No comments about El Silencio/ the Silence: De Paulo VI a Bergoglio. Las Relaciones Secretas De La Iglesia Con La Esma / De Paul VI a Bergoglio. THe Secret Realstions of the Church with the ESM (Spanish Edition).

3 comments about Trafalgar and the Spanish Navy: The Spanish Experience of Sea Power.

1. While the author has made the point that there were many fine officers in the Spanish Navy, and that there were many excellent ships, the facts indicate that this combination was never capitalised upon, and the result was invariably disasterous. The best of leaders can only do so much with what they are given, and in the case of Spain, this meant far too few seamen, far too much influence by the Army, far too little training for crews, and some of the worst treatment imaginable. There is no point in building enormous warships if they cannot be effectively manned! Further, it is well-documented that ships of the line of the Spanish navy, although enormous in size, were laughably undergunned compared to their contemporaries. This is not made clear in this book. That said, it would also be of enormous benefit to view some of the plans and profiles of these ships, so as to compare them with their British and French contemporaries. Dozens of books have been written about HMS Victory and other Royal Navy ship types, but almost nothing about the ships of the other navies of the time, and even less in English! It is a great pity the author chose to use so many primitive contemporary Spanish paintings for illustration rather than something either commissioned for the book (expensive, no doubt!), or obtained with a bit more research into what is available.



2. Author John Harbron's book is a nice relief from the all long line of Anglocentric Naval historians that like to downplay the accomplishments of the Spanish and, to a lesser extent, French navies in the 1700s. The Spanish Royal Navy did a fine job in the 18th century given the fact that they were outgunned and outmanned and could rarely coordinate effectively with their French naval counterparts in their battles against the British Royal Navy. The results speak for themselves. During the 18th century Spain was able to successfully maintain her vast American empire vitually intact despite contant British Royal Navy attacks. It was only when revolutionary movements in her American empire that Spain lost most of her territories and not because of British actions.
   John Hebron's book articulate accomplishments of great Spanish commanders like Blas De Lezo and Bernardo Galvez who had a consistant record of defeating British foes. Facts that are rarely mentioned or glossed over in English language history texts.



3. John Harbron's book is a refreshing re-balance of naval history during the Age of Sail that counters the all too often Anglo-centric and borderline jingoist view of naval from authors like N.A.M Rodger. Despite what has been written about the Spanish Navy in the English speaking world, the facts stand out for themselves. Given that Armada was outnumbered and out gunned by the Royal Navy since about the 1650s, the fact of the matter is that the Armada did a fine job despite frequent attacks by Britain and it's privateers. The Spanish Empire held intact well ito the 1900s due in large part to it's great navy. Spain's navy produced great Admirals like Blas De Lezo, who was instrumental in helping acheive victory against the full might of the British during the War of Jenkin's Ear(1739-1748) when the British so wrongfully thought they had the Spanish Empire on the ropes.

5 comments about Westward Ho! or, the Voyages and Adventures of Sir Amyas Leigh, Knight, of Burrough, in the County of Devon~ in the Reign of Her Most Glorious Majesty Queen Elizabeth (Scribner's Illustrated Classics).

1. Westward Ho transplants the famous Greek Epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, into Elizabethan England. Complete with Achilles (Amyas Leigh), Patroclus (Frank Leigh), Helen (Rose), Paris (Guzman), and a Trojan War (The Defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588). The Odyssey too comes in, with the great wanderings in distant lands. Rather unexpectedly for a novelist of Kingsley's calibre and values, the book has transformed the Elizabethan English into a noble race of Godlike Heroes and the Spanish into villains far worse than the Trojans have ever been depicted as being. Jesuits are particularly maligned, and Indians are unfairly portrayed. This tends to dampen the reader's enthusiasm somewhat, as he/she realises that the author himself may be more remote in value system from our day and age than the characters he portrays. The one redeeming feature is the high tension it generates, but this is - probably consciously - influenced by the epics, as the author himself hints.



2. Kingsley was extremely popular during his lifetime in the nineteenth century, but his works have somewhat fallen into obscurity now. He is well worth taking up again. His books are deeply embedded in the Victorian way of life, so he is very much a writer for his own time. Kingsley wrote quite a few books, but "Westward Ho!" has always been his most popular. It is a story of adventure on the high seas and beyond. The book starts in England, but his hero, Amyas Leigh is a sailor, and the book covers his trip to the West Indies and South America. Amyas meets many unique people and experiences many adventures before he finds himself back on "Jolly Old's" shores. Although a bit preachy, the story is pretty good and certainly kept my interest.



