5 comments about 1634: The Ram Rebellion (The Assiti Shards).

1. Sorry about the terrible pun in the review title, given the subject matter of this book. But the book is a death march--a long slog through trivia that might be fascinating to a few Baen's Bar fanatics, but which the rest of us find pretty boring. The greatest thing about 1632 was the fact that it told a great story, which was strong enough to hold the history that was hung all over it. The storytelling isn't nearly as strong here, and the history weighs it down. Recommended for die-hard 1632 fans only.



2. To me, the best recommendation for a book is how often I re-read it after I have read it the first time. For example, most of my copies of Robert Heinlein's books and early Tom Clancy novels are almost worn out. By that note, this book gets low marks, unlike other books in this series. It is slow and confusing. Fans of the series probably should read this book as it does contain information important to other books in the series, but these are characters and stories you will soon forget. I have.



3. The Ram Rebellion details the exploits of the citizens of Grantville as they attempt to bring democracy to war-ravaged 17th century Germany. This installment in the Ring of Fire series is told in a series of short stories (written by many authors) from many points of view. In fact, there are too many points of view to make this tale anything beyond lackluster. There are too many "main" characters to focus on and we only really get to know a meager handful of them in any depth. (Despite this, some of the characters are quite interesting). This story would have been much better served had the multitude of authors focused on three or four characters instead of twenty or thirty.
   
   This tale succeeded, however, in one significant way. The primary author, Flint, makes it a point to mention in the preface that history is never made entirely by the "hero", but is lifted up and molded by the ordinary people swirling around the hero. The Ram Rebellion succeeds in highlighting this fact. Yes, there were too many characters to focus on. But those characters are creating history...and we get to read all about it.
   
   Despite this installment of the Ring of Fire's mediocrity, I am looking forward to reading more about the citizenry of Grantville as they struggle to make a new life for themselves in old Germany. I believe it is a story worth continuing.



4. I love the RoF series. I love the politics, intrigue, planing, and military actions. But this book is borderline horrible! The Ram Rebellion was fun for the first 20 to 30 pages, but then it just got old. Simply felt like bad filler in a worse dinner. How many pages about a dance instructor trying to figure out how to get a dance company up and running? It became a Seinfeld show. A book about 'nothing'. I have read maybe 1000 sci-fi/fantasy books. I can count on one hand how many I have just given up on or skipped through. This is one of them. This is the equivalent of a modern day reality show about little to nothing. Some may like that, some may love that. Good for you. I feel ripped off in time and money.
   
   I wont buy any more written by VD.



5. I have every single Ring Of Fire book, and in general, the series is among my favorite sci-fi works. Except for this one. This book is not only almost unrelated to the rest of the series internally, it consists of a series of incredibly inane anecdotes about raising sheep and rabbits. Certainly the dullest sci-fi book I own. The ONLY reason to read this one is because it's referenced from later works, in particular 1635 - The Dreeson Incident. You'd think that a character in a sci-fi novel should have a story at least as interesting as a normal person in real life - and this book sure misses that goal. Unless you're really, really keen on reading short children's stories about anthropomorphic rams (the sheep kind), this book is sure to disappoint.
   
   Skip this one - you'll thank me later.

5 comments about Ring of Fire II (v. 2).

1. Ring of Fire II (2008) is the second alternate history anthology in the Assiti Shards series. It contains a novella, fourteen short stories, two maps, and a preface by the editor.
   
   "Horse Thieves" by Karen Bergstrahl tells about the conflicts between downtime mercenaries working for Grantville and some uptimers.
   
   "Second Issue?" by Brad Sinor concerns the aftermath of "Here Comes Santa Claus" in RoF I, when the Grantville Times receives a story from a reporter who has stumbled onto the conspiracy.
   
   "Diving Belle" by Gunnar Dahlin & Dave Freer is about a librarian who will do almost anything to get back some stolen books and the effects of her actions upon Stockholm.
   
   "A Gift from the Duchess" by Virginia DeMarce relates the story of the loan of three plague specialists to the disease ridden city of Kronach.
   
   "Lucky at Cards" by Andrew Dennis describes a high stake card game with the brother of the French king.
   
   "A Trip to Amsterdam" by Gorg Huff & Paula Goodlett is a story about high finance and the siege of Amsterdam.
   
   "This'll Be the Day" by Walt Boyles recounts the deeds of Father Friedrich Spee von Langenfeld on the day of his former death.
   
   "Command Performance" by David Carrico illustrates the impact of uptime music on the elite of Magdeburg and Europe.
   
   "Ellis Island" by Russ Rittgers recounts the tribulations of a peasant family immigrating to Grantville.
   
   "Malungu Seed" by Jonathan Cresswell-Jones is about an African Jesuit layman who has an urgent mission in Grantville and elsewhere.
   
   "Trials" by Jay Robison reveals the trials of an Italian artist and a Grantville housewife.
   
   "The Chase" by Iver P. Cooper shows the perils of a teenage crush on a English aristocrat.
   
   "Eddie and the King's Daughter" by K.D. Wentworth tells of the shaky beginning of Eddie's relationship with Anne Cathrine.
   
   "Second Thoughts" by Virginia DeMarce discloses the events leading to marriage between the parents of Noelle Brigitte Murphy.
   
   "The Austro-Hungarian Connection" by Eric Flint is the novella. It describes a very unusual romance between Noelle Brigitte Stull and a Hungarian officer.
   
   Highly recommended for Ring of Fire fans and for anyone else who enjoys tales of alternate history and cultural mixing.
   
   -Arthur W. Jordin



2. Edric Flint provides a fine sequel set to 1632 in RING OF FIRE II, a set of new stories surrounding the time-swept town introduced in 1632. From a new story by Flint of a Hungarian officer's theft of new technology and an American agent's search for the missing papers to a cardinal's plot even as civil war threatens France, new scenarios and political encounters fill out the 1632 scenario and create gripping new action plots.



3. Ring of Fire II presents a set of side stories to accompany the 1632 series, painting a rich tapestry of changes, small and large, that occur when the Grantville, WV, of the year 2000 mysteriously materializes in the middle of 17th-century Germany.
   
   You should NOT read this book without first having read 1632, 1633, and Ring of Fire, so you shouldn't need a review to decide to read the book; by the time you get this far into the series, you either like the premise or you don't. For myself, I like it!



4. 2 stars + as its better than average but uneven even for an anthology.
   
   Most of the stories are continuations of others in the series and do not stand alone. Paradoxically the best "Ellis Island" does. Eric Flints novella can nearly stand alone the rest vary widely.
   
   If you haven't read at least most of the books in the series including the rather peripheral 1634: The Ram Rebellion (The Assiti Shards) and the 1634: The Bavarian Crisis (The Assiti Shards) as well as many of the Grantville Gazette V and the rest of them (mostly online) these will not make sense; particularly "Second Issue" and a "Trip to Amsterdam".
   
