5 comments about The Twelve: The Lives of the Apostles After Calvary.

1. This is a very interesting book even if you're not a Christian. We forget that these biblical people where real people who lead fasinating lives. This helps to humanize them for us so that we see that both as the Saints they were and the humans they were. It also strenghtens faith since if makes us aware that these events really happened and aren't just pretty stories.



2. I had always wondered what happened to the Disciples after Calvery and this book was very enlightening and an easy read. It cleared up a lot of questions I had.



3. This book is a fast and easy read, perfect for beginners (1-3 years) who have studied some of the bible/new testament and start asking "who were they?" questions. It's not too long of a book, I read it in under a week, and it's a "pass along" book for a friend. (I would never pass along a book I thought bad or boring). Book is not a heavy end all on the subject, but answers enought questions and legends/historical footnotes to put a pretty good idea of what might have happened to the twelve we read about in the NT.



4. _The Twelve: The Lives of the Apostles After Calvary_ is an interesting book by a Catholic author, C. Bernard Ruffin. It catalogues the lives, travels and evangelical exploits of the twelve apostles from the New Testament, the writings of the Fathers and various apocryphal historical novels. The first problem about writing about the apostles, as Ruffin explains, is to differentiate between "the disciples," "the apostles" and "the Twelve." Disciple refers to any full-fledged follower of Christ and especially to the seventy (or seventy-two) missionaries sent to the villages of Judea during Christ's lifetime. Apostle refers to a special office within the Church that was instituted by Christ to officially declare the Gospel and later on ordain bishops, deacons and presbyters. "The Twelve" encompasses the twelve men explicitly named in the Gospels as those whom Jesus called and taught during his lifetime in this world. A number of saints in Christian history, notably St. Paul, have attained the status of "apostle" or "equal to the apostles" even though they were obviously not in Christ's original entourage. Ruffin does not address the issue of why twelve were called, but it is obviously an Old Testament metaphor of the Twelve Tribes of Israel who originated from Jacob (Israel) and his twelve sons. A problem exists in identifying exactly who the Twelve were because many of them went by multiple names and many figures in the New Testament shared the same name. Ruffin provides an authoritative list: Peter, Andrew, James the Greater, James the Less, John, Philip, Bartholomew (a.k.a. Nathaniel), Thomas, Matthew, Simon, Jude (a.k.a. Thaddeus), and Judas Iscariot whose place was later filled by Matthias. James the Greater and James the Less are both to be distinguished from James the Righteous who was Bishop of Jerusalem and author of the Epistle of James. Most suffered martyrdom for Christ having lived lengthy lives spreading the Gospel of Christ, except for John who died of an illness in old age. Peter of course founded the episcopacy of Rome and Andrew at Constantinople. Many were active in Judea, Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, Greece and Rome. Some of the apostles are held to have traveled as far as Britain, Iran/Persia, Ethiopia, Armenia, Scythia/southern Russia, Spain, India and even China and Southeast Asia. The most extensive traditions exist regarding "Doubting Thomas." He is reputed to have traveled to the Punjab region of India, southward along the Malabar Coast and onward to what is today Burma and Malaysia. Thomas is considered the founder of the Indian Orthodox Church dating back to the first century. Ruffin examines the status and motives of Judas and what made him a traitor to Christ. More space in this book is devoted to Peter than to the other apostles and in some instances Ruffin argues for an interpretation of the New Testament accounts of Peter in order to justify papal supremacy over the Church. However, this book remains an excellent, easy to read introduction to early traditions regarding the apostles and their mission to the ends of the earth.