3. A great period novel for boys, girls, moms and dads. It was very popular in decades past and is at least as much fun as, say, Treasure Island or Tarzan. Although this book takes place in the Elizabethan period and was written in the Victorian era, some Catholic reviewers below seem to feel that the novel lacks a 21st century sanitized viewpoint about Catholicism/Spanish imperialism. I've heard the same sort of argument made regarding the stereotype of Jim in Huckleberry Finn. Similarly in cowboy movies the Indians are usually portrayed as the bad guys (we now know, of course, that this is simplistic at best); likewise, the Spaniards in this book are the bad guys. It shouldn't be too tough to infer that all Catholics aren't bad, unless one is a simpleton. My family is Catholic and we all love the book. This is a fine adventure for young adults that is so much better than the product on most bookshelves today. The wonderful N. C. Wyeth illustrated edition is the one to get.



4. While all the accusations that Kingsley rails against the Catholics are true, the characters in Westward Ho! would not have treated the Roman Catholic Spaniards any better. After all, Philip did wish to bring his inquisition to England and England had just endured Bloody Mary (not the drink, the queen of England who re-introduced Catholocism to protestant England) and it is no wonder that the people would react harshly to the Spaniards. That said, Kingsley does get just a bit carried away, but it makes a fantastic story. Swashbuckling, naval battles, fair maidens, heathen Spaniards, the Spanish Main and its treasures: all this Kingsley combines in a well-written memorable tale with endearing characters and strong passions. Westward Ho! stands out in my mind as powerful literature principally because it tackles a complex and often unexpected plot. This may have all the action of an Errol Flynn movie (and it does) but it also has an intelligent plot and strongiy delineated characters. A fantastic read.
   
   And the N.C. Wyeth paintings are fabulous as usual.



5. ...In the Reign of her Most Glorious Majesty Queen Elizabeth.
   
   Westward Ho! is great fun to read, although dense in places and most certainly a product of its time. Kingsley was not noted for his tolerance, and this novel is no exception. As a Catholic, I will admit to some moments that made me flinch. I will however also admit that it would be difficult to present the Spanish Inquisition in a positive light.
   
   I picked up Westward Ho! because of my abiding love for Water Babies, one of Kingsley's novels for children. It was interesting to read a book of his that was more aimed at grown-ups. Westward Ho! has all the satisfying elements of a potboiler on the sea. His descriptions of the new world were a testament to his imagination and research-- he goes into details where others barely bother.
   
   Kingsley (1819-1875) was a prolific writer. Westward Ho! was published in 1855, midway through his body of work. As a bit of trivia, there is actually a town in Devon named after this book. That should give some measure of the fame and influence of both Kingsley and Westward Ho! at the time that the book was published.

3 comments about The Spanish Armada: Revised Edition.

1. This book provides an excellent chronicle of the actual engagement between the English and Spanish fleets. All the details of war (like the number of ships, men, even the quality of food carried on board) are here.
   The book does provide an account of the geopolitical events sorrounding battle, but I have the impression that the authors were more concerned with describing the battle itself. For a more detailed picture of the diplomatic and political causes and consequences of the Armada, I would refer you to yet another book by Geoffrey Parker: "The Grand Stategy of Philip II").



2. This book treats the subject with an erudition and a level of detail proper of a scholar, yet in such an agile and balanced way that it doesn't bore a layman.
   As well as factual data, a few conclusions are carefully drawn, with archaeological evidence and illustrations provided in the exact measure to support them.
   A book to own and consult often by anyone remotely interested in the period.



3. Colin Martin (underwater archaeologist) and Geoffrey Parker's (historian) The Spanish Armada is an impressive and groundbreaking piece of multi-disciplinary scholarship. The causes and the eventual result of the Armada have never been that open to interpretation but the reasons for the extraordinary failure have been. It is in this field that Colin Martin's excavations contribute vital information.
   
   Philip II's plan for the Armada was as follows: the fleet must sail up English Channel and rendezvous in the Straits of Dover with the Spanish 'Army of Flanders' under the command of Parma (Philip II's cousin). Then, the fleet would escort a substantial part of the army on special boats to Kent. From here, then it was suppose to capture the weak English forces (an entire chapter deals with the deficiencies of the English army and Coastal Defenses and potentially what would happen if the army had landed) and capture London with the Armada sailing along side up the Thames. Philip planned to restore the country to Catholicism, set up some sort of puppet ruler, and have the pope pay for a chunk of the extreme cost. His motives were primarily religious (sent by God to remove heretics) but also he wanted to prevent English aid from helping the Dutch independence movement that was busy fighting the Spanish, and secure newly captured Portuguese empire and its sprawled possessions from pretenders to the Portuguese throne (supported by the English) and legal pirates (Drake and others supported by the Queen).
   