   Most of the stories are 2 star with some 3s and one nearly 4 star (Eric Flint) and one 5 star "Ellis Island" but are dragged down by VD'Ms 2 efforts . While "Gift From a Duchess" has a great premise and solid historical research it is too diffuse with too many characters. Compared to "Lucky At Cards" where Richelieu, Mazarin and a crony embarrass Gaston at a card game (Gaston had been putting around rumors that Mazarin was in debt due to loosing at cards and then Gaston gets cleaned out). Frankly; reading VD'Ms "Second Thoughts" it occurred to me--putting my Editors hat on--that most of the authors, in this series and not just this book, suffer from too many sub plots and could benefit from reading The Cheaters Guide to Writing Erotic Romance For Publication and Profit. Eric can manage a lot of characters and sub plots although he bogs down in "The Austrio Hungarian Connection" but in spite of her ability to make historical characters interesting--If not always to bring them to life and her understanding of the history; V'DM looses her way consistently in the excess characters and sub plots. Almost every story in this antholgy needs to be tightened up. Shorts and novellas are very hard to write and several of the authors (particularly VD'M) suffer from Sam Clemmons problem "I didn't have time to write you a short letter so I wrote a long one...".
   
   Overall a decent read for series heads better skipped buy anyone else.



5. This book is a series of shorter stories by others set in the world of 1632. They each show a different aspect of life and the growth of a modern nation out of chaos and plague. The stories are well written and very interesting to read. As with the original, I am spending quite a bit of time researching what I am reading everything from the thirty years war and its major players to card games. The research isn't necessary, but I sometimes find my curiosity aroused.

5 comments about No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War (Bluejacket Books).

1. I had an opportunity to visit Corregidor Island (Philippines)a few months ago and got quite interested in the history of WWII.
   
   When I found out that the last Japanese soldier didn't surrender for nearly 30-years after the war was over I couldn't believe it. Then I found out that he had written a book about his life and specifically his time as a soldier.
   
   A very interesting read. This may be hard to believe, but it explains why he never gave up during those 29+ years on Lubang Island. Gave the book to a friend of mine and they enjoyed it as well.



2. An interesting look at one mans war. This book tells of its authors survival and his thoughts as he lived in the jungle, and fought a war that had ended 30 years ago. He explains why he didn't believe that the war had ended, and how he survived, and evaded capture for so long.



3. I've given 'No Surrender' five stars simply because it is such an incredible testimony of Japanese...and human...determination. Onoda's story is especially striking when we compare it to the reaction of the majority of Americans [granted, primarily noncombatants] to the prolonged wars of Vietnam and Iraq. By extrapolation, 'No Surrender' shows the enormous challenge American civilization faces when dealing with more austere and dedicated cultures such as we now face in the form of Islamic fundamentalism. It is difficult to escape the probability that even the
   'Great Generation' i.e. those Americans of WWII, probably could have never prevailed against the Japanese had the Japanese had half of America's resources and industrial capacity. I've read that the Americans produced more war materiel in one month than did Japan during the entire course of the war. Men like Onoda were simply crushed by American industry...not by superior American courage or warcraft.
   
   Even so, Onoda's story is still a strange one. He and his small band of holdouts subsisted and probably fought on for thirty years following the cessation of hostilities. He wasn't alone. A Japanese soldier surrendered in Guam and a few other places many years after the war was over. Why? Onoda claims that it was because the final instructions he'd received from his officers... "The Americans will try to tell you the war is over. Don't believe them. Japan will fight on indefinitely." Surely this is what Onoda believed for the first few years. Later, however, when he saw little evidence of continuing war, it must have at least occurred to him that the War might be over. Even if he thought Japan would never quit, it must have occurred to him that Japan may have won the war and his continuing resistance was pointless.
   
   I'm left with the suspicion that all these thoughts may well have gone through his mind...but...he may have killed Filipinos following some unknown peace treaty and may have been held up to humiliation and punishment. Maybe. Then again, Onoda and the others may have fed mentally and emotionally on one another. Without the arrival of new Japanese forces, he may have assumed the war still continued. Shot at by the Filipinos and eventually losing all of his comrades, Onoda may have crawled into a shell of suspicion and paranoia. The fact that he wouldn't respond to Japanese who tried to get him to turn himself in is telling. Ultimately, he only turned himself in because his old commanding officer came to his island and ordered him to surrender.
   
   Yeah, kind of crazy but WHAT a man Onoda was. I understand that he immigrated to Peru where he set up courses in bushcraft and survival. I also understand that survivalists from all over the world flocked to his school. Good. I wish I could have met him.
   
   Ron Braithwaite, author of novels--'Skull Rack' and 'Hummingbird God'--on the Spanish Conquest of Mexico



4. My War succeeds in demonstrating the motivations of this famous Japanese holdout from World War II. Onoda excused himself very little, which actually helps give a sympathetic understanding of the man. This is a pleasant blend of survival, history, and personal memoir. The reflections on his youth are especially useful in humanizing Onoda. His determination might not be praised as highly in our more politically correct terrain, but he carried out what he was trained to do. There is reason that the Japanese were overwhelmed with emotion upon his return decades later. His persistence bestowed the honor that defeat withheld.



5. The controversial Mr. Onoda tells his tale of wilderness survival in this enthralling autobiography.
   
   There are two ways to view his self-inflicted ordeal.
   
   On one hand, Onoda demonstated the highest valor in his adherance to orders. He had been deployed into the jungles of the Phillipines, instructed to live off the land, and conduct guerilla warfare against Allied personnel. He persevered for thirty years, suviving on very little, carefully maintaining his deteriorating weapons, uniform, and equipment. In short, he demonstated an ingenious level of self-reliance in a hostile environment, ...for three decades! This is a testament to the potentials of human endurance.
   
   On the other hand...
   Onoda and his small group of soldiers did in fact commit some serious crimes against the Phillipino citizens around them. This can not be forgotten.
   How could an intelligent man such as Onoda not rationalize the facts of his observations, and realize that his war was long over? Certainly he must have noted that it had been years since he had encountered any Allied troops. In fact, for years after the war, many Japanese citizens traveled to the various remote islands of the Pacific, where they implored their veterans to come home. Onoda and his men heard such loud-speaker broadcasts, but chose to disregard them. It was 1974 when a college student, on a lark, decided to locate the notorious man by himself. Onoda did not lay down his sword and rifle until his former commanding-officer arrived in person, to give the surrender order.
   
   Onoda, the sole survivor of his group, had needlessly lived in absolute solitude for much of his time in the wilds. He returned to a Japan that was unrecognizeable, in regard to the nation he had left in the 1940s.
   
   Two questions come to mind:
   
   -If Onoda had surrendered and gone home in 1945 or 1946, what manner of more constructive activity might he have devoted his life to for those thirty years?
   
   -Onoda was the last KNOWN Japanese soldier to surrender. Were there in fact OTHER Japanese veterans STILL surviving in the wilderness of some Pacific islands? Its very likely to be the case. How many others lingered on, in isolation, after 1945, ...only to die alone and forgotten?

5 comments about 1633.

1. The exceptional thing about this series is the humor Flint lets his characters find in their lives in the stories. The everyday and common canundrums that afflict us all aflict these folks too and, they deal with it without the cold grimness that is so often emphasized in SF. This ain't slapstick but the jokes are still great.



2. Where 1632 was full of wonder, action and discovery, 1633 is much heavier into political discussion and heavy duty strategy. I did not like it nearly as much but the last third moves along at a good clip.