5. _The Twelve: The Lives of the Apostles After Calvary_ is an interesting book by a Catholic author, C. Bernard Ruffin. It catalogues the lives, travels and evangelical exploits of the twelve apostles from the New Testament, the writings of the Fathers and various apocryphal historical novels. The first problem about writing about the apostles, as Ruffin explains, is to differentiate between "the disciples," "the apostles" and "the Twelve." Disciple refers to any full-fledged follower of Christ and especially to the seventy (or seventy-two) missionaries sent to the villages of Judea during Christ's lifetime. Apostle refers to a special office within the Church that was instituted by Christ to officially declare the Gospel and later on ordain bishops, deacons and presbyters. "The Twelve" encompasses the twelve men explicitly named in the Gospels as those whom Jesus called and taught during his lifetime in this world. A number of saints in Christian history, notably St. Paul, have attained the status of "apostle" or "equal to the apostles" even though they were obviously not in Christ's original entourage. Ruffin does not address the issue of why twelve were called, but it is obviously an Old Testament metaphor of the Twelve Tribes of Israel who originated from Jacob (Israel) and his twelve sons. A problem exists in identifying exactly who the Twelve were because many of them went by multiple names and many figures in the New Testament shared the same name. Ruffin provides an authoritative list: Peter, Andrew, James the Greater, James the Less, John, Philip, Bartholomew (a.k.a. Nathaniel), Thomas, Matthew, Simon, Jude (a.k.a. Thaddeus), and Judas Iscariot whose place was later filled by Matthias. James the Greater and James the Less are both to be distinguished from James the Righteous who was Bishop of Jerusalem and author of the Epistle of James. Most suffered martyrdom for Christ having lived lengthy lives spreading the Gospel of Christ, except for John who died of an illness in old age. Peter of course founded the episcopacy of Rome and Andrew at Constantinople. Many were active in Judea, Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, Greece and Rome. Some of the apostles are held to have traveled as far as Britain, Iran/Persia, Ethiopia, Armenia, Scythia/southern Russia, Spain, India and even China and Southeast Asia. The most extensive traditions exist regarding "Doubting Thomas." He is reputed to have traveled to the Punjab region of India, southward along the Malabar Coast and onward to what is today Burma and Malaysia. Thomas is considered the founder of the Indian Orthodox Church dating back to the first century. Ruffin examines the status and motives of Judas and what made him a traitor to Christ. More space in this book is devoted to Peter than to the other apostles and in some instances Ruffin argues for an interpretation of the New Testament accounts of Peter in order to justify papal supremacy over the Church. However, this book remains an excellent, easy to read introduction to early traditions regarding the apostles and their mission to the ends of the earth.

5 comments about Patton: A Genius for War.

1. I've been facinated by history since grade school and just fell in love with this book. Patton was an amazing character and one of those rare individuals that only comes along every hundred years or so.
   
   This book is very long, but gives as complete a biographical picture of Gen Patton as possible. It details his entire life, from childhood through WW1 and WW2 all the way until his untimely death. Sadly his career was constantly derailed by lesser gifted generals like Ike or Bradley. If you are a history buff or Patton fan, then this book is for you.



2. I had never read anything regarding General Patton, but after having watched the movie "Patton" again, I went to find the best biography of Patton available. I read many of them, but BY FAR, this is the best available. A work of biographical art: reveals the humanity of Patton the warrior, and reviews his place in history without prejudice.
   
   Sincerely recommended to everyone who wishes to read an excellent biography of General George S. Patton.



3. This is by far the most comprehensive and enjoyable biography I've read on General Patton. Mr. D'Este has painstakingly recorded the entire life of one of the greatest battlefield commanders in history. As the New York Times Review states "...he neither damns nor beautifies his subject". There's no better way to sum up this work. It's brilliant and fair. I'm looking forward to the author's new book on Winston Churchill that should be arriving this year.



4. I for one, certainly do not agree with Alistair Horne's phrase,"Revisionism at best" with regards to this book.
   As mentioned by earlier reviewers, Carlos D'Estes book traces the Patton family history to soldiers in earlier times. That General Patton was influenced by these family heroes is without doubt. In fact, it explains a lot about the man's sense of destiny, responsibility, and continual need to excel at whatever he attempted.
   More than a quick sketch of a complex man, this is a biography worth reading and studying.
   Patton was one of his kind.
   An invaluable book to anyone seeking to understand Patton on and off the battlefield.
   Well written, I couldn't put it down.



