1 comments about Admiral Lord Nelson: His Context and Legacy.

1. I cannot think of another Briton who has had more written about them for as long a time as Nelson. Now we are approaching the 200 year anniversary of his death at the Battle of Trafalgar. And we are hearing again of his famous signal 'England expects every man will do his duty.' And his famous last words 'Thank God I have done my duty.'
   
   In this new book, nine noted historians contributed articles. Each views Nelson's life and legacy in a different light. In Part 1 of the book the subjects are Seamanship, leadership, orgiginality, Friendship, Freemasonry, Fraternity, Manliness, patriotism and body politics.
   
   Of particular interest was Kate Williams article Nelson and Women which discusses how Nelson was marketed to the female consumer of the time. This included romance novels, fantasies about how sailors whould behave, and various consumer items offered for sale. This is a view of early nineteenth century England not seen before.
   
   Part 2 of the book goes into the Nelson legacy. This legacy didn't just happen, it was carefully constructed by the British Navy, Government and others. They did a good job, the legacy has now lasted for 200 years and shows no sign of dimenishing.
   
   A most interesting book that discusses parts about Nelson that haven't been emphasized.

No comments about My Early Life: A Roving Commission.

No comments about James Boswell (1740-1795): The Scottish Perspective.

5 comments about Richard The Lionheart: The Mighty Crusader.

1. This book is perhaps the most concise, readable book on Richard that I've come across. I would refrain from calling it a full biography, since the main focus of the book is purely on Richard's campaign in the Holy Land (and admittedly so), however, Miller uses many opportunities to dissect the tendencies and characteristics of Richard's personality.
   
   It's clear from the writing that the author served as a soldier in a previous life, and hence this book stands apart from others like it because of its heavy focus on the logistical and tactical aspects of the Third Crusade, even going as far as to specify (estimating, of course) the weight of soldier's rations, supply trains, etc. The tables and appendices are particularly valuable.
   
   In short, this is an incredibly readable book on war written from a soldier's perspective, thus making it a fascinating and quick read without ever falling into the familiar sludge where rambling historians and academics seem to get trapped. I look forward to reading other military works by David Miller.



2. An interesting and informative read, examining Richard from a personal and politico-military perspective but also looking at the history and logistics of the Third Crusade. My only complaint is the rather naive view of the 'Saracen' army that is presented here.



3. I would like to recommend this book, to anyone with an interest in the Crusades, Richard I, or combat leadership in general.
   I found that the focus on Richard's militay exploits to be excellent, and leaves the extraneous accusations of his activities for a reader to find else where if they're so inclined.
   I noted one date in the book that lead me to some issue and that was the reference after the battle of Hattin, the movement to and fall of Jerusalem on July 4th, 1187. If memory serves me, the battle was on July 4th, and the Holy city fell months later.
   Still all in all a great book, and a shining example for combat leaders to never ask their charges to do anything more than they would do themselves.



4. In this short book, we have an excellent study of military career of Richard the Lionheart during the Third Crusade. The entire book is basically geared toward that campaign where Richard squared off with Saladin. It pretty clear that Richard the Lionheart, may have been bad King of England but he proves to be a very able commander in battles and campaign. His ability to see the long term stratgic problems set him apart from many of his fellow European commanders. The author studied not only Richard's military efforts but his diplomatic effots as well. It bit ironic that Richard probably got along personally with his enemies better then he did with his allies, many who turned against him during the campaign and after.
   
   The book is short (only 215 pages), well written and nicely researched. The author wasn't too judgmental on Richard, choosing to look at him from the historical contemporary point of view instead of the more present politically correct perception which many modern historians falls into that trap. The book proves to be very readable because its not cluttered with overwhelming amount of information. There seem to be enough in the book to present the author's case on Richard very nicely.
   
   The book come recommended to anyone who got a close interest in the Crusades and the life of King Richard I, the Lionheart of England.
   
   Overall, a pretty interesting book that wasted no pages in bringing the reader right into the Third Crusade.