   The most fascinating part of the book by far is not the political build up (sadly, slightly brief in this text) not the reasons for launching, but the reasons for its spectacular failure. The authors propose that the Spanish tactics, that concentrated on grappling and boarding, had not prepared the soldiers for reloading their unwieldy guns as fast as the English since they expected to fire only once. Secondly, the English had professional sailors who did nothing else but fire cannons. Thirdly, the communication in this period was dismal and although Parma had started to prepare his army it was unable to link with Medina Sidonia and his Armada because he thought the fleet would arrive much later. An entire chapter looks at all the causes of the failure (many more than the ones I have listed above). Most of the blame seems to lie with Philip since the individual commanders did their utmost. He relied on the virtually impossible link up between fleet and army to achieve victory which is at once the weakest and most important part of the entire plan.
   
   This books analyzes and dismisses commonly held myths and theories, delves into the fleets with great yet understandable detail, looks at the treatment disparity between the English and Spanish sailors after the war (Elizabeth treated hers VERY poorly in comparison to Philip), and provides multiple helpful images and diagrams. My only important qualm was the fact that the preparation of the Armada itself, overlooked by Medina Sidonia, was only given a cursory look. This book is definitely worthwhile to the scholar and casual historian alike who wants a good look at this fascinating time period.

2 comments about The Spanish Armada: The Great Enterprise against England 1588 (General Military).

1. This book has excellent art work on the ships,people involved and battles,something you do not usually see in a book about the Armada. Though the book is really a compilation of earlier Osprey books about the subject, the book is well worth the time and most of all the money to purchase. The story line flows prettty well and keeps your interest going. Also if you are interested in basic histories this is one to get.



2. The book is basically a rahash of the myths about the Armada of 1588. That war actually lasted from 1585 to 1604. The author never mentions anything about the English Armada of 1589, where Drake and Norris were decisively defeated ending any English aspirations for command of the seas. The author also does not mention the revived post 1588 Spanish Navy shipped almost 3X as much precious metals from the New World to Spain. Meaning that it was actually the Spanish that controlled the seas and won most of the naval battles culminating the with the Spanish victory off the coast of Panama where Sir Francis Drake perished after he was utterly defeated. When the peace treaty of 1604 was signed, on mostly Spanish terms, no Spanish territory was lost and Spain was still fully entrenched in the Low Countries just accross the English Channel.

5 comments about Armada Strategies for Spanish 21.

1. This book contains the basic strategy for this new game and a method for counting cards. It is a very good book and I recommend it to anyone who wants to play this new casino game. The writer is very good.



2. Then Amazon is offering you the best bargain you can get. I just finished reading both of Scoblete's books, BOLD CARD PLAY and THE ARMADA STRATEGIES and they were incredible. They give the best strategies for these often casino-friendly games. Scoblete shows you how to reduce the house edge and to take advantage of the casino comping system. This is a great tandem of books for gamblers interested in reading about the "other" casino games.



3. It has been discovered that the basic strategy for Spanish 21 provided in this book is INCORRECT. You can find the correct strategy on the internet. My favourite site is www.wizardofodds.com (look for Spanish 21).
   
   While the book provides some interesting strategies for getting more comps, it really doesn't provide a way of coming out ahead monetarially. In other words, you are losing money playing (in the long run), but getting comps to offset your loses (like free buffets).



4. Scoblete's Armada book, though dated (1998), is a good introductory book for Spanish 21. Fred Renzey, author of Blackjack Bluebook, provided assistance with analysis of Spanish 21 for this book.
   
   Chapter 1 provides a short historical overview of King Philip II of Spain's armada fleet, and a comparison to modern casino games such as casino war that haven't fared much better. Enter Spanish 21, a game that provides only a slight edge to the casino for skilled players, a large edge given up by poor players, and held to be immune to card counting. After a brief review of the history of the game itself, there is a comparision of Spanish 21 to blackjack.
   
   Chapter 2 reviews the rules and procedures of the game (about 5 pages). Chapter 3 provides basic strategy for the dealer hits soft 17, no double down version with a strategy chart on one page. There are now two other common versions of the game, dealer stands on soft 17 and also dealer hits soft 17 with double down option. The basic strategy charts for these can be found online at WizardOfOdds.
   
   Chapter 4 provides a statistical analysis of the game including chances of a dealer busting for various upcards (taken from Lenny Frome's classic booklet Expert Strategy for Spanish 21) and the frequency of bonus hands. The frequency of the super bonus (1 in 668,382, with six decks) is not mentioned.
   