5. Patton is often described as "controversial". To those who have never fought in war, or perhaps even just engaged in competitive sports, or who otherwise have only a sort of normal, everyday idea about how people ought to act, I suppose he is: Arrogant, sometimes outwardly cruel, demanding, competitive, a taskmaster, single-minded, agressive, angry, all the rest. I've never fought in war, but I've played my share of competitive sports (a paltry parallel, but the best I can do). In sports, everyone (if they're lucky) had a coach like this somewhere along the way, and they most likely took more lessons away from that man or woman than all the colorless middle-of-the-roaders combined. They most likely achieved things under that person's direction that they didn't know they had the capacity to do. They most likely recall details about that person many years later, after they've forgotten most of the others. When the old team-mates get together, that's who most of the stories are about (many told as being funny, now - not so at the time).
   
   To me, that's Patton: An American original who just barely escaped being a bombastic buffoon. He avoided that fate and scaled the heights of history because he was a born leader of men - one who either broke them (rarely), or got the best out of them (much more often); because he knew his business inside-out; because he worked at it day and night; and most of all, because finally, he WON.
   
   I think that this intensely personal essence is what is most completely captured in this book. It fills in many of the overlooked or understated details from the well-known George C. Scott movie, and adds much new material besides. An excellent book, worthy not only as a war biography, but as a study of what it honestly takes to do REALLY well at any endeavor in life.

5 comments about J.R.R. Tolkien: A Biography.

1. This review is based upon the first edition which was written in 1977.
   
   This biography is fair and gives a vivid detail of not only the life of Tolkien but also the times and events that shaped the man. I would have liked to have seen more into the light of his religion as well as the depth of his relationships particularly with Lewis,Dyson, and Williams.
   
   I have to say that the ending had me near tears. It is hard to imagine that a man that has brought so much joy and creativity into the world that he would have died on a bed of loneliness. It was also sad for me to hear that the relationship between him and C.S. Lewis had fallen out and Lewis passed away before there could ever be any "rewrites" to make up for the past trespasses.
   
   All in all this is one of the better biographies out and I will look forward to reading other biographies out there on Tolkien to give a solid comparison to this one.



2. When I set about to read this book, I greatly feared that I'd be bored before I reached chapter two. Biographies have never seemed particularly appealing, especially those of authors. Yet I really wanted to learn a little more about Tolkien and the influences in his life that led to the creation of Middle Earth, so I prepared to suffer through. Carpenter, however, has a very conversational tone which made the read a pleasure. His use of actual letters, pictures and manuscripts, which the Tolkien family kindly gave him access to, was masterful. The text from those papers he chose to include was illuminating, but didn't weigh down the book as frequent quoting tends to do. Carpenter clearly had a sense of who Tolkien was, especially since he had the pleasure of speaking with the man himself.
   
   Carpenter also understands that most people will be reading this book for a glimpse at the creation of Middle Earth, and gives ample focus to that throughout. But he never lets that detract from tackling the man as a whole, giving the reader a well rounded picture of the man behind the legend; from his childhood and relationship with his mother, to his Oxford days and friendship with C.S. Lewis, to his family life with wife and children. A marvelous read for any fan of Tolkien.



3. I enjoyed this book very much. I learned a lot about Tolkien, but it wasn't like reading a text book. The book seemed balanced, not overly critical or sickenly flattering.