3. As he opened the laptop and waited for it to find a wireless connection, David's thoughts turned--naturally enough given the subject at hand--to the literary problem of exposition. How is an author to tell his reader what she needs to know? Exposition, he remembered, is particularly a problem for the author of historical fiction, because the actions, the motives, even the toilet habits of the characters (and that thought made him recall how very lightly Eric Flint and his co-writers touch upon toilet functions in their expository passages, other than saying the facilities are "primitive." Odd, that, considering the first song in the musical Urinetown is "Too Much Exposition.") Indeed, everything about a character can depend critically on the social and political milieu of the times, so in order to make the character's actions believable, or simply understandable, it is necessary to acquaint the reader with the times, the customs, the key historical figures (and their features and quirks). Possibly several times. Clicking on the Amazon link, he recalled how exposition is essential also in science fiction, since, just as with history, the reader needs to be oriented to the unfamiliar world where the characters will be playing their parts, as soon as the exposition is out of the way, if it ever is. And with a book that is both historical and science fantasy, exposition is doubly needed. Waiting for the many Amazon ads and widgets to load, he recalled how fiction guru Robert Kernen said exposition could be "the quickest way to kill a plot's momentum and get your story bogged down in detail," and that brought to mind the passage -- indeed more than a passage, an entire chapter -- of "1633" in which a character carrying an important message walks a couple of blocks. He is walking at the start of the chapter, and still walking at the end, the message undelivered; but during the walk he has mused for the reader's benefit, on naval architecture, the political situation, his superiors and their relations to other characters. An entire chapter of a character ruminating on exposition, and not the first chapter but one in the middle of the book. Clicking on the "review this book" link, David considered how this pretty much justifies the term "expository dump" and truthfully could be said to verge on "expository superfund site." Considering all these things, he wondered if it would ever be possible to actually begin the action of reviewing. Well, why bother, he asked himself; it is clearly possible to write an entire book composed of exposition; why not a review?



4. 1633 is the sequel to 1632. Not much of a surprise there if you know your numbers. However, we are looking at books here and this book (1633) is the sequel to the earlier one, although the text constantly talks of this book taking place two years after the first one. So, the authors may be arithmetically challenged. They also seem challenged on getting all the plot elements in place as this very long book (670+ pages) seems to drag on and on in the beginning. the pace picks up quite a bit in the last 100-150 pages as the expected battles take place. However, what does take place in the first 500 pages is many scenes that set the stage for many books to come.
   
   Let's reprise a little here. The premise of 1632 was to look at what might happen when a small slice of 20th century America is transposed into the past and plunked down in the middle of the 30 years war in central Germany. 1632 was a fun romp with that in mind and of course, the technologically superior Americans managed to establish a mini-country that is organized on democratic lines. Duh! Now, two years later, what we find is that the mini-America is trying to initially remain independent and out of the fighting, but is immersed in the fighting between King Gustav of Sweden and Cardinal Richelieu of France. But it's not enough that they are on the side of King Gustav - they are trying to pull down the aristocratic society and create a modern democracy in Germany that predates the real emergence of this movement in the world by almost 250 years!
   
   When you set yourself such a monumental task, it is no wonder that most of the fun is gone from this book. This also explains why we see some plot threads come about and then appear to fritter away to nothingness - presumeably to reappear on one of the promised future volumes. However, there is also a lot of stuff that should have been excised from this book. For instance, huge parts of the book discuss the politics of Grantville and then of the rest of Europe and many names are dropped in the process. While this is a testament to the historical research that the authors conducted, I am not sure that understanding the family relationships between this minor count and that minor duke is really moving this story forward. Another irritating aspect of this section is the constant proselytizing of how much better a world controled by unions is. On the other hand, in this book the "bad industrialist" is transformed into one of the most helpful and apolitical people who inhabit the book. Go figure?
   
   The cover shows the front view of a huge warship, and the story talks about warships that will go up and down rivers (different for sure than the cover), however when the battle scenes erupt in the last few pages of the book, we see that the American Navy consists of three speedboats!? Huh? It was thrilling to read of the differences between the modern equipment battling the sailing ships, but eventually the readers has to start asking how can all that equipment still be functioning without the spport of the whole industrial world that was available in 20th or 21st century America?
   
   Another part where you have to suspend your disbelief to a huge extent is the emphasis paid on how the other countries all manage to steal history books from Grantville and read them to see what the future will hold, and then take action to modify those futures. Of course, just the appearance of Grantville will have changed the future, but never mind that. What interests me is why the other countries choose to steal only history books and not focus on the technical and science books that would allow them to reduce the technological advantage that the Americans have? Doesn't seem to make much sense.
   
   Anyway, I took off one star because of the dreary politics, the long drawn-out discussions of the philosophies and the utterly unbelievable passages (the Jewish woman who negotiates as an equal with Richelieu who at the end of the book starts swearing at a Rabbi while adopting a baby, etc.). I am interested in reading the next one in the series in the hopes that it goes back to the fun and games of the first one.



5. This series is one of those ideas that we've all had, what if we could go back in time....
   
   1633 was decent. I could definitely tell that this was a 'collaboration' since Weber's style of writing is a little bit different from Flint's but I don't think most people will catch that.
   
   I basically read this non-stop over two days. The only complaint I have is I was confused as all hell on which book was the 'sequel' to 1632. For Pete's sake guys, I almost just said to hell with it and stopped reading the series. I had to jump online to make heads or tails of what book was next.
   
   Personally, Ring of Fire may be a good book, but I just don't want to waste time with filler short stories (that's just me).
   
   Anyways, I liked 1633 though it seemed to have less action than 1632 but it was still enjoyable. I'm getting into the characters and look forward to 1634 which as near as I can tell, "The Baltic Wars" is the next book in the series.
   
   Could you guys make it any more confusing? For crying out loud, we developed a number system a few thousand years ago for a reason. How about using it :)
   
   Book 1, Book 2, Book 3, etc. etc.

5 comments about 1634: The Baltic War (The Ring of Fire).

1. If you have not read the prior books, don't buy this one. I was suckered in to buy it because my family has a history of technology for this time and area. The technology in the book is pathetic, what anthropologists call cultural egocentrism. If the local people could do it, the authors ignore their technology and set up "modern" valves, etc., that blew up. Or how about the line, "Paul positively adored pump-action shot guns.
   Clickety-BOOM, clickety-BOOM, . . .." This sort of thinking assumes earlier people are stupid. 1634 is not that far back in time.
   
   Wikipedia says this book is the second half of a novel. I wish I had read that before. This book does not set up characters, plot, or motivations. Now I know, we are supposed to already understand these basics of all good books. I am really angry I spent my money on it. I feel I was suckered in.



