon had back then and the impact he has on our lives today. This is an excellent book about the complex life of one of history outstanding figures.

No comments about Julius Caesar (Life &Times S.) (Life&Times).

3 comments about Peter the Great: A Biography.

1. Overall a very nice, concise account of the life of Peter the Great. A very good introduction to those who wish to learn about this period of Russian history but have little starting background. I did think the last chapter which focuses on monuments to Peter since his death was a little dry and could easily have been edited out without affecting the overall quality of the book



2. This book is good for historians, no doubt, but probably not the the rest of the people, like me. I read paragraphs without knowing what I read, and it's hard to glean any interesting information. Consider, for example, this paragraph:
   
   "In an attempt to recover Russia's prestige, gain a stronger bargaining position with the allies and ward off Turkish attacks on Ukraine, in 1695 Peter reopened hostilities ina campaign against the Turkist coastal fort of Azov at the mouth of the River Don. He dispatched two armies, the joint force of Boris Petrovich Sheremetev and the Ukrainian hetman Ivan Mazepa to the Dnieper to delfect the Tartars from the mouth of the Don and a smaller unit consisting of the Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky guards and strel'tsy on river craft down the Don to Azov itself."
   
   I understand it, but I am not excited by all this information. The description is just too dry for my taste. I am very interested in Peter the Great because I know he went around Europe, and even worked as a carpenter. I'll find another biography elsewhere.



3. The best single volume biograghy of Russia's Westernizing Tsar. If you don't want to spend weeks Reading Robert Massie's "Massive" tome, this is the book for you!

No comments about Ronald Reagan's America with CD: His Voice, His Dreams, and His Vision of Tomorrow.

No comments about Barbara Bush: Presidential Matriarch (Modern First Ladies).

2 comments about Perpetual Happiness: The Ming Emperor Yongle.

1. Shih Shan Henry Tsai has done something that Jonathan Spence has not been able to do: write a book that people can read and understand. No offense to Spence, I know he is considered the man for Chinese history, but maybe he is a better speaker than writer, because I can't get through any of his books and I have a strong background in Chinese History.

   Professor Tsai has taken primary and secondary sources about the second Ming Emperor or third depending on how you look at it and turned it into a interesting, well written, little book. The book is only about 200 pages and it is a quick read, but at the same time highly informative.

   I did not know much about the Ming Dynasty or Emperor Yongle before reading this book, but now I do. To me a good history book is one where you learn things you did not know before, and this book did that.

   I recommend this book highly to anyone who enjoys Chinese history. And if you want to read a more modern history of China look at Mandate of Heaven by Orville Schell.




2. I am a historian specializing Chinese history. I am very disappointed by the author's work. Comparing to Jonathan Spence's books and Ray Huang's book on Ming history, this book is very boring and lack of deepness. The author has made a great effort to gather a lot of details but they are so fragmental. The author fails to contextualize Yongle and his time, making Yongle so isolated in the Ming history. Those long citations easily put readers into sleep. As an academic book, it lacks a special perspective and has no argument. As a text book, it's hard to attract students because there is no story.

5 comments about Benito Mussolini: The First Fascist (Library of World Biography Series) (Library of World Biography).

1. How can such profound scholarship read like a novel. Best buy I've made in ages, and I buy much.



2. Short, solid introductory biography written with craftsman-like prose, which places Mussolini in historical context and is especially good at noting the political and cultural boundaries that limited his "totalitarianism."



3. the book is what it is advertized as--a weekend read of benito mussoilini. The author does a nice job of giving the reader a big picture view of the times and reasons for mussoilini's rise to power. I recommend the book to anyone who has never read any history of mussoilini--only heard of his death and being hung in the city square. It gives a nice reference point for conversations on WWII from Italy's perspective.



4. This book is brief but passionate and objective. The narrative flows easily and the reader is given a very good introduction to the Fascist era and its Duce. Highly recommended.



5. This was an excellent book for those wanting a concise and relatively short summary of Mussolini's life (1883-1945), nicely framed within the political events of the times. It objectively discusses his strengths and weaknesses, his supporters and foes, his rise to power and his inglorious decline and death. A quick read at 165 pages.

5 comments about Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History.

1. Dr. Diggins seems to be an erudite, intelligent man who put some serious time into researching his book. The other reviewers have rightly praised his efforts to look at Reagan through the lense of history and not idealogy, and for his ranking of Reagan with Roosevelt and Lincoln among our greatest presidents.
   
   At the same time, I must confess that having recently read the Reagan Diaries as well as other books dealing with the Reagan legacy like Victory, Bill Bennett's recent second history volume, Reagan "In His Own Hand" etc., I must find that some of the conclusions drawn in this book diverge from the facts and tread familiar academic paths of thought about our great President.
   