4. J.R.R. Tolkien is one of the world's most famous and well-known authors. He has and will continue to inspire the written works of others. His famous The Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Silmarillion, and his other books about middle-earth have been read by millions everywhere in the world. His books have been translated into over one hundred languages and sold in many countries. Humphrey Carpenter is one of the many people who has always revered and been inspired by Tolkien. He visited Mr. Tolkien and asked him about his life. He wrote this book for others like him who wish to know about Mr. Tolkien's past experiences and what occurred to inspire him to write his fantastic novels.
   J.R.R. Tolkien had a normal life. He wasn't rich or poor, and he didn't grow up in a powerful family. He grew up with his brother and his parents in South Africa. After his parents died, Tolkien fought in the First World War. During this time, Tolkien had to support his brother and his family. He had to take courage and stand up for what was right. This is much like the role and attitude of Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird. Afterwards, Tolkien taught at Oxford, where he and other college professors, including C.S. Lewis, formed a group called "The Inklings." Mr. Tolkien started writing The Hobbit, and eventually, the Lord of the Rings trilogy. This book shows how Tolkien had a normal life; having hardships like everyone else does, as well as positive experiences.
   Tolkien by Humphrey Carpenter is a great read for anyone who is considering a career in writing, as well as anyone who loves Mr. Tolkien's books. Humphrey Carpenter does a great job of outlining Mr. Tolkien's life and achievements. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book, and I believe that anyone can read this book. Mr. Carpenter used great vocabulary, and he had great development of his writing. I send my compliments to Mr. Carpenter for his spectacular job of writing this book.



5. I love biographies. This author was one of the few whom actually was able to meet the man, if you have not read it, please do, you will love it.

5 comments about Washington: The Indispensable Man.

1. This is an excellent book. It is well written and very informative. Not having read all of the single volume biographies of Washington, I cannot testify to its being the very best, but surly it must be one of the best. The book is Flexner's single volume abridgement of his four-volume biography. Being only one quarter the size of the complete work it cannot be as detailed, but it nonetheless provides a very coherent and compelling portrait. Perhaps the best accolade that I can give is that I now I want to know more and I am considering reading the complete Flexner series. As might be expected from the subtitle "The Indispensable Man" the book paints the most favorable picture possible and shows why Washington was indeed the "Indispensable Man". He was indispensable not only as the leader of the army but also as America's first president. His firm hand set many of the precedents that shaped the office of president.
   
   While Washington is shown in the most favorable light the same cannot be said of Jefferson and Hamilton. Both (but mostly Jefferson) are shown to be more loyal to their party (the Federalists in the case of Hamilton and the Republicans in the case of Jefferson) than to Washington. Confidences were betrayed, especially by Jefferson. If there was a villain in this story it was Jefferson, who is painted as one who was willing to bring on war with Britain in order to support France and to further his vision of an agrarian America.
   
   One word of caution - this book is not a military history of the American Revolution, or of the detailed causes of the revolution, the writing of the constitution or the complete history of Washington's presidency. All of these things are covered, but not in the detail provided in books devoted specifically to these subjects.



2. This book is a "distillation" of the author's award winning four-volume biography of Washington. "The extreme reduction of scale - to about one fifth - dictated that, if the shorter work were to have its own integrity and literary effect, the material would have to be revisualized and rewritten. Except for the account of Washington's death, the text is almost altogether new." (viii)
   
   The literary style is excellent. The narrative, however, stays so close to Washington that the historical context of his life is often only hinted at, and at times left out entirely. The chapters are, in almost every case, less than ten pages long. The book reads, with exceptions, like a series of extended, well polished essays written from selected notes compiled for a longer work - which I suppose is exactly what it is.



3. As a student for some reason I have never been able to focus on the founding fathers. I have read an assortment of biographies of Revolutionary-era politicians and military leaders and always emerge with only the faintest understanding of who these men were and what the different issues were being debated in the 1780's and 1790's. This book is the first one I've read from this period that really held my attention. Too bad I didn't have it on hand when I took my first class in American history but perhaps it might come in handy somewhere down the educational road.