2. Read 1632 and 1633 and enjoyed both. Read Galileo Affair,Baltic War and the first 300 pages of Bavarian Crisis. The last three are pretty devoid of action, something Flint is suppose to be known for. Mostly all that is written about is politics and empire building with way too many characters involved all over the Baltic and European countries. I had put 1632 and 1633 in my keepers to be read over again but after the last three is a seemingly infinite series



3. Here is where you finally get the long-anticipated confrontation between the forces backed by Grantville's 'uptime' residents and the cabal of 'down-time' tyrants arrayed against them. Compared to this book, the Battle of Wismar at the end of 1633 is just a tease. In THE BALTIC WAR we are treated to the face-to-face confrontation between armies supported by modern-day ingenuity and those employing hardware and tactics of the 17th century. While the outcome is completely predictable and expected, it is still an exciting read, and Flint and Weber succeed in giving the story some much needed new life.
   
   Getting back on track with the primary storyline here was certainly something desperately needed with this series. After having read The Galileo Affair, The Ram Rebellion, and The Cannon Law, I was frankly ready to give up on this series. While none of those books are exactly terrible, they also failed to meet the promise of the setting, mostly dealing with isolated political situations, and all having been mostly written by other authors. Thankfully, THE BALTIC WAR delivers on its promise to bring the story back to where it needs to be, picking up right at the end of 1633 (the novel). Actually, if I were to recommend the series to a friend, I would suggest just skipping all the periphery novels and stick with the primary three books.
   
   THE BALTIC WAR is longer than it needs to be, with new characters and a few seemingly irrelevant miniplots being introduced (and exhaustively developed), but I can forgive that when presented along with [IMO] some of the most exciting and anticipated moments of the entire series. I'm not sure if I'll read more of the series, as this book's ending feels like a good place to put the story to rest, but I'll applaud Flint's effort for this strong addition.



4. The first two books I blazed through them in 2 days easy. But this book i'm halfway through and am forcing myself to continue. It is slow and in some places rather boring. It's almost as if a different author decided to write this with the instructions to focus on the mundane. There are whole chapters that should be flat out deleted.
   
   Maybe if I were a history buff I would get more out of it. But the first two books I thought were incredible despite my knowledge of history.
   
   Hate to say it, but they lost the magic recipe in this one and I seriously doubt if i'll even finish this book which is a shame because I absolutely loved the first two.
   
   *****
   
   OK just finished reading it. Suffice to say, it does really pick up after the 1st half. In fact, I would probably have cut out about 50% of the 1st half of the book, easily.
   
   Because of the last part, i'll upgrade my rating from two stars to three stars.
   
   But i'm not hopeful for the next book in the series. Well see how that goes.



5. I understand that many people love the the Ring of Fire series. However, I tried to read the first three books and found them tedious, self-congratulatory [without justification), and very poorly written.
   
   The excessive volume of words devoted to "gee whiz" explanations of technology - such as with the reconstruction of an airplane- were boring. It was as if the writers just "cut and pasted" text without regard to style. Also, the smug tone of the series, particularly when dealing with warfare, is sickening in parts. Wow, who would have guessed that the heros could wipe out so many enemies by using weapon technologies from the future? Lame. Finally, the worst part is that these books are written poorly. How many times do the protagonists "chuckle," for example? I think the concepts behind the books are cool, but the execution (no pun intended) is awful. Avoid at all costs!

5 comments about 1632 (The Assiti Shards).

1. Other reviewers have already ably detailed the myriad shortcomings of this book and I won't rehash their points in huge detail. I'd just like to appeal to prospective readers to save yourself money and several precious hours of your life, which you'll never get back - and just avoid this book like the plague.
   
   I'm a fan of fantasy fiction and am quite happy to 'suspend disbelief' in order to enjoy a story, but there are limits, good grief. I'm also a socialist, so I have no problems with the aim to write a story about the 'ordinary man' rather than focusing on princes and generals. However, I agree with other reviewers about the poor quality of writing and character development, and the way in which both the Americans and the 17th Century people adapt so rapidly is utterly unbelievable. A better writer would have been able to explore more profoundly the clash of cultures, attitudes and ethics between the two groups - this is a huge missed opportunity. In particular, this was a time of high passions and fanatically held religious beliefs - I find it utterly incredible that the Germans would have looked at the Americans and thought 'they don't seem to be worried about religious differences and they have Catholics, Protestants and Jews living together happily - good idea, I'll follow along'. They'd have been at each others throats in no time. They also seem to make light of language barriers in a way which does little to add to the credibility of the story.
   
   A particularly jarring element for me was the jingoistic patriotism of the viewpoint - I sense from the reviews that this is at least irritating for American readers and for non-Americans it's unbearable.
   
   Put it all together and it's just a bad, silly, shallow, irritating waste of time. I can't believe someone with a history degree could perpetrate something with so little insight into the culture and the times. Trees gave their lives for this ........



2. While I think S.M. Stirling's 'Island in the Sea of Time' was a better example of a time traveling town, this one is not without it's charms. In this novel, the good people are very good and the bad guys are bad thru and thru. The people - both the Americans and the Germans - adjusted to their new reality very fast and they were able to get quite a few modern conveniences up and running a little too quickly. But, after saying all that, it's still an fun read.
   
   I don't think this was intended to be historically accurate or a literary treasure. It was supposed to be entertaining and it succeeded in that quite nicely. I have already gotten the sequel, 1633, and plan to start reading it soon.
   
   I got this book as a kindle version directly from the publisher. There were no formatting errors per se, but the spaces between paragraphs were a bit large.



3. I didn't mind the book at first, and its depiction of Appalachia is sound, but the more I read of it the more exasperated I became.
   
   To take a vice characteristic of both sides in a conflict, and depict one side as completely innocent of that vice, and the other side as evil on account of that vice, is intellectually dishonest, and is exactly what this author does. After Westphalia, the Swedes had a reputation for being nasty to the civilian population even by the standards of the era, but there is not a word of that in this book. (We also see plenty of the evil of the Austrians' Croat light cavalry, but the Hackapells are depicted as if they were angels of the battlefield, when in reality they were as bad as the Croats or worse.)
   
   Nor is there a single word of the fact that Gustavus Adolphus was fighting for Sweden, not for Protestantism; or that Richelieu was fighting for France and to hurt the Habsburgs -- not for Catholicism. (He is utterly out-of-character in this novel.) The author even has the audacity to say that had Gustavus Adolphus won, Adolf Hitler would never have come to power -- but it was Adolphus, the French, and the Protestants in general who were responsible for the Westphalian system of sovereign states, in which, to use the term of a French jurist of the era, "the king can do no wrong." Which of these sounds more Hitler-friendly: a system in which the king is responsible to no man (and his subjects are taught to do his will unconditionally), or a system in which he has superiors (the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope) who can and will depose him if he gets out of control, and in which his subordinate know that if the king orders them to do something evil, they are to resist him to the death?
   
   The Second World War is excessively on this author's mind; so perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that his style of propaganda is familiar from it. Summarize it this way: Gustavus Adolphus gets the Josef Stalin treatment in this book, depicted as a hero because he's working on the main character's side -- after all, whoever's on the main character's side is a good guy, and good guys are not capable of doing anything wrong, by definition.
   
   This is without even bothering to point out that the Black Legend is a flat-out lie, invented by a woman who tortured more people for death for religious reasons in her reign alone than the Spanish Inquisition did over the course of its 350-year existence.
   