5. This is the first book of Miller I have read and I was very impressed by the clarity of the text and the factual analysis. The author gives a brief but very useful introduction to the history of the previous two crusades (before Richard I set foot on the Holy Land) and then goes to the adventourous campaign of the English king, covering the lightning conquest Cyprus, the conclusion of the siege of Acre in just four weeks, the march toward Jaffa, the battle of Arsuf and of course the two failed attempts to conquer Jerusalem. The book contains also chapters on the the logistics behind Richard's moves, the sea war and the lessons Richard learned studying Vegetius' "De Re Militaris". The text is not condensed and very easy to read, featuring only 30 lines per page and the book contains some 15 black and white photographs (two of them maps)in a special section.

5 comments about The Long Recessional: The Imperial Life of Rudyard Kipling.

1. At a time when the "politically correct" holds sway in much of the media for intellectuals and all too much of academia, Rudyard Kipling is persona non grata -- the author of charming Victorian children's tales, but irredeemably tainted as an advocate and apologist for the British Empire and its subjugation of so many blacks and browns in the world. This biography of Kipling shows that the popular image de jour of Kipling is oversimplified and, at bottom, unfair and wrong.
   
   David Gilmour deliberately focuses on the "imperial" Kipling, or the political (as opposed to the literary) aspect of his life. Of course, it is impossible to cleave Kipling into two selves, one political and the other literary. No one can be so compartmentalized, but Kipling resists it more than most because he was so unabashedly a political writer. And Gilmour chooses to emphasize that fact by exploring Kipling's politics and his view of the British Empire, as well as his role in celebrating it and then mourning its imminent demise (Kipling died before World War II and the death throes of empire). As Gilmour puts it in his preface: "This is the first volume to chronicle Kipling's political life, his early role as apostle of the Empire, the embodiment of imperial aspiration, and his later one of the prophet of national decline."
   
   Gilmour achives his objective quite well. His Kipling -- as I believe is true of the actual Kipling -- was NOT a jingoistic rascist (although, to be sure, certain lines of his taken as they say out of context could be stretched and cited for the opposite conclusion). Yes, Kipling was a Victorian Englishman who grew up amidst, and believed in, the glory of the British Empire. But, as Gilmour persuasively writes, the empire Kipling touted and valued was a civilizing, even humanitarian, force -- an empire of "peace and justice, quinine and canals, railways and vaccinations". His model of empire had no place for the missionary zeal to transform all the Empire's subjects into brown or black (depending on their class) fish-and-chippers or public-school-educated Church-of-Englanders. Moreover, to Kipling, it was the altruistic responsibility of the wealthy, civilized haves of the world (principally Great Britain and the United States) to relieve suffering and improve the lot in life of the myriad have nots.
   
   Gilmour's biography shows, without explicit lecturing, that Kipling was not a stock "stiff-upper-lip" Victorian cardboard cut-out; he was human, with weaknesses he sought both to overcome and to mask, and with a strength of character that ultimately more than redeems him.
   
   Gilmour does not ignore, but he does not dwell on, the literary side of Kipling. For that, the reader must go elsewhere. But for a sensitive yet objective picture of "Kipling as a figurehead of his country and his age", I don't know where else one should or would care to look.



2. Rudyard Kipling, according to David Gilmour's authoritative 'The Long Recessional: The Imperial Life of Rudyard Kipling' was a first-class political hater and author of children's books, as well as the virtual embodiment of the British Empire. Kipling was considered the Imperial Laureate, although he would have refused the post had it existed as he did all government posts - not in his line at all.
   
   Kipling lived much of the first half of his life in the Empire - he spent his early years in India, except for a horrid stretch when he was boarded back in England by his parents who stayed in British India, and later lived off-and-on in South Africa. Kipling loved the Empire and its civilizing mission (up to a point - he did not favor Christian religious proselytizing), but oddly was not that fond of England or the English.
   
   Gilmour paints a portrait of Kipling as a thorough-going reactionary, a pessimist, a virulent opponent of women's suffrage, Irish Home Rule, nearly all politicians (he especially hated Liberals, but also accused Winston Churchill of `political whoring'), trade unions, and imperial wavering of any kind.
   