4. This just isn't sufficiently accurate nor well-written given its hype and other ratings here. One example is at page 13, where Flexner describes young Washington's trip to a French fort at the confluence of French Creek with the Monongahela ("now Franklin, Pennsylvania"). The problem is that French Creek flows into the Allegheny, not the Monongahela.
   Another problem occurs when he describes (p. 24) how Washington accompanied General Braddock at the disastrous defeat at Turtle Creek in July 1755. Of course, Washington was 23 in July 1755, having been born in February 22 (Feb 11 by the old calendar), 1732. In the next chapter, he describes how after Braddock's defeat the British Army left Virginia defenseless, so the Virginia Assembly created its own army, and Washington "now twenty-two" was elected colonel (page 28).
   In an early battle of the Revolutionary War he describes how Washington held a strong position at White Plains, NY, but was outflanked and decided to move to higher hills near New Castle. Although New Castle, NY and North Castle, NY are close geographically, the hills in question are in North Castle.
   The book is also written in an annoying manner, using words (not quoted) like "unwisdom" and "plaguey." The writing seems at the level of a sophomore term paper. There have to be better one-volume biographies.



5. George Washington is known, of course, as the "father of our country"; that's not completely true, but what is true is that without Washington we might still be flying the Union Jack; he was "The Indespensable Man". He was a reticent, self-controlled, man who never let others get too close; this makes a biographer's task difficult, but it hasn't kept a LOT of people from trying. Washington may well have more published biographies than any man who ever lived; thus, we look hard at each new one, as if daring the author to justify his choice of subject. The volume here is James Thomas Flexner's abridgment of his own multi-volume work, and a wonderful offering it is.
   
   Part of the problem in a study of Washington is the immense wealth of available material; Washington was famous from his mid teens on, building a great military reputation at an age when Jefferson was still in school, and Patrick Henry was tending bar. The great Douglas Southall Freeman who wrote the definitive multi-volume biographies of both Washington and Lee commented on the differing problems; Washington was famous early; Robert E. Lee didn't "hit the big time" till he was 55, so a biographer has to hunt for the early material [again, this hasn't stopped a lot of folks from trying].
   
   Flexner has chosen to focus on the centrality of George Washington to the process of our becoming a nation...Washington was viewed as superior by his own contemporaries; their deference to him was as natural as breathing. Adams and Jefferson were better educated, many were better writers or public speakers [yes, yes, I know; Jefferson was a real thorn in his side...but that was later, and he still showed respect]. BUT, Washington had the limitless strength of character, the absolute refusal to quit no matter how bad things got [in 1776, they were pretty bad], without which we could not have won our freedom. It remained for Jefferson to think up, and write down, the ideas that make us work, but first, the battles had to be won......
   
   There are lies told about Washington, some important, some not...he never chopped down a cherry tree...he did not have wooden teeth [he had around nine sets over the years, mostly ivory, or animal teeth, spring hinged, set in a lead base...I've seen one set...hideous]...he was not without passion, he just controlled it well. Washington was not without faults; he was over ambitious, but always for the public good...he married Martha for her money...he was a lousy son to his Mother, but then Mary was a lousy mother, a real "Mommie Dearest"; still, George got his strength of character, and his horse riding ability, from her. The only real public blot I can find comes from the Presidential years....his lack of faith in Edmund Randolph.
   
   George Washington is tough for us to get a good handle on; alas, that was true for his contemporaries, too. The reasons that he is difficult to "figure out" are very different than those that Jefferson is, but still real. Everybody needs to read one good bio of Washington; this is a pretty good choice, easily readable, and readily available. Other good choices are Joseph Ellis' "His Excellency", Willard Sterne Randall, and Richard Harwell's one volume abridgment of Freeman's magnum opus [the full seven volumes are impossible to find at a decent price]. There are one volume versons of sets by Washington Irving and John Marshall, the latter abridgment done by Marshall himself. These are pretty much for people like me, and are only available thru specialized venues like Mount Vernon, or The John Marshall House. [both authors met Washington, though Irving was only seven; neither mentions Sally Fairfax...] If you want to read them all, go for it; if you only want one, try this.....

5 comments about Churchill: A Life.

1. This book is a wonderful achievement, and paints a portrait of one of the 20th Century's most decisive political figures. List the top five and you would have Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, and perhaps Gandhi and Mao, but Churchill would have to be in the top five by almost any reckoning. By that token, almost anyone interested in the political and military history of the Century ought to have an interest in Winston.
   