   If you want a plausible novel set in the Thirty Years' War, which doesn't arbitrarily designate villains and warp the historical record until they fit, read The Adventures of Simplicius Simplicissimus, a novel by an actual veteran of the war (and which, unlike most works of its era, is still eminently readable). Avoid this piece of dreck: it starts out plausible, entertaining, even gripping, then proceeds to go insane.



4. So, I've seen this book on the shelves for years at B&N, and finally decided to read it. Glad I did. Book was very entertaining.
   
   I'm not a historian and cannot vouch for the accuracy, but I don't really care. All I care about is the entertainment factor and it has that in spades.
   
   Look forward to reading the next book in the series.



5. I saw this book, with it's wretched cover art, on bookstore shelves for years before my spouse picked up a copy and I started reading it.
   
   I will admit that history was not a primary interest of mine in school, probably because I never had a teacher whom I felt cared enough to create any interest in anything other than memorizing dry facts - torture, at best. I have to admit that two books started wholesale research efforts on my part which ended up costing me a lot to obtain history books on their subjects: Sunne in Splendor by Sharon Kay Penman for histories of the Wars of the Roses and Richard the Third, and this one for histories of the hundred Years War and Gustavus Adolphus, Count Tilly, and Wallenstein.
   
   Loved this book. Ignore the cover art (which appears to be aimed an teenage gamers), and just read the darn thing.

5 comments about The Thirty Years War (New York Review Books Classics).

1. Wedgewood's history was written in 1938, when the German states were "reunified" under under Nazi rule into the "Third Reich", so she approaches the question of the 30-year civil war of the "First Reich", or Holy Roman Empire, from this perspective. She refers to the monument still standing on the battlefield of Breitenfeld, which commemorates the struggle for "freedom of belief", as a forgotten relic of a bygone age. However, she added the footnotes and the bibliographical endnote to this edition in the 1960s, so the references were updated to that time.
   
   It still has a well-deserved reputation of being a solid factual account of the war, which was insanely complex as well as terrifyingly violent. As with most historians of her era, she concentrates on the narrative facts: who raised an army from where, where they marched it to, who they met, the battles they fought, and the results. However, its great strength is that she adds short but pithy character sketches of the main protagonists, which are good enough to be helpful, and opinionated enough to be intriguing. This prevents the story from getting bogged down, and holds the reader's interest well. At times she also goes into details of the collapse of civil society, and the horrific human consequences of the war, but perhaps not as much as a more modern author probably would have.
   
   As with many popular works, she has a strong set of opinions, amounting really to a bias, but as with any popular work, this also helps to keep the reader's interest, whether you agree or disagree with her. For her, the Austrian and Imperial ruling family, the Habsburgs, can almost do no wrong. When Ferdinand II or Ferdinand III demand new rights and powers as the emperors of the the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, she describes them as taking the normal sorts of steps that political leaders did at the time, who were always seeking to enhance their own grandeur. Of course, she has a point, that we cannot so easily judge an historical political figure by the standards of our own day. Nevertheless, when anyone opposed to the Habsburgs resists, she describes them as rashly putting the unity of the German nation at risk. When anyone other than the Habsburgs seeks to enhance their own power within the empire, they are, for her, recklessly endangering the nation to further their personal ambition. Characters like Maximilian of Bavaria and Wallenstein, are, for her, acting wisely in the empire's best interests while they are fighting for the Habsburgs, but when they deviate from their alliance, they are succumbing to personal ambition and endangering the prospects of peace and Geman unity. After each great defeat for the Protestant cause, she describes their despair with gusto, and describes the elation of the Habsburgs and the Catholics with glee. When crucial battles go the other way, she often tends to mitigate the consequences.
   
   Her spin on the events does not detract however from one's enjoyment, and it is the first account of the war I have read that lays out the sequence of events with such clarity and detail. In fact, her account is factual and detailed enough for a fair observer to be able to conclude at the end, despite all her spin, that the war was started primarily by the Austrian Habsburgs' determination to enhance their power by bluster, legal pressure, and if that failed, by sheer armed violence. The Austrian Habsburgs stood firmly in the way of any peace agreement, and succeeded at different times in alienating all their supporters, including their relatives in Spain, and even the Pope. The war only finally ended when the supply of funds from the Habsburgs' Spanish colonies dried up, and the Habsburg crown was bankrupt. Even so, her criticism of the unreasonableness of the Swedes, the other German princes, the Dutch, the French, and the free German cities, is not always misplaced.
   
   As the book goes on, she gives brief descriptions of the famines, the plagues, the massacres, and the other terrifying consequences, showing the kind of pacifist sadness of the pity of war common to her era. The consequences of the Thirty Years War were so horrific that they need little embellishment to cause shock, and it almost staggers belief that a whole population of such a size could be brought to such a level of desperation and suffering. Alhtough she could have given more detail here, this kind of digression into social history was not conventional for a historian of her era, and there are many other books which cover that.
   
   I'd found Schiller's history of the war hard to follow, and Wedgewood filled the gap quite nicely. One of the best parts of the book is the first few chapters, where she gives a lively description of the constitution of the Holy Roman Empire, and a description of the constitutions of the different states, the nature of the differing religious sects, and the personalities of the main protagonists. This is essential for understanding what comes next and why people acted as they did. Without this description, the entire story is hard to follow. The book is worth getting for this section alone, but the rest is also good.



2. Narrating a war of this duration and complexity cannot have been easy work, and the description of Wedgwood as "the greatest narrative historian of the twentieth century" may well be justified. I cannot endorse the statement unequivocally because I have not read them all and am in any case not a historian, but this is one of the most serious and thorough works I have encountered. It is a little on the heavy side for the lay reader, although admirably clear, and I might have docked a star but for its magisterial heft.
   
   The thing that most strikes me about the book is the gut-wrenching horror of the suffering described. Wars always entail horrific suffering and in any case the life of the peasant in the Europe of the time was subject to such strictures that one can hardly imagine war making it worse. Well, imagine again, gentle reader. For 30 years of at times quite sustained conflict, vast armies encamped and decamped across Germany like a plague of heavily-armed locusts, eating the land literally bare. Such hatred was inspired that at times the armies were almost fighting a war of the combatants against the civilian population, and the protagonists struggled to feed, let alone pay, their troops. The civilians themselves, when not butchered, were subject to such hunger that they would boil leather clothing, dig up their dead or be found frozen with their mouths full of fibrous grass. Atrocities took place repeatedly. Magdeburg, in particular, was razed to the ground to the last building aside from the Church - of course - and only a small handful of inhabitants survived. I understand that the town has an air of blight to this day which I now suspect stemmed from the evil of that time. Later the taunt of "Magdeburg Quarter" was heard when Habsburg troops attempted vainly to surrender.
   
   The second thing that strikes one is the sheer complexity of the state that was known at the time as the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. The involvement of the Swedes was known to me at the time of reading as I lived for some years in Überlingen, where Schwedentag is still celebrated. However, I was not aware of the extent to which the Empire was actually a conglomerate of tiny fiefdoms and electorates with a patchwork of different confessions. The country was not divided down the middle into Habsburgs versus Swedes and Bourbons, but made up of such tiny statelets that the addition of religious division must have resembled the scene in the Evil Dead 2 where the hero's hand is possessed by a demon and beats him over the head with a series of plates.
   