   Chapter 5 outlines application of the Hi-Lo count to Spanish 21 though Scoblete states that the advantage to the player is minimal.
   
   Chapters 6 and 7 review strategies for reducing your loss rate, such as playing at full tables and taking breaks, while still getting comped for a higher perceived loss rate, useful for play at casinos that comp.
   
   In Chapters 8 and 9, Scoblete discusses some money management strategies, a cautionary tale against going on tilt, and some random advise. In Chapter 10, he compares a gambler's dopamine boost to a runner's high, albeit the competition is against the "Olympian gods of fate". Then a glossary of terms and a list of recommended authors.



5. good info but the same info is available for free on [...] this is a good book for the beginner but there is no real subtle play for the more advanced player.

5 comments about 7 años secuestrado por las FARC (Spanish Edition).

1. Luis Eladio Perez sounds very truthworthy in his memoirs of his imprisonment in the jungles of Colombia by the barbaric FARC guerrillas.
   My heart goes to him and his family for so many years of pain and suffering they had to endure. Thanks God he's alive and recuperating, but those long, lost years in that jungle will never be recovered.



2. This was a very easy book to read. I think that it was very important to learn about the tragedy that people in this world go through. It made me very conscious and grateful for all the things that I have, and it made me not want to forget those who are suffering in Colombia. It made me want to ask myself whether there is something that I could do for them, for their families, or how I can conduct myself to make this a more peaceful world. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who want to become aware of what happens when someone is kidnapped by the FARC.



3. This book shows the truth about kidnapping. Every colombian should read this in order to get a grasp of the crude reality that other colombians are going through. Mr. Perez is very sincere and the book flows easily.
   It kept me on edge the whole time.
   Good read if you want to become aware of the situation in Colombia



4. This is a very good.
   Hard to read it because of What Mr. Luis Eladio Perez described.
   I think, if you want to know how a kidnapped people for the "Guerrilla Colombiana" live you should try to read it.



5. Excelente libro que muestra la cruda realidad de los secuestrados y cuenta la verdadera historia sobre Ingrid Betancourt, no como la version de los gringos que esta llena de chismes y de odio. Luis Eladio cuenta todo muy detalladamente sin ofernder a nadie y con respeto, escribio mucho sobre la relacion con la valiente Ingrid Betancourt.

5 comments about The Confident Hope of a Miracle: The True Story of the Spanish Armada.

1. On the one hand, this book is a meticulous reconstruction of a now almost apocryphal event: the Defeat of the Spanish Aramada. On the other hand, it is a finely told story of suspense and adventure. And finally, it is a superb tale of the days when Spain was the Master of the World, England was hanging on by its fingernails, and wooden ships were not yet the miracles of technology that they later came to be in the days of Nelson.
   
   I love the detail and connections in this book! For example, the author of Don Quixote, Cervantes, was involved in events leading up to the Spanish Armada(s). We learn more about Elizabeth I's (told from a decidedly UNsympathetic historian's point of view) and Sir Francis Drake's (who comes off as a superbly competent though self-interested risen-from-the-common-ranks adventurer) roles. We learn MUch more about Phillip II, King of Spain and effective secular Master of the Western World (until, that is, the defeats of his Armadas).
   
   Sailing in the 1500's was so much a matter of luck, timing, logistics, weather, and fortitude. New naval technologies and strategies were in their infant states. The Spanish had the popular vote to win. The English had the technology (guns and gunnery) if only they had the food. Poor planning on the Spanish side and supremely fortunate timing on the English side managed to counteract English budget frugalities and supplier shenanigans.
   
   In the end it is a rip-roaring story, all the more enthralling for the details. Hanson builds the story masterfully: element by element, personality by personality, circumstance by circumstance... from Phillip's "brainstorm" to invade England, to the climactic sequence of battle encounters as both fleets were pushed along the English Channel by wind and storm.
   
   It's hard indeed to remember how uncertain setting sail was back then. This was the same era as the setting of Clavell's "Shogun" book - Blackthorne the devil-take-all English pilot and his precious navigation Rutters. Galleons and Arquebuses ruled back then. Oh my!



2. Hanson's story of the Spanish Armada is meticulously researched and wonderfully told. The portraits of the great names of the age -- Elizabeth I, Walsingham, Phillip II, Drake, the Duke of Medina, the Duke of Parma, and others -- create a powerful vision allowing us to see their motivations, plans, blunders, and triumphs. In particular, a true account of Elizabeth is a great service and stands in stark contrast to the fantasy and fatuous glorification in the cinematic portrayals of the past seventy years. In the end, one is left hoping that one day Hanson will turn his powerful gaze to a proper full length biography of Elizabeth or Drake (or both!).
   