   There is more to Winston, however, than just the War, which in any case we should not mention for fear of upsetting the German guests. His life is an exciting enough story in its own right. Born to a great Parliamentarian, he was probably fated to be another significant figure whatever happened, but Churchill had a habit of making political enemies, as the book clearly documents. On the other hand, he was a genuinely larger-than-life character in his own right, and probably irrepressible. At any rate, this biography provides enough material to speculate either way. This is a man who left a comfortable seat in Parliament to join a unit in the trenches of France in the Great War, for instance, although he clearly did not find it that great and came away with impressions of modern technological warfare which he desperately tried to share in the following decade. These impressions began to form even earlier, when he joined the Boer War as a correspondent and simply could not keep himself from leading the troops he was meant to be reporting upon. When captured, Churchill alone escaped, stowed away in a railway wagon full of coal sacks and when he reached a British Consulate, practically his first act was to telegraph the camp commander to exonerate the Boer guards of responsibility for his flight. Clearly this is a many of rare qualities and needs to be read for his personal merits alone, let alone his place in history!
   
   The book is perhaps a little heavy-going on account of its near 1,000 pages, but leavened with Churchill's familiar wit. Churchill is often abused by the right in justification of the latest proposed war, and by the left as an imperialist and gasser of Iraqis, but this account paints a picture of the Churchill the British grew up with - the lone and indefatigable hero steering the country through a shared destiny, indomitable in public but occasionally plagued with doubt in private. The great irony of his life may be that he was to lead a war that he felt to have been unnecessary and that, having passed on, his name is invoked again and again to justify more unnecessary wars of which he would undoubtedly have disapproved. The boom reveals this magnanimous and conciliatory side, as well; no petty bully of the weaker or the defeated was Winston.
   
   While it documents a whole life, when considering Churchill we will always come back to his wartime premiership, and rightly so. The lasting impression which this excellent biography leaves is that history itself knew this and was preparing him. No matter what scrapes and adventures he thrust himself into, he survived to meet his date with destiny, and this book makes you feel that he was being saved for it.



2. There are biographies and then there are biographies! This is one of those that belong on that lofty summit above those that try to ascend to such heights but fail miserably because they are either rather dull bios about rather dull people or the biographer is simply not up to the task. Martin Gilbert is most definitely up to the task and more.
   
   This is an abridgment of the eight-volume edition written by Winston Churchill's official biographer Sir Martin Gilbert. I was rather reluctant to buy it because it looked rather daunting being 959 pages long but wanting to know more about Sir Winston Churchill my curiosity finally got the better of me. Not only did this book reveal things about Sir Winston that I did and did not know but also the author's prose and vocabulary made this an absolute pleasure to read. I was very reluctant to finish this book simply because I wanted more to read. If you don't know much about Winston Churchill then this is the book to get. Even if you do know quite a bit about Sir Winston Churchill I'm sure you'll find a few things in here that you may not have known. If you are looking for bios that are well written, or any book that is, then this is one for you. Buy it and enjoy!



3. Even the most historically illiterate students are familiar with the role Winston Churchill played in the victory over Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, many students of history remain uninformed of the true breadth and scope of his life. This work, a condensation of Martin Gilbert's earlier two volume history, is an excellent antidote for such ignorance.
   
   It is no exaggeration to credit Winston Churchill for the survival of England in the years between the fall of France and the U.S. entry in the conflict with Germany and Japan. Such was the lingering horror of the events of World War I, that Churchill was virtually alone in fighting the appeasement policies of his own government which contributed to the early success of Nazi Germany.
   
   But, it should be noted that Winston Churchill was in his mid-60s when he became Prime Minister of a coalition government formed to prosecute the war with the Axis powers. He already had 40 years of parliamentary service under his belt, stints as First Lord of the Admiralty during World War I (where he presided over the disastrous Gallipoli campaign) and Chancellor of the Exchequer, service in the trenches of World War I as well as the Boer War and the Sudan campaign, time as both a war correspondent and published author.
   