   It has to be said that while this war started as an act in the play of the Reformation, with the Defenestration and the rebellion in Bohemia, it lost some of its religious character as time went on. It was a generational war, and perhaps it is not surprising that its aims and alliances shifted somewhat. With the entry of the Swedes and then the Bourbons, it shifted from a straight counter-Reformational conflict, which might be described as the failed Last Crusade, to a war of dynasties, and the result was the final end of Habsburg dominance and the Holy Roman Empire. It might plausibly said that this war ushered in the modern world and put an end to the Middle Ages, although I am not sure that professional historians demarcate the periods thus.
   
   There are some rather dashing figures which make the book easier reading, in particular the charismatic Swedish King Gustavus, who fell in battle and without whom the Swedes were almost instantly a spent force. In one entertaining episode, we find him reconnoitring by the Danube, where he is hailed by insolent enemy troops from the other bank as to the whereabouts of their King. "Nearer than you think!" he hails back and wheels about. He is probably the nearest this dismal period of history with so many dismal leaders comes to a chivalrous knight.
   
   This is a book of grand ambition and no little corresponding success. It is not light entertainment, but if you are interested in the formation of modern Europe or the history of the Reformation this book has to be in your collection.



3. I knew very little about the Thirty Years War going into this one. I thought it was a predominantly German war, but beyond that I didn't know. To my surprise I learned a great deal about this ever so important war from Wedgwood's superb and well documented history.
   
   This war was a strange one in that the major players of the war kept changing sides with one another. Add to that the mercenary soldiers who would just as easily fight for either side and you have a weird interaction between opposing forces that ultimately dragged the war on longer than it probably would have. The principle aggressors, obviously, stayed their course, by the likes of Saxony, Bavaria, Brandenburg and so on oscillated from side to side. Siding with the Swedes and then against them in order to oust foreign intervention. It made for a rollercoaster of a war.
   
   Wedgwood did a fantastic job in compiling her research and then forming it in to an easily accessible narrative history. Her grasp of the nuances of specific territories made my understanding of this time period a lot easier to relate how each territory effected one another and why they ultimately were fighting. The shocker for me was reading how big of a role Sweden played in furthering the initially religious war, and then to eventually turning it in to a territorial war when France became a major player. In both the destruction caused was way over the top and extremely destructive to the land, in some case not recovering for over 2 centuries. I understood why armies did this to the lands they went through, to deprive their enemy of any sustenance or ability to harvest food or create an economy, but this war seemed to be a lot more harsh than other wars to that time.
   
   I would certainly recommend this book for any interested in time period. Wedgwood navigates through the religious and territorial conflicts that shaped modern Europe and ultimately had a large part in the wars of the 20th century.
   
   4.5 stars.



4. This author is amazing. Her choice of words is poetic and a joy to read . She successfully paints an understanding of the ploitical, cultural, and religious environment that made the historical events a natural consequence of the environment. I reread chapter one three times: first for enjoyment, second, for knowledge, and third for enjoyment.



5. This is really a quite excellent book about a difficult and confusing episode in history. Wedgwood (yes, she is related to the porcelain people) does a very admirable job of disentangling the many threads that wind their way through the events so that even a reader completely unfamiliar with the story can follow along and understand not only what happened, but to some extent why and, more importantly, what the ramifications were.
   
   That this book remains perhaps the single best work on the subject more than 70 years after it was written is a real testament to both the scholarship and writing skill that characterize it. That Wedgwood was able to write such an illuminating text while still in her twenties is all the more remarkable.
   
   If you want an introduction to a pivotal turning point in Europe's transition from the Middle Ages to modern times, you cannot do better than this book. The one caveat that makes me withhold that fifth star is that Wedgwood gives very short shrift indeed to the enormous suffering that ravaged Central Europe for the 30 years of the war. By all accounts the horrors afflicting the civilian population almost defy belief: starvation, plague, the depredations of the soldiery, massacres, cannibalism... The list goes on and on, but one would hardly know it from reading this book, which maintains a relatively high-level view of events and limits discussion of smaller events to the individual doings of the leading characters, mainly kings, emperors, and their ministers and generals. I think this approach is very helpful in terms of following the threads that give the war its wider meaning and keeping readers' focus on these, but when all is said and done I must say I came away feeling that something vital was missing. The war now seemed so orderly and clean--and utterly devoid of human presence. I wish Wedgwood had devoted a chapter to what the grand schemes meant to an ordinary citizen.

5 comments about 1634: The Bavarian Crisis (Ring of Fire).

1. First the bad. There are more than 150 characters listed in the cast of characters at the back of the book so you know this is not a simple story. You my want to check it now and then. The first 80 pages and more are mainly introductory to the "real story".
   The good. You can skip the first 80 pages if you want to get into the meat of the story, but I read them and I suffer from attention deficit so if I can do it so can you! There are more plots and subplots than you can shake a stick at but they are all related and all add to the story. If you are an admirer of the Lords and Ladies of this era or you are someway related to any of them you might want to skip this book since they, mostly, are not very nice people in this book, and probably were not in real life.
   If you are interested in what it may have been like in this era, I think you will find this book very entertaining. It also has just about every thing you can think of in a story.
   I think that Virginia DeMarce is an excellent writer and this book is probably closer to reality (with the exception of the town being transplanted back in time) than other stories or legends such as those in the order of King Arthur.
   I admit I am a "historical fiction" junky. I enjoy W.E.B Griffin, Bernard Cornwell, C. S. Forester, and several others. It would probably teach history more interestingly, and I am sure students would remember it better than most history being taught in the schools today.
   Thank you for reading my review, Sourdough



2. Extremely good entertainment.
   
   It helps to be up to speed on the earlier Ring of Fire stories. This is a follow-on set of development started in the Ram Rebellion.



3. I am hoping that only virginia demarces contributions are this bad. I have loved this series up till now. The Bavarian crisis, is torture to me. There are stories going on that are truthfully entertaining, but i can't enjoy them becouse i,m wondering if the 20 names just thrown in are really important to the plot.(no)they just get tossed in as unwanted extra. then the very next paragraph has another 20 names thrown in. If you are like me and just want a clean flowing good time then The Bavarian crisis is not for you. I realize i exagerate the number of unwanted extra material but, i began to cringe every time i picked up this torture device. unfortunately it probably will be prudent to have read this if you plan on continuing with this series.
   My review is simple this book is a nightmare if you don't want name dropping on a monumental scale. but if your a fan of this series you probably have to read it. if this however is what to expect in the future for this series the library will be getting a donation.



4. When 1632 first came out I was a huge fan of the book and read it twice in a row. It had everything that one would like to see in such a series. It had plenty of action along with enough romance, adventure, suspense and 'diplomacy' to make it a very worthwhile read. Then there was 1633. Not as much action and it had some heartbreaking moments but it still had enough of the 'right stuff' to be a great sequel. Then everything went down hill from there. With the exception of 'The Baltic War', Ring of Fire 1 & 2, and the various grantville Gazette's every title since 1633 has been garbage. Little or no action or suspense instead replaced by page after boring page of intrigue, arguments over religious doctrine and a full blown field guide to politics and diplomacy in 17th century Europe interspersed with the rare bit of witty humor (to keep the reader from dying of boredom) have made the continuation of this series an absolute disaster. The ram rebellion had its few snippets of wry humor and admittedly the very end of the Galileo affair was interesting (though the rest of that book was a bad joke) and cannon law had a few small snippets of action and humor the rest was just as boring an affair as nearly every other book since 1633.
   