   The final negotiations that ended the Cold War occured PRECISELY because Reagan worked on every front to thwart the Soviets. This included Bill Casey flying all over the world covertly, actions to stop Soviet technology acquisition, efforts to make them spend money they didn't have on defense, and a lot more. Reagan mentions anti-communist efforts on a daily basis in the diaries. Also, the preposterous comment that Reagan did nothing to support Solidarity is false on its face - not making speeches about something (even though he did) does not mean inaction. Again, his diaries reveal many efforts on behalf of Solidarity, and Walesa himself gives Reagan great credit for his support. The fact remains that Reagan didn't alter or change his demands on the Soviets when Gorbachev came to power - the final agreement reached was the US STARTING POSITION on disarmement years earlier. His strong stance in negotiations and the arms build up (laughably described as starting under the Carter administration in the book - are you kidding?) drove the Soviets to the table because they literally could not afford to fight anymore. Fighting them on every front was intended from the beginning to realize this result. It is as Reagan described before he became President - his view of the cold war was "we win and they lose".
   
   On a philosophical point, Diggins rightly remarks that Reagan often acted against the conservatives of his time's wishes. This does not make him somehow "less" conservative - just proven right in the argument. All idealogies are constantly in these debates, and Reagan comments on his reviews on the right constantly in his diaries as well, since he was such an avid reader of their writings. Just because the greatest conservative of the last fifty years didn't agree with every midget wonk at National Review or in congress is a comment on the midgets, not him. The line between "classical" and contemporary liberalism also seems to blur in his discussions. Yes, many current conservative thoughts on freedom and liberty are classicly liberal views (as many liberal statist views are classicly conservative), the modern distinctions are all that really matter in current discussion.
   
   I started to read this book with great enthusiasm, as its take on Reagan seemed fresh and interesting, but as I saw conclusion after conclusion follow other tired academic views on Reagan and contradict what I had read him say in his own hand were his views and thoughts, I found it ultimately unhelpful.



2. The dust jacket of this biography claims that John Patrick Diggins is one of America's "most interesting intellectual historians". This description gets two things right - Mr. Diggins is interesting, and Mr. Diggins is undoubtedly a historian. Whether he is much of an intellectual is another matter.
   
   Mr. Diggins' thesis is a peculiar and engaging one - that Reagan is one of the greatest Presidents of our nation, and also one of the most Emersonian, classically liberal Presidents of our time. Diggins, however, does not quite manage to provide definitive proof for either claim, though he does a better job of proving Reagan's intellectual roots than of proving his greatness. The reason for this failure, unfortunately, is not a problem with Diggins' scholarship, but rather an unfortunate case of self-sabotage which begins to show in the latter half of the book. During this section, one wonders if Diggins himself doubts his own thesis. In fact, one wonders if Diggins actually wanted to write a book with said thesis, or if the original argument he wanted to make was as follows: "Ronald Reagan is not a conservative, but even if he was, conservatives can't beat communism in the long run, anyway. Ha ha ha. Neener neener neener."
   
   To this end, many passages within the book are unabashedly, obnoxiously didactic. In fact, one often feels as though one is reading a philosophical essay meant to impugn the purity of American conservatism, rather than a biography of a conservative figure. One of the more absurd of these moments comes near the very end, when Diggins tries to impugn Reagan's conservatism by contrasting his vision with that of Edmund Burke. There are two problems with this analysis - firstly, Diggins misinterprets Burke's quote about the necessity of restraint for rights as implying that a paternalistic government is required to stop people from being greedy. What Burke was actually talking about, of course, was the tendency of people to believe they have a right to everything they want - a dangerous tendency, which often leads to things like the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which contradicts itself numerous times). The second problem with this analysis, however, is that Mr. Diggins is assuming that conservatism's nature has not changed at all since Edmund Burke. It is not as though Burke sat down and wrote out a "Constitution of Conservatism". Many conservative thinkers, in fact, believe that deriving a contemporary position from Edmund Burke's writings is impossible. It doesn't help, of course, that Burke was from England, and the conservative tradition in England is almost completely non-applicable to America.
   
   Furthermore, Diggins seems determined to convince his audience that Reagan was not really all that religious, as though there is something shameful in one of our greatest presidents being religious. Diggins also seems fixated on Reagan's fiscal policy, which he often links with the words "greed" and "selfishness." Finally, though Diggins initially credits Reagan with ending the cold war, he later throws in backhanded implications that it had more to do with Gorbachev than Reagan. It is as though Diggins wrote his thesis that Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents and then choked on it and had to go back and assure his readers that while Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents, he was still the selfish, shortsighted clod that Academics envision him to be.
   