   Despite this nearly unprecedented scope of accomplishments, were it not for the rise of Nazi Germany and Adolph Hitler, he would be virtually unknown outside the realm of British historians. For, as great protagonists and great events are required to bring out the greatness of our heroes (Grant needed Lee, Caesar, Pompeii), none is a better example of this than Winston Churchill.
   
   Were it not for Adolph Hitler, Churchill would have likely served out his later parliamentary years as little more than a back bench Conservative crank, labeled as a warmonger and kept on the fringes of party politics. Even in the months preceding the invasion of Poland, Churchill was kept outside of the Cabinet of his own party's government. He was never neatly pigeonholed in the existing English party system. It was only the formation of a coalition government that allowed his ascension to the Prime Ministership. As it was, the perfect combination of personalities and events allowed Churchill to achieve greatness on a historical scale. It is no accident that almost immediately following successful conclusion of the war, Churchill and the Conservative party were bounced from power by the Labour Party, only to be returned to face the Soviet Union in the early stages of the Cold War. Churchill was a "crisis" manager and ill suited for periods of peace and tranquility.
   
   As a man in his late 60s and early 70s, Churchill displayed an endurance and a level of accomplishments nearly unprecedented in human history. Consider that he likely logged more miles of travel (both in the air and on sea, during a time of great danger for each) and wrote and published more works of literature than nearly anyone else alive during a period when he was quite literally standing alone in what was almost a personal fight for the continued existence of the British Empire. The catalog of heart attacks and strokes suffered and recovered from are a source of absolute amazement
   
   Now, it is a common failing of many biographers to enhance the accomplishments and gloss over he failings of their subjects, and I doubt not that Gilbert has done so here. However, the historical record is quite clear and Churchill's life and accomplishments are well documented. His love of the grog is rarely mentioned, though it was obviously a personal vice which he passed on to his children. His relationship with his wife seems quite unusual, though perhaps not so in the context of Victorian and early 20th century upper class English society.
   
   Gilbert's writing style consists almost entirely of reference to and quotation from letters, diary entries and other correspondence to, from and about Churchill. While this would seem to create a work both choppy and halting, it is quite the opposite. Gilbert does a masterful job splicing these observations into historical events and produces a smoothly flowing and captivating narrative which should be required reading for any serious student of modern history.



4. If you are new to Churchill - this is the book to buy - its in paperback which is a drawback, however the skill Sir Martin has put into this compliation and chronology of his works on Churchill make this one to read, have and use for study.
   
   It has many quotes and not all from Churchill along with some amazing photos.



5. If you like Churchill and would like to know a on of info about him, more then just clever and witty quotes, then this is the book for you! Great book!!

5 comments about Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters.

1. I think Lee would have liked this book. Remember, Robert E. Lee was a devout Christian. According to Lee's Bible, Jesus Christ said that nobody is "good" but God. Lee was a humble man, and all his life he tried to learn from his own mistakes, his father's, those of others'. That's to say, yes, Robert E. Lee did make mistakes on occasion. And so, I'd bet the one most opposed to the "Marble Man" myth would be Lee himself. I liked this book.