   Hanson builds his narrative using well-selected quotes of the protagonists themselves and their contemporaries. His careful catalogue of the Spanish preparations for the Armada can be tedious at times, but it serves the purpose of showing how the great events took shape, and provides a necessary basis for understanding the climax of the narrative.
   
   Hanson's telling of the Armada's run through the Channel, the brilliant sail of the English, the dogged discipline and enormous weight of the Spanish fleet, and the skirmishes and bitter fights in the days leading up to the night of the Calais fireships which precipitated the grand drama of what proved the decisive battle off Gravelines the next morning, is engrossing and as fine an account of an historic naval battle as one can find.
   
   To Hanson's credit, he also takes the plunge as an analyst of the events, and attempts to identify the causes of England's triumph and survival, and of the Armada's doom. Here, however, his conclusions come a bit unhinged from the story he has just told.
   
   For example, he finds England's victory to have been decisively determined on the basis of the technological superiority of the English vessels and gunnery over their Spanish counterparts (**). While the English superiority in ship and gun was indeed crucial, and well-documented by Hanson, there were other telling differences between the two sides.
   
   The leadership of the English commanders (Howard, Drake, Hawkins, Frobisher, and Seymour)under a unified command structure detached from the Queen, as carefully documented by Hanson, was at least as important. Their skill and structure helped lay ground for the technological advantage Hanson speaks to, and allowed them to exploit that advantage, an outcome that was not inevitable. English lines of communication were short, English commanders and crews were well-prepared and highly disciplined, and they reacted to battle conditions and events with amazing speed and dexterity.
   
   One fascinating example of the difference men make, detailed by Hanson, was Drake's decision to conduct gunnery practice prior to the battle, an innovation which drew censure from the penurious Elizabeth and her Lord Treasurer Burghley as a waste of the Crown's money. Hanson acknowledges that Drake's foresight paid off in the battle with well-trained gun crews whose drill devastated the great Spanish galleons. But in drawing his conclusion that the decision in the Channel was drawn on differences in technology he fails to note that technology without well-led and well-trained sailors and gunners is useless.
   
   In contrast, the plodding Armada was guided by the Duke of Medina, less a commander than an administrator devoted to carrying out Phillip's deeply flawed invasion plan to the letter. Compared to England's battlefield arrangements, Medina's lines of communication were not even merely lengthy, they were non-existent. He had no ability to communicate with the land-bound Phillip, whose commands Medina was unwilling or unable to countermand, about changes of plan or the exigencies of the battlefield. Even more importantly, from first to last he had no direct communication line to Parma and his Netherlands-based invasion force. Given England's advantages of position and as the defender, in and of itself the failure of Medina and Parma to work together in attack was a defect likely fatal to the Spanish enterprise. Hanson's narrative compellingly contrasts this basic failure of leadership, and the differences between the English and Spanish structures, plans, crews, and commanders. But he does not draw the natural conclusion: This battle, like any other, was fought by desperate men, and the English made the most of their chances whilst the Spaniards made the least of their own.
   
   This apparent wrong turn in the analysis does not however detract from the quality of the book, and indeed it testifies to Hanson's objectivity for the evidence against his theory is found in his own pages, under his own hand. In one sense at least Hanson is correct: the English mauling of the Armada would never have been possible without their technological superiority. His mistake is merely in failing to note there were other, equally crucial, elements to the English victory.
   
   This is a very good, and perhaps great, book which is a profound addition to the literature of one of history's epochal confrontations.
   
   (** Hanson uses a badly flawed example to make his point. On page 385 he states "In our own era wars between Israel and the Arab nations have invariably ended in Israel's favour," which he attributes to the fact that "Israel is a U.S. client state and has been equipped with weapons that are decades ahead of those produced by the Arab world's principal suppliers, the states of the former Soviet Union."
   
   But Israel's last war against the armed forces of an Arab state was against Egypt, then a Soviet client state, in 1973. Indeed, Israel has never fought a significant action against an Arab national armed force supplied by states of the former Soviet Union.
   
   One may argue as to the technological differences between Soviet and U.S. arms supplied their clients in 1973, but the difference was not counted in "decades."
   