   The existence of these flaws is unfortunate, because the book is historically excellent and so readable that it almost rivals a Harry Potter novel. Ultimately, I must recommend the book, with reservation. I give Mr. Diggins three stars for interesting history, and no stars for his intellectual pretensions. It is a pity. If Mr. Diggins had the courage to stick to his original thesis rather than frantically reassure his audience that he was not one of those awful Reagan-loving freaks, we might be reading the best Reagan biography yet.



3. There is already a vast amount of literature on the life of Ronald Reagan, and it shows no sign of abating. The 40th President of the United States is a continuing subject of fascination as the man who reasserted his country's superpower dominance, engineering the fall of communism and the end of the Cold War.
   
   His domestic policies, dominated by his passionate belief in small government and the ability of individuals to shape their own destinies, earned him the enmity of liberals, yet even on his own side of politics he is not the unquestioned hero as for example his contemporary, Margaret Thatcher, is among British conservatives.
   
   I recall a conversation with a retired American diplomat who preferred the unsuccessful 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater as the true founder of the modern conservative movement in the US, dismissing Reagan as an opportunist, a former Democrat who could see the way the wind was blowing, jumping on the bandwagon in the right place at the right time.
   
   John Patrick Diggins seeks to dismiss this argument. For him Reagan deserves to be rated alongside George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt as one of the greatest presidents of all time. He believes history will vindicate Reagan in the same way it did Lincoln, whose reputation was besmirched for many decades after his death, but more about that relationship later.
   
   The problem that Diggins and any other biographer of Reagan face is proximity. As the author states with some exasperation in the bibliographical notes, more than 80 per cent of the material in the presidential library remains classified and can be obtained only through the laborious and often unsuccessful method of applying under the Freedom of Information Act.
   
   Undeterred, he turns to other sources, notably the evidence emerging from Soviet archives of the relationship with the Soviet Union's last President, Mikhail Gorbachev, as well as the burgeoning amount of literature discussing the origins behind the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union two years after Reagan left office.
   
   The result is a scholarly, meticulously-researched book that seeks to understand not just the president of the 1980s, but the film actor of the 30s, 40s and 50s, the California Governor of the 60s and 70s and the man who passionately believed in a new beginning for his country - a rebirth that came to be called "Morning in America".
   
   For Diggins, the man who took office in January 1981 had three dragons to slay: the nuclear arms race that threatened the world with extinction; the expanding welfare state that increased dependency and lowered self-esteem and the third, most controversially "a joyless religious inheritance that told people their kingdom was not of this world and they needed to be careful about pursuing happiness in case they enjoyed it".
   
   This was hardly the language that the increasingly influential religious right would have wanted to hear but Reagan could see no conflict in embracing the rewards of this world - after all, it was what trade unions had been advocating for their members for half a century. He may have been ushering in the decade of Wall Street and `Greed is Good', but it is the author's insistence that the president wanted Americans to enjoy the pursuit of wealth and not be ashamed of the bounty they accumulated. It was, Diggins asserts, a necessary step in order to restore Americans' confidence in themselves after the debacle of the Vietnam War, Watergate, the Iran hostages humiliation and a decade of economic malaise.
   
   Diggins does not hold back on the obvious black marks of the Reagan presidency, most notably the Iran Contra scandal, occurring deep into Reagan's second term and at least partially resorting from the arrogance that comes from years of unbroken power.
   
   As with the Nixon presidency 15 years previously, there had been the subtle growth of a macho `can do' culture with little regard for moral or ethical objections. The difference being that Reagan quickly shouldered the blame in a televised mea culpa address in which the Great Communicator was at his best: "A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not...what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated in its implementation into trading arms for hostages."
   
   I take issue with the final chapter in which the author seeks to link Reagan even closer to Lincoln by likening Reagan's battle against communism to Lincoln's struggle to free the slaves. It is for readers to follow Diggin's closely argued reasoning and come to their conclusions, but the fact is Lincoln went to war not to free slaves but to save the Union and that the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 was a ploy to turn foreign opinion against the Confederacy and disrupt it internally at a time when the conflict was going badly for the North.
   
   However, it is certainly worth noting that the Cold War was won bloodlessly while the Civil War resulted in the deaths of more Americans than have been killed in all conflicts combined in the century-and-a-half since.
   
   There are times when this book stumbles into academic denseness, and I am unconvinced that Diggins has made his case for Reagan to be elevated to the heights of the presidential pantheon, but for those seeking an insight into the mind of the man who radically altered the face of American politics, it is to be recommended.