   I continue to (at least try) to follow this series but unless the writers stop it with the endless pages of political intrigue, the crisis of noble marriage and bloodlines, complete biographies of each and every character and enough political rambling, negotiating and diplomacy to make a war protester cry and come out with something really good, really soon that reads like the first 2 books that hooked readers in the first place then this series is going in the trash can.



5. As a fan of Eric Flint's series, I was first disappointed by The Ram Rebellion, which I found myself turning pages and scanning in order to get past the tedious diatribe that the author attempted to pass off as entertainment. As a writer, one must remember, entertainment is the goal, not just endless narrative to educate the audience. Like her earlier novel in the series mentioned previously (The Ram Rebellion), 1634: The Bavarian Crisis not only failed to catch my attention, it completed disgusted me. From the very first Greek Named Chapter, the book proved to me that Virginia DeMarce revels in showing off her historical research and then vomiting it up for everyone else to read in a manner consistent with learning the hard way not to stick a fork in a light socket. I read over half of this novel before saying, "Not Again," and kicked myself for wasting my time. If nothing else, I have learned four things from reading this book: I don't care for Virginia DeMarce's contributions to the Ring of Fire series, it is possible to get garbage published if you have previously published, Eric Flint is out of ideas and is willing to allow other authors to trash a perfectly good series, and Baen Books' judgement on what constitutes good Science Fiction is more than somewhat suspect.
   
   In short, I hated this book as much as I hated her previous offering in the Ring of Fire series. Try reading something interesting. I would suggest Rise of the Federation: The Project series or David Weber's Honor Harrington series or his new Safehold series. Don't get me wrong, the series is not dead. Read The Baltic War, it was very good, but stay away from this one unless you like having shards of glass ground into your eyeballs and then heated until they're ready to melt!
   
   I feel much better now.
   Have a nice day.

5 comments about 1635: The Tangled Web (Ring of Fire).

1. By far the best part of the book (and it should have been in front) was the summary written by Eric Flint. In the summary he gives an overview of the "Ring of Fire" series and the place of this novel (it's an anthology). An anthology is a collection of literary works chosen by the compiler - and giving most of the short stories (dated from 1632 - 1635) the status of "literary works" is generous. Most of the stores are clearly filler and suitable for putting oneself to sleep at night. I am sorry I purchased this work (at le3ast it was a used copy) and I'm sorry I purchased the "Dreeson Incident" at the same time - because if I had read this book prior to purchasing it - I never would have. Since I did, it's my next read - but I am not looking forward to it. This IS an excellent gift (used copies are cheap) for someone you don't like or simply do not care about.



2. I've been an avid reader of all the books in the series. As much as others seem to be complaining about 1635: The Dreeson Incident, I actually liked after I got into the plot. This collection of short novels and stories had me dropping the book after the first 2 sections, I found it to be extremely boring with none of the main characters from the other books and it seemed to me like there was alot of jumping in the timelines, making it very difficult to actually follow what was going on and how this was all playing out in the larger scheme of the series. I had pre-ordered this book because of the rest of the series and the cover making things look like something interesting was going to happen. I was wrong and got my hopes up for another good read, all I got though was another book going in the donation bin of the local library; I'm not keeping it with the rest of the books in the series in my bookcase.



3. Personaly I was disappointed with this one. It seemed way too bogged down with minutae and events of no consequence. It was hard to stay interested enough to finish it. I kept expecting some action and it never seemed forthcoming.



4. Virginia DeMarce's 1635: THE TANGLED WEB TELLS OF THE THIRTY YEARS WAR that continues to ravage 17th century Europe, in an alternate universe where an alliance between Adolphus, King of Sweden, and the West Virginians from the 20th century is changing a world affected by a cosmic time accident known as the Ring of Fire. Prior fans of the 1635 series will relish this added saga.



5. I am an avid fan of the Ring of Fire series and hoped for the best here.
   
   Unfortunately, Mrs. DeMarce techniques seem unable keep the book interesting. While the various short stories are interlaced, they are also not about any character we care about - nor are any of the characters made interesting. Viewing an boring story from multiple angles doesn't help in the end.
   
   Another reviewer had it correct: the multiply-married postal carrier is the most interesting and yet even his story seemed unfinished and barely went anywhere.
   
   I think there are two main issues I have with the book:
   
   1. In general, none of the characters evolve. Sure, they die or get married, but they, as people, never change. They are static characters with little to tell them apart.
   
   2. The author uses a horrible technique - writing short scenes one paragraph to a few pages), from different areas in the world, and/or with different characters. In the hands of a great writer one might get a feeling of flow and connectedness, but here it just breaks up the narrative into non-interesting bits that you are left wondering about: as in why was it written at all.
   
   Actually, I shouldn't have been surprised by my lack of enjoyment with this book. The other two books in the Ring of Fire series on the bottom of my enjoyment scale are "The Dreeson Incident" and "The Bavarian Crisis" - both of which she also had a hand in.
   
   Maybe next book she will stop telling us about who everyone is related to and find an interesting bit of action or intrigue write about.
   
   I was going to end the review here, but then I remembered the summary on the back cover of the book. It in part reads "... continues the saga of the time lost Americans as seen through the eyes of both Americans and Europeans: from 'downtimers' marveling at the exhibits in a museum of the 20th century to a Lutheran minister trying to decide if the women's new apparel copied from the West Virginians is prohibited by scripture. ..." It goes on for another line or so.
   
   I know a book is bad when I haven't a clue what these lines are referring to. I want to read the stories referred to here! But the closest we come is a story about a man looking at a mimeograph machine in a museum, figuring out how to downtime it, and then the outcome is referred to in a different story. Nothing about the rest of the museum, nothing about anything really. The museum was, maybe, 5 pages. Total. And we hear nothing of the other marvels on display. So the museum noted in the summary of the book on the back is a minor, minor scene is a larger story having little to do with the museum.
   
   This is just one example. Each line in the summary blurb is exactly like that though...
   
   Sigh. (A frustrated sigh at that.)

5 comments about The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy.

1. Being both a retired soldier and a history major/buff I can say this is an extraoordinary book; rich in both details and analysis.



2. This is a very good book but a little overwhelming for the average reader. There are more details than I need for an understanding of the period.