   Furthermore, in its penultimate war with Arab nation armed forces in 1967, Israel was effectively a client state of France, not the U.S. The U.S. flow of arms to Israel was minimal or nonextistent prior to the 1967 war and French President DeGaulle's decision to embargo arms to Israel three days before the start of the war, crippling Israel ability to resupply in an extended campaign, and breaking the Israel-France alliance dating to before the Suez campaign of 1956. In any event,
   French weaponry was not "decades" ahead of the Soviet weaponry in the hands of Egypt and Syria in 1967.
   
   Also noteworthy in reference to Hanson's main point is that the climax of the the 1967 War, in its opening hours, was the destruction on the ground of virtually the entire Egyptian air force. Obviously, the fact the Israeli's French Mirages were in the air, and their opponents' Soviet MIGs were parked on runways, does not speak to any technological advantage of French over Soviet weaponry.)



3. The Spanish Armada is one of those historical cliché about which I knew nothing other than the Spanish lost and it was a turning point. Neil Hanson's narrative account, "The Confident Hope of a Miracle" works to take away the cliché and make this iconic conflict come alive.
   
   The big takeaway from me was that Queen Elizabeth did nothing to help to defeat Armada. If anything her indecision, miserliness and quest for spoils, served to undermine the efforts of her subjects.
   
   The book also does a good job of showing how Philip the Second believed passionately in the "enterprise of England," the conquest of Queen Elizabeth's realm for religious reasons but that other Catholic monarchies weren't so ready let Catholic Spain speak or act for them.
   
   The contrast between the cultures, technology and strategies of Spain and England are very well delineated. The Spanish effort comes across as strategically flawed, cumbersome, massive and rigid while the English come across like guerilla warriors, opportunistic, flexible, smart and knowledgeable. Hanson acknowledges a weakness to the English approach in that they weren't prepared to press their advantage. There were times when they could have vanquished the Armada in battle but chose to preserve their options and resources. Given how badly the Armada ended up, mostly shipwrecked on the coast of Ireland, maybe the English had the right approach.
   
   There are a couple of weaknesses; the battle scenes are difficult to visualize. Because Mr. Hanson holds close to the documentary evidence, he doesn't have enough detail to always make the blow by blow account engrossing. Maybe he could have tried a different approach. Also, the secondary characters don't come across distinctly. I could tell who was Spanish and who was English but didn't have a good sense of the individual characters. And while the portraits of Philip the Second and Elizabeth are well drawn in the beginning chapters, they fade into the background for the remainder of the book. Is that really necessary?



4. I gave this book a "Good Plus" rating for three reasons:
   
   First, it's a compelling and cohesive narrative. It engages both intellect and emotion with rich, colorful language and good storytelling.
   
   Second, it paints a vivid and convincing sense of the times. It makes events come alive by skillfully knitting together the words and descriptions of a wide range of participants. While it clearly editorializes (lambasting the Virgin Queen among others) it also leaves plenty of room for the prime players to speak for themselves.
   
   Finally, I like the way that this book presents history. It depicts a major world-shaping event as the product of societal forces and human motivations that we readily recognize. It presents history, to quote Barbara Tuchman, as a "Distant Mirror" of our world today.
   
   On the down side: The book only partially avoids a common pitfall faced by histories of military events - too much reference to the record: too many names of too many ships and too many captains. While distracting at times, this flaw does little to detract from the otherwise well created (and sometimes stunning) drama of events.



5. This book was recommended to me by a friend, whose recommendations are always great. We both read a great deal of history and non-fiction and are always seeking good ones.
   He raved about this book and he was right. Some authors of history (David McCollough, William Manchester, Steven Ambrose, David Halberstam, Rick Atkinson, Hampton Sides, to name a few of my favorites) have a true gift of being able to take what could be the driest of facts and bring them to life in a most remarkable way.
   This book does the same. A detailed history of the Armada, and all that was going on in Europe at that time. Also a detailed account of why the Armada took place and the struggles between Queen Elizabeth and Mary Queen of Scots.
   I would highly recommend this book. It also has unusually good artwork and maps for a paperback.

5 comments about A Military History of the Western World (From the Defeat of the Spanish Armada to the Battle of Waterloo).

1. This book is for the person who has a generalized understanding of the time period covered but wants to learn more. The author seems to hate Americans, though.



2. Those who wish to understand not only the military history but also the underreported political undercurrents of those times will love this book and read it over and over again. By examining the failures by both military leaders and politicians in understanding the obvious lessons of their relatively recent past, they will gain valuable insights into our current condition.



3. Fuller offers an insightful blend of battlefield detail and the broader causes and effects for each engagement presented. He avoids one of the major shortcomings I have with a lot of other military history authors: bogging the reader down in pedantic minutiae.