4. For the most part, the biographies that have been written about Ronald Reagan in the years since he left office have suffered from one of two defects. Either they have been overly critical and dismissive and failed to grasp the truly revolutionary aspects of the Reagan Presidency, or they have been overly worshipful, something more akin to adulation than real scholarship. In both cases, the differing interpretations of Reagan have likely been based on ideological differences and political resentments of the 1980s and beyond.In Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, and the Making of History, John Patrick Diggins takes a worthy first step toward moving beyond either the worshipful or the hate-filled evaluations of the Reagan Presidency and gives America's 40th President the respectful, if not always positive, evaluation that he deserves.
   
   Reagan's singular achievement, Diggins argues, was the role he played in bringing a peaceful end to the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. Though he came into the White House with a promise to rebuild the American military and confronted what his advisers contended were Soviet-sponsored regimes in nations ranging from Nicaragua to Angola, it's clear that, very early in his Administration, if not before then, Reagan became committed to the idea of drastically reducing, if not eliminating, nuclear weapons.
   
   Much to the consternation of his neo-conservative foreign policy team, Reagan made overtures to the Soviets as early as April 1981, when he wrote a letter to Leonid Brezhnev while recovering from an assassination attempt. The Brezhnev dialog never went anywhere, largely because Brezhnev was apparently too stubborn and too ill to actually pursue serious negotiations. Similarly, the short-lived reigns of his two immediate successors made pursuing peace impossible. As Reagan himself once quipped, "They keep dying on me."
   
   It was only with the rise to power of Mikhail Gorbachev, who required reduced tensions with the U.S. to pursue his ultimately doomed strategy of reforming Communism, that Reagan was able to pursue his desire to bring both countries out of the horrifying doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction.
   
   One interesting thing that Diggins' book brings out is the extent to which many of Reagan's conservative supporters became convinced in the late 1980s that their leader had sold America down the river. Many of the same people who, on the occasion of his funeral in 2004, lionized him as the man who had "won" the Cold War. Among the critics were William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, and Henry Kissinger, all of whom seemed convinced at the time that the Cold War and the tensions with the USSR were a permanent and irreversible fact (Jeane Kirkpatrick had in fact said as much in her writings prior to being named U.N. Ambassador).
   
   Reagan, Diggins, argued, never accepted the neo-conservative view of history and rejected the idea that the Cold War was a permanent fact of life that could only end with an exchange of nuclear missiles that would destroy both nations, if not most of the civilized world. In fact, rather than being a true conservative, Diggins persuasively argues that Reagan was really more of a traditional old-style liberal, what we would today call a libertarian, and that his ideas were influenced more by the libertarianism of Thomas Paine and the romanticism of Ralph Waldo Emerson than conservative hero Edmund Burke. While Reagan courted social conservatives and neo-cons, he did not share their views on the inherent sinfulness and fallibility of man.
   
   Diggins goes criticize some aspects of Reagan's record, most notably, in the domestic sphere, and he rightly criticizes him for the mis-handling of the Iran Contra affair. But, like I said, this is a biography not a hagiography. On the whole, though, Diggins does an excellent job of rescuing our 40th President from his detractors and his worshipers. Hopefully, other historians will follow suit.



5. "Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom and the Making of History" is a philosophical study of Ronald Reagan and his place in history. It is not a true biography but employs biographical details to support its points.
   
   Through much of this book I was unsure whether its purpose was to praise Reagan or to debunk his myth. Author John Patrick Diggins cites facts about Reagan to dispute many of the conventional wisdoms about him. He claims that Reagan was not as conservative or as hawkish as is widely believed. He delves into Reagan's days with General Electric, his confrontations with campus radicals in Sacramento, negotiations with Gorbachev, his flirtations with Nicaraguan Contras and Jonas Savimbi of Angola. He presents Reagan as an Emersonian idealist whose distrust of big government guided his political career. At times it is not clear whether Diggins is concluding that Reagan is a hero or a failure. Ultimately he finds Lincolnesque qualities in his subject.
   
   This is not a first book for one searching for the Reagan lore. For biographies, look elsewhere. After you have absorbed those, look here for a deeper dip into the philosophical underpinnings of the Reagan Revolution.

2 comments about Jeffersonian Legacies.

1. I'm in editor Peter Onuf's Jefferson class at the Univeristy of Virginia and this book is on the required reading list for the class. This book is an outstanding collection of essays on Jefferson the man, the forces that motivated him, and the development of the American nation during his lifetime as affected by the man. The scholarship involved approaches the subject matter from many different perspectives giving a very diverse representation. If you want to learn a wide range of points of view on Jefferson's life, this is the ideal book.



2. Compilation of various essays written by various experts about Thomas Jefferson life and his politics as well as his psyhcology.
   It is not a biography but you will get all from this book, his life, his times, his politics, his philosophy. One learn many interesting things about this president and some unexpected suprises.His thought about woman and slavery, liberty, politics.