   'The Long Recessional' (the title refers both to his poem written for Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in 1897 and the decline of the Empire) is not so much a history of Kipling's literary works as it is his leading role in promoting the Empire through his literature. Readers seeking detailed literary analyses had best look elsewhere, but should read this book first to understand what it was that Kipling was so all-fired angry about most of the time. Kipling was something of a negative "prophet"; he saw the coming decline of the Empire and viewed as willful surrender, he saw the coming Great War and watched his countrymen fail to prepare or take a firm stand against 'the Hun', and he saw the coming Second World War and the repeated lack of preparation (he died before that war actually occurred).
   
   Kipling suffered great personal unhappiness from the death of his first daughter at age 6, to a seemingly unhappy marriage with Kipling as the henpecked husband and the death of his son in one of those insane headlong infantry assaults on the German trenches at the Battle of Loos. Kipling's dour personality in most of his last quarter-century of life may to some extent be attributed to a misdiagnosed (and thus mistreated) duodenal ulcer that caused him great pain - once it was correctly diagnosed in 1933, Kipling's pain departed and his personality revived.
   
   Kipling's writings were enormously influential in his time, probably to an extent difficult for the modern reader to grasp given over as we are to the visual and the aural. After the Boer War he turned his pen more and more toward political ends and a bitter-tipped pen it was. Today Kipling is more remembered for his children's classics such asThe Jungle Books (Signet Classics). His Plain Tales from the Hills explores India's impact on the British who lived there and in particular the soldiers who sometimes fought and died there.
   
   Salmon Rushdie has summarized it best when he stated, "There will always be plenty in Kipling that I will find difficult to forgive; but there is also enough truth in these stories to make them impossible to ignore."
   
   Gilmour brings Kipling back to life for some 300 pages; 'The Long Recessional: The Imperial Life of Rudyard Kipling' is a rewarding reading experience about a man mostly overlooked today, but of towering importance in his time.



3. I've always enjoyed Kipling's poetry, and have long known that a close reading and an adequate understanding of his writings belie the less pleasant things that habitual hand-wringers and apostles of political correctness have to say about him. Hence my willingness to read this book.
   
   This biography enumerates the stations of Kipling's life: he grew up in India, a country he never stopped loving, indeed it was Hindi and not English that was his mother tongue. After a childhood in India came boarding school in England, life as a journalist in India, becoming the unofficial poet laureate of the soldier and Empire, friendships with leading politicians, marriage to an American, and disillusionment with politics and politicians after the First World War, in which his son died in his first "battle." In this book Kipling does not come across as the ogre that some make him out to be, but he does come across as very close-minded, as a man who understood the art of poetry very well, but things such as the Irish and their grievances not at all.
   
   All the same, I found this book to be a disappointment. Ideas were rarely fully developed; when poems are discussed, only short passages are quoted. Kipling's belief that war with the hated Germans was inevitable is uncritically seen as a sign of prophecy; perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy of his times and class would me more accurate. Nor are Ireland and Kipling's fire and brimstone solutions for Ireland's troubles described with any nuance. I don't think that the author more than scrapes the surface of the topics he described. Before I draw my conclusions on Kipling, I intend to read at least another book.
   
   Unless you're a high-school student who has to write a report on Kipling, I wouldn't recommend this book to you.



4. Few have doubted Kipling's literary genius but for much of the 20th century progressive opinion has caricatured him as the bard of racism, the poet of savagery, the versifier of militarism. Gilmour focuses on Kipling's complex relationship with the British Empire, and shows that these caricatures do not do justice to the poet's nuanced views. To take only one example, Kipling was perfectly aware of the foibles of his fellow Anglo-Indians, and he often paid tribute to the nobility of ordinary Indians. But he was also aware that British rule over the Subcontinent was a great force for peace and stability. The Bloomsbury set jeered his views but he was proven tragically right after Indian independence, which resulted in a bloodbath. Let us hope that Kipling is not proven even more correct in the event of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan.