4. I his three volume work Fuller, a prolific author and military historian, analyzes the development of western military science from ancient Egypt through the end of World War II using descriptions of a series of important battles linked together by short "chronicles" of the intervening years. The battles are clearly summarized and unnecessary details are avoided in favor of thoughtful and insightful analyses of the political and social impacts of military developments. The breadth of research is impressive and some of his ideas are fascinating.
   
   On the other hand, in this the third volume as the narrative approaches the author's lifetime he begins to lose his scholarly objectivity and his personal politics show through. When we reach the Russian revolution it becomes clear that Fuller was an hysterical anti-communist. Not surprising in a western military man writing in the 1950's. Less palatable are his fascist sympathies - yes, I mean the word literally. Apparently Fuller flirted with the British fascists before WWII, and his leanings are apparent in this volume. He writes with approval of Mussolini's and Hitler's rise to power and although he does mention the Nazi's persecution of the Jews during the pre-war years he does his best to soften their image ("brutality" is the harshest word he uses), while he ignores the holocaust itself completely. At the same time he vilifies FDR (whom he seems to think was mostly responsible for the outbreak of WWII) in the harshest terms at every opportunity and is often severely critical of Churchill as well. In the end his lack of objectivity undermines the entire second half of his book.
   
   Two examples will suffice: on pp. 372-4 he includes in full a quote from the Polish Ambassador in Washington, devoting nearly one and a half pages to it and describing it as "illuminating." The quote is packed with enough anti-Semitism that it could have come from Goebbel's Nazi propaganda machine. Second, in a footnote on page 504 Fuller characterizes the allied invasion of Vichy French territories in North Africa as "as flagrant an act of aggression against a neutral country as any perpetrated by Hitler." OK, technically it was a violation of French neutrality, but to equate it with Hitler's aggression ignores:
   1) The ink was not even try on Hitler's promise to respect Czechoslovakia's borders when he invaded them.
   2) Europe was at peace during the occupation of Czechoslovakia and was still at peace during the invasion of Poland.
   3) The Polish and Czech governments were universally recognized internally and externally, while a large percentage of the French refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Vichy government.
   4) The Poles resisted violently, as would the Czechs if Chamberlain had not just given away their frontier defenses. The French in North Africa, after some initial hesitation, welcomed and cooperated with the allies.
   5) The invasion of North Africa by the allies was a unique occurrence. In addition to Czechoslovakia and Poland, Hitler also invaded, unprovoked, neutral Denmark, Norway, Luxemburg, Belgium, and the Netherlands; not to mention the Soviet Union, with which he was supposedly allied.
   And so on. To compare the allies aggression with Hitler's is absurd, and unfortunately goes a long way to destroying the author's credibility.



5. I have just completed reading all three volumes of this eminently readable and enjoyable tome so I preface this review by asserting that the remarks apply to all three volumes.
   
   First of all, this is essentially one large "Decisive Battles of the West" type of study. Even at three large volumes, it is impossible for a "military history" to even approach comprehensiveness, but virtually every consensus "decisive battle" of history is present and fleshed out with prelude, narrative, and analysis. Fuller never loses sight of the context and meaning of the battle in the war in which it took place or in the greater history of the West. The battle narratives are generally thrilling and well discussed with ample geographical and battle maps to aid the reader.
   
   The massive nature of the study allows for Fuller to slowly unveil the evolution of military weaponry and its effect on both strategy and tactics (as well as political and social organization) but it would have been more helpful to the reader to have some pictures of the weapons. I had a hard time understanding terminology like "matchlock" and "flintlock."
   
   Fuller, a general himself, does get bogged down in the minutiae of the military narrative at times, with too much detail about formations and military organization and the marching chronology from town A to town B. Unless one is intimately familiar with the local geography or is an expert in a particular war, such details are pretty much useless. Nevertheless, the narrative is generally fluid and is punctuated by 'between battle" chronicles which are a nice refresher course in general Western political history. When Fuller is not speaking like a general talking to his officers about battle chronology, he is an enjoyable read. Either way, such portions can be easily skipped over without missing much of the story.
   
   Regarding the choices of battles for discussion, one wonders how a monumental battle like Milvian Bridge (where Constantine won while using the sign of the Cross) is omitted. The battle is never even mentioned. Yarmouk (636 AD) is another one that Fuller missed but deserves mention since, if the battle was lost, it could have made the Muslim ArabConquests stillborn. If Manzikert is decisive, why not Yarmouk? Caesar was almost defeated at the siege of Alesia by Vercengetorix, but incredibly survived by his brilliant double circumvallation. Yet Alesia is never mentioned. It is debatable whether Watling Street should have been omitted. Had the outnumbered Romans not annihilated the Boudica-led Iceni, could Britain have been lost to Rome and a Celtic stronghold been established? I think it deserves merit but Watling Street is never mentioned. If memory serves me correctly, the Siege of Vienna was likewise omitted from discussion.
   