3. This book is a carefully researched and very detailed account of the Thirty Years War (C.E. 1618-1648) which author Peter Wilson refers to with remarkable understatement as an "extremely complex event." As this book makes clear the one common factor in the multitude of conflicts that are collectively called the Thirty Years War is that ambiguous entity called the `Holy Roman Empire' and its remarkable imperial dynasty the Hapsburgs. A second branch of the Hapsburg Dynasty formed the Royal Family of Spain-Portugal (and their collective New World Empire). This relationship directly and indirectly impacted on the War's duration and outcome.
   Although the Thirty Years War is often portrayed as religious conflict between the Catholic Empire and Protestant German States by some students, it was considerably more complicated than this. Protestant fought bravely and well in imperial armies and Catholics did the same in nominally Protestant armies. Religion was one factor that was often transcended by secular issues. Denmark entered the war as the defender of Protestant rights, but really sought to expand Danish territory and influence at the expense of the empire. Sweden entered the War as the defender of German liberties, but really was trying to gain hegemony over the Baltic and wanted all or part of Pomerania and the Mecklenburg Coast. Spain was drawn into the War only to the extent that it needed a route through the Alps and the Rhineland to support its war with the Dutch. France was drawn in because it did not want to be surrounded by Hapsburg dominated territory and in support of the Dutch because it feared Spanish dominance. Polish and Hungarian interventions were usually opportunistic. The unhappy free cities, principalities, duchies, and minor fiefdoms that constituted 17th Century Germany sided with whoever offered the best terms regardless of their local confessional beliefs.
   Reading this excellent narrative one can understand the power that Brecht's play "Mother Courage:" and Schiller's history of the war and his Wallenstein trilogy still exerts over modern readers.



4. This is a difficult book. Peter Wilson clearly has provided us with a detailed volume that is a major resource on the Thirty Years War. However, it is not a reader-friendly work. For one thing, we need more maps to make sense of events--whether of the entire region being discussed or lower level, more focused maps. For another, the actors move by in kaleidoscopic fashion, one after the other, and it is not easy to keep track of key players and the governments that they represent. A table summarizing such information at key points in the narrative would be useful.
   
   However, one cannot question Wilson's mastery of the subject. He begins the work before the outset of the War, to provide background and context, and ground the sanguinary struggle within a larger setting. It is clear from the book that countries were trying to maintain some semblance of piece. But religious differences, dynastic power struggles, and a variety of other forces pushed toward war. The actors ranged, geographically, from Sweden to Spain, from France to the Ottoman Empire.
   
   The war itself was brutal. There are maps outlining the basics of key battles, but, as noted, larger scale maps would have been useful. Also, the print in the maps is not the easiest style to read. Wilson provides a good sense of the ebb and flow of the war, as well as the varying skill levels of military commanders and their leaders.
   
   The book concludes with a very detailed analysis of the end results and impact of the war. The Treaty of Westphalia has been hailed by many as marking the modern understanding of states and the concept of sovereignty. Wilson examines the contention skillfully. There were profound economic and demographic effects, as well as larger political consequences. Again, Wilson addresses these with considerable sensitivity, not given to hyperbole.
   
   My sense (I am not an expert in this part of history) is that this is an impressive resource for those who want a detailed view of this historical trauma. But be forewarned that this is not a reader friendly work.



5. This book has occupied my free time for the last 6 weeks, solid. It is extremely dense, beautifully written, and succeeds in tying together the various strands of a war tragedy more complex than any save perhaps the fall of Rome or the world wars of the 20C. The 30 years war is one of those watersheds, when an old order gives way to new directions that take centuries to work themselves out. Wilson's brilliant synthesis is exactly what I had hoped to find.
   
   The roots of the conflict, in my reading, sprung from 2 essential sources: 1) the decline of the feudal order in Central Europe that had operated under the umbrella of the Holy Roman Empire and 2) the simmering religious wars of protestant and catholic. These unfolded symbiotically, but it was really the conflict of the princes and kings - attempting to consolidate their own forms of power in the emerging nation state - that employed the confessional question to their own ends, however sincere they were in their beliefs.
   
   The Habsburgs (in both Spain and central Europe) were essentially feudal lords. One of their most important powers was the ability to confer nobility and authority on allies that would then be sworn to serve them in certain capacities, such as warfare against external enemies such as the Turks or rival Christian kingdoms. They answered to a plethora of institutions that carried their own rights and privileges, the complexity of which is nothing short of extraordinary (i.e. regions, nations, free cities, duchies, each with their own historical perquisites in the hierarchy). Often, the emperors served as arbiters to resolve conflicts between their princes and lords, but they also oversaw the installation of certain administrators and other officials to support the superstructure and finances of the Empire. Unsurprisingly, many princes wanted to establish their independence, particular when it came to their confessional preferences. The Emperor could not order them to do things, but had to both entice and threaten them.
   
   With these tensions brewing, circumstances aligned themselves in the early 17C to favor prolonged war. First, after a long period of existential threat, the Ottoman Empire withdrew to fight in the east, depriving Christendom of a unifying external pressure. Second, there was a weak HR Emperor, Rudolf II, who withdrew from his responsibilities as maintainer of peace while beginning to impose a policy of replacing local protestant administrators with loyal catholic outsiders, threatening the beliefs (and careers) of innumerable princes and nobles in their fifes. His successor was also weak and pursued a rigid policy of installing catholic notables. Third, the Habsburgs were entering a period of extreme financial indebtedness, depriving them of the resources needed to defend their territories and promote economic stability. Fourth, there was the rise of new powers, from the proto-absolutism in France to the military dynamism of Sweden's King, Adolphus, centrifugal forces that added to the chaos. Fifth, with a change in inheritance law, there were many disenfranchised princes trying to make their way as adventurers and courtiers. With the advancement of individuals such as Wallenstein, who achieved noble standing through opportunistic military exploits that no one completely controlled and whose motives were largely unfathomable, they added a dangerous mix of ambition and volatility.
   
   Once the war had broken out in a spontaneous "defenestration" in Bohemia - some protestant locals threw 2 catholic appointees out a 2nd-story window - the HRE first convulsed into civil war and then was attacked by outsiders while weakened. As the theatres of war moved about inside the HRE, which was complexity itself, it took on a life of its own with occupiers wanting territories for their own ends (or seeking to extricate themselves while saving face) and princes hoping to achieve independence of control over their territory or liberty to pursue their faith. It just went on and on. The resulting devastation makes WWII look almost like a minor skirmish. Some regions - from violence, plague, and emigration - lost between 10% and 60% of their populations. Millions of lives and livelihoods were destroyed, up to 25% loss of lives overall.
   
   The resolution of the conflict is perhaps the most fascinating. It signals the end of the feudal era and the beginnings of both absolutism and the nation state. Replacing the personal concerns and egos of princes, entire nation states entered negotiations roughly as equals with legitimate concerns and interests rather than as members of a feudal hierarchy of set-to obligations. In addition, religious toleration was finally established, after laborious negotiations of rights of minorities to gain legal sanction for their style of worship. In many ways, it was the start of the modern age.
   
   I do have my criticisms of the book. It is very hard to keep the various Rudolphs, Ferdinands, Philips, and Maximilians straight, and there is not much about their personalities or stories about them, except in a few rare cases. The details of each military conflict were also of little interest to me and bogged me down, though that is personal.
   
   All in all, this is a great read on a fundamental period. There is also a fascinating analysis of the historiography of the conflict, how it was seen through the ages and what is wrong with the assumptions behind each approach. In other words, nationalists, Nazis, protestants, etc., saw different meanings according to their agendas. Great food for the brain.