5. Rudyard Kipling was both a great writer and a representative figure of the British Empire, dabbling in both politics and exploration and winning the Nobel Prize in literature. This biography is the first to examine not only his writing, but his world: The Long Recessional considers the history of his times and provides a lively, revealing probe of the man's changes.

No comments about Spenser's Secret Career (Cambridge Studies in Renaissance Literature and Culture).

No comments about Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother 1900-2002.

No comments about Before Victoria: Extraordinary Women of the British Romantic Era.

3 comments about Day Michael Collins Was Shot.

1. Meda Ryan attempts to tackle a very difficult task: determining who shot Michael Collins on that ill-fated day in 1922. In the book's preface, Ryan shares her reasons for wanting to examine the topic and her research methods in compiling the book. In Part I of the introduction, Ryan provides a short biography of Collins's life from his birth to June 1922. In Part II, she covers the last two months of Collins's life and the marrow of the book begins. Ryan supplies several great pictures and several maps of Béal na mBláth. Her evidence consists of eye-witness accounts, letters, telephone conversations and newspaper clippings.

   Ryan takes us on a rollercoaster of facts and emotions as the story progresses. The basic theories she tackles are: Collins was hit from behind by IRA members headed to Kerry, Collins was hit by a member of his own party by a close range bullet from the armoured car, Collins was hit by a ricocheted bullet, and Collins was hit by a bullet fired by an IRA member. After dissecting the response of the medical examiners, the embalmer, the men who supposedly buried the cap Collins was wearing on the day he was killed, and the testimony of Emmet Dalton, Collins's friend and comrade who was with him that day, Ryan does give a firm conclusion as to who the shooter was. She dispels the theories that Collins was shot by a bullet from a Mauser pistol and that Collins was killed by a ricocheted bullet. So who shot Michael Collins according to Ryan's studies? Read this engrossing book to find out!




2. After reading a number of books on Michael Collins I found this book to be one of the most interesting on the shelves. The author gives a brief background of Collins life, what influenced his views and why he signed the Treaty. As the title suggests this book concentrates mainly on the last days of Michael Collin's life. There is an in-depth look at how he was killed and who fired the fatal shot. Interviews included are with those who took part in the Beal na mBlath ambush. I would highly recommed this book, even to anyone who has a slight interest in Michael Collins.



3. This book is a quick read that provides good detail of the last days of MIchael Collins' life and the months leading up to his assassination. If you are interested in what he did before he was shot and a theory of his death then you should read this book. The book focuses on the assassination of Collins and the politics surrounding it. It gives great detail of the final day and the attack itself so if that interests you it would be a good book.

5 comments about Richard III: England's Black Legend.

1. I have been fascinated by Richard III since I saw on TV , when I was seven years old , the 1955 Laurence Olivier adaptation of the Shakespeare play.
   
   
   In this book , Desmond Seward makes a compelling case for his theory that Richard III of England was indeed a bloodthirsty tyrant who cut down all who got in the way of his Machiavellian ambition , that the traditional view of Richard III (outlined dramtically by Shakespeare) is very near the truth.
   The author believes King Richard to have been the cruellest tyrant to have ever occupied the English throne . Seward gives seemingly incontrovertible evidence that he did indeed murder his young nephews in the tower , shining a new light on the tragedy of these boys. He outlines how Richard almost undoubtedly murdered Henry VI and very possibly Henry's son too.
   His death brought to an end , a nightmare for England , not least for Richard himself , who seward believes to have been highly paranoid , and disturbed by psychotic episodes.
   
   
   Seward re-examines contemporary sources , and also Sir Thomas Mores life of the King , which contained much valubale information that Seward brought to light.
   He gives us a history of events leading up to Richard's seizure of power , after the War of the Roses , analyses of the key power players in the England of the time producing the picture of a 'peculiarly grim young English precursor of Machiavelli's Prince'
   
   Defenders of Richard III have criticized this work , but is undoubdetly a major component in shedding light on the life of Richard III and the England of the times.