   One can also criticize Fuller for his inclusion of the Russo-Japanese War, which took place in Asia, and the decision to discuss Chattanooga instead of Gettysburg in the American Civil War. To be fair, this is a military history and not a "decisive battles" collection and some of these battles are rarely considered decisive in other volumes (except Gettysburg of course).
   
   Where Fuller shines and where the volumes are most contributory is the heavy anti-PC discussion in the third volume. Here, Fuller (who was also an occultist) does not mince words and is refreshingly non-orthodox in his analysis and conclusions about the two world wars, on both the political and military levels. Wilson, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Truman are skewered by Fuller for being foolish and hypocritical ideologues that were more interested in ideology than pragmatism and chose to oppose one dictator by befriending another. Roosevelt particularly does not fare well under Fuller's brush and almost seems to have been prostrate before Stalin's feet.
   
   Fuller convincingly shows how Roosevelt forced America into war by compelling the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor. Further, he condemns the unnecessary atrocities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These views remain controversial but I wholeheartedly concur with Fuller on his conclusions. Of course, Hitler does not escape Fuller's critical eye and Hitler is shown clearly for having been much of the direct cause for Germany's failure due to Adolph's arrogant and persistent interference in military strategy. He faults Hitler for not taking all of North Africa when he had a chance, but also criticizes the Allies for attacking neutral French North Africa.
   
   Some of the WW2 analysis is now dated because we are in a post Soviet Empire era, but Fuller makes a strong case and, if the Soviet Empire did not collapse as it did, would still be pertinent today. It is simply inexcusable how the Allies could have allowed all of Eastern Europe to fall to Soviet hegemony. Nevertheless, Fuller does seem to be something of a Russophobe at times.
   
   Despite all of this focus here and in other reviews on 20th century warfare, the 20th century is only a small percentage of the three volumes. Terrific discussions of critical battles in the Persian Wars, Peloponnesian War, Punic Wars, Mithradatic Wars, Roman Civil Wars, Hunnish invasion, Justinian Wars, Muslim Conquests, Crusades, Hundred Years War, English Civil Wars, Thirty Years War, War of Spanish Succession, Great Northern War, Seven Years War, French and Indian War, American Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, American Civil War, and Franco-Prussian War are discussed at length.
   
   Some reviewers here could not handle the non-orthodoxy of Fuller's trenchant analysis and have resorted to inane epithets. This is to be expected by a heavily propagandized generation. The value of reading an impartial, erudite and accomplished general who writes well and who is not "owned" by any one side is worth the price of admission and the time required to absorb.

5 comments about Cautiva (Captive): Testimonio de un secuestro (Spanish Edition).

1. An emotional review of religious beliefs and how to occupy your time in the jungle. Nothing of substance.



2. This book has more of a personal surviving account without mixing so much with politics.
   It is more of a "coping mechanism" account of Clara Rojas while being on the jungle.
   Clara Rojas is extremately forgiving and her account does not provide the details of the FARC's that some people seek.
   Yet is worthy and it is a great book to read paired with the book "Out of Captivity" written by the three Americans.



3. I Love this book! was entertaining, sad. I could not put the book down, amazing what we humans can go through and still remain a great human being. Great story, great writing, Hilde Haynes



4. I was disappointed about how the story was written. The author was very contradictory in her story. First she stated that she wasn't going to get into the nitty gritty details about how people treated each other when held captive but then, later in the story, did just the opposite. And she always portrayed herself as the one who handled herself very well while others did not. She talked about being able to get along with everyone (the other captives) and they all liked her and looked up to her. Later one, she talks about having a falling out with Ingrid Bentacourt and as a result ends up being isolated as everyone sided with Ingrid.
   
   In short, there were several inconsistencies in her story making it hard to follow. From my own analytical perspective, I feel there were deeper emotional scars that Clara Rojas is trying to protect or overcome by appearing as being very brave and self-reliant.



5. La verdad que no vale la pena leer sobre como Rojas se queja de que secuestrada y en la selva nadie la ayuda. Realmente, qué esperaba? Era un secuestro, no una excursión al amazonas.
   
   Además, Rojas se dibuja como una martir que cayó victima del secuestro solo por ayudar a su amiga Ingrid Betancourt. Definitivamente no me gustó.