2. Robert Edward Lee (1807-1870) has won immortal fame among the great military captains of all time. Thousands of articles and books have been written about him. His most notable biographer is Douglas Southall Freeman's adulatory multivolumed work by a Lee worshipper. In recent years several revisionary works have appeared by the likes of Alan Nolan
   who have castigated Lee for his white supremacist views Now it is the turn of Elizabeth Brown Pryor.
   Pryor has sifted through over 10,000 pages of letters from Lee, his wife Mary and the Lee family. She has almost 200 densely written pages in her book listing first and secondary sources. She has done her homework!
   Pryor has produced what is, in my opinion, a great book on the great Virginian. We see Lee as a great and good man but one who was not perfect. Pryor begins each chapter with a letter from Lee or family memory and then illuminates how that letter became an important mirror into the life of the Confederate hero.
   We see Lee as a brave man who defended his beloved South against the North. Among salient points we learn:
   a. Lee was a white supremecist who had trouble controlling the slaves on the Arlington estate he inherited from Washington Park Custis (Custis was the father of Lee's wife Mary and the grandson of George Washington_).
   b. Lee could harsh in his treatment of slaves. Several slaves ran away from Arlington. He was not adverse to having them whipped for infractions
   of his strict rules. There are reports that Lee was also kind to slaves.
   He was a racist and believed the white race was superior to the African-Americans with whom he interacted. In this belief he was consistent with the widely held belief of the vast majority of nineteenth century Americans.
   c. Lee was a great general as manifest in the brilliant Chancellorsville campaign but had trouble in supervision of his subordinates. Lee also kept inadequate leaders in positions of leadership in the Army of Northern Virginia who should have been replaced.
   d. Lee was Virginia-centric. Lee believed in states rights.
   e. Lee was an elitist who thought upper class white males should be the leaders of society.
   f. Lee was frustrated by his antebellum army career as a member of the engineering corp. He suffered from depression and had a violent temper.
   g. Lee was a good and faithful husband to his invalid wife Mary. The Lees had several children. He was an absentee father due to his military career.
   h. Lee hated the years he spent as supt. of West Point. Following the Civil War he became President of Washington College in Lexington Va. bust disliked the work
   i. Lee was often perceived as aloof and cold. Lee was able to unwind with famiily and close friends.
   j. Lee's ideas on religion varied throughout his life from a mild Deism to evangelical belief in his later years. He was an Episcopalian.
   Not everyone will like this biography of a Southern icon without peer who has been elevated to the ranks of Dixie sainthood along with Elvis!
   As one who has read all the important biographies of Lee I consider this book an essential in understanding the great but enigmatic man. Pryor's book will engender controversy but is a vital read for anyone wanting a good understanding of Lee that does not portray him as a Lost Cause saint.
   Essential and excellent!



3. "There is indeed a certain childish willfulness in the American mind that insists on chastising the people of the past for not being like them, or else pretending that they were. Which is a certain way NOT to learn anything from history." ---Dr. Clyde Wilson
   
   Put it this way - if you are the type of person Dr. Wilson is describing, you're going to love this book! If not, you'll be wishing you had paid for it in Confederate bills instead of U.S. dollars.
   
   The book itself contains roughly 175 pages of footnotes, bibliography and index. There are 50 pages of actual letters, some of which have already been published and others of which are not even by Lee, but by other people. If you're planning on seeing 500 pages of newly discovered letters, forget it. The fewer than 50 pages of new letters by Lee himself will leave you grossly disappointed. Finally, we have 425 pages of Ms. Pryor's perseverative and monotonous interpretations of those letters, which I suppose is the "meat" of the book.
   
   According to Ms. Pryor, Lee did not release the Custis slaves immediately. The terms of the will specified "within 5 years" of the elder Custis' death (in 1857). Lee fulfilled that mandate by manumitting them in 1862. This apparently wasn't satisfactory enough for Ms. Pryor as she repeatedly drones on about Lee's failure to understand how the slaves felt.
   
   Ms. Pryor is also critical of Lee for expecting the slaves to actually work!? Oh horror! Oh horror!
   
   Of course, there is the matter of several slaves being whipped by Lee, something which has never been conclusively proven. Like a second rate shyster, Ms. Brown does her best to drum up the case against him.
   
   According to Ms. Pryor, Lee had no appreciation of other cultures and saw nothing worthwhile in the Mexican culture when he was there during the Mexican war. I'm wondering what Pryor expected Lee, an educated, well-to-do man from one of Virginia's first families, to say when he was in Mexico? "Gee! What lovely mud huts!?" I'm pretty sure that Mexico didn't have Grand Melia and Paradisus or any other resorts at that time