2. Reading this book is a good way to get to know the basic story of Richard III, and the related context of English history in the time of the "War of the Roses." To my mind, the greatest virtue of the book is Seward's recognition of Richard as a prince in the Machiavellian style: a ruthless, conniving tyrant. What is weakest in the book is the author's pronounced psychological naivete: even as he writes of Richard as an alert political strategist, willing to do anything to advance his own cause, the author interprets his attitudes and decisions as if they were being made by someone with average working-class values and education. Overall, though, the story is well-told, with a readable mix of engaging narrative and scholarly history.



3. While Seward makes some convincing arguments and successfully rebuts some Ricardian explanations, he does so in a horribly pretentious manner. He makes the constant claim that Richard was unpopular, which may have been so, but he does not bother to use reliable sources to prove it. He is also guilty of using the words 'obviously' and 'plainly' while not giving the reader any inication why he thinks these things are so obvious and plain. An example of this is found when Seward states, "When speaking of Richard, Commynes uses the word 'proud' more than once. Plainly he employs it in the sense of vain glory or self delusion. Had he known the word 'hubris' he would have used that too." Be that as it may, Seward does not offer any proof as to why he believes the word 'proud' is used to mean self delusion, and his assumption that the writer would have used 'hubris' hints of Seward's own pride and arrogance. This neglect to explain basic charges runs throughout the entire book, which makes it an almost unbearable read to one simply trying to find out the truth, rather than wallow in anti-Ricardian sentiment. Almost all historians of Richard III are guilty of writing from bias, but it is not usually so suffocating as this.



4. I got this as a result of seeing Ian McKellen's film version of the Shakespearean play. It left me wanting more History as well as more Drama. I had heard that Shakespeare was essentially writing anti-Richard propaganda, since the man who defeated him, Richmond, went on to become Henry VII grandfather of Queen Elizabeth. But while the truth is no doubt more complicated than the play suggests, Seward convincingly shows that Shakespeare got the essentials right even if he did take a few liberties. He doesn't merely elucidate the character of Richard himself, but of those around him. The Woodvilles, Ann, Catesby, Tyrell, Brackenbury, the Duke of Buckingham and Lord Stanley were all real players in Richard's rise and fall, well known at the time for their victimizations through or their contributions to his tyranny. (Catesby for example was known as the Cat in a popular rhyme of the day.) Seward gives an in depth though not necessarily complete view of the constraints and shared assumptions they were operating under which eventually leads to the characterization of the King himself. It's difficult to tell how much of Richard's tyranny stemmed from the bloodthirstiness of the times he lived in, or if good really triumphed over evil at Bosworth field, and Seward makes no assertions to that effect. But he does throw into sharp relief the flaws that earned Richard his bloody reputation, and they aren't saintly ones. He is also very clear cut about which primary sources he is drawing from, Thomas More, Dominic Mancini and the Croyland Chronicler, how they culled their information, and how he reads them. I'm sure there's a wealth of information on this subject, yet I found this book to be a very satisfying introduction.



5. This is an entertaining mixture of historical story-telling, scholary gumshoe work, and criticism. No aspect overpowers the book, which makes it an interestingly told history, and a well-shaped argument for Seward's perspective of Richard III's reign.

   Of course, so much of his work in the primary sources leads him to numerous conjectural qualifications. This state of affairs demonstrates why there is so much divergence of opinion on Richard III. However, if both Richard's contemporary subjects and their progeny have such a consistently malignant view of the man's rule, why go to such effort to rehabilitate (revisionize) him? It is obvious Richard's black legend is not solely a product of Tudor propaganda. The man simply did all the heavy lifting on establishing history's view of his reign.

   Seward's book is a good read. It's not a purely speculative, breathless narrative of "Maybe this happened, then that ... probably," but an argued case that approaches all of the sources in the field, primary and modern. This book has the potential to become the definitive history of Richard III and his reign; it simply lacks the appeals to cliched romanticism that surround much work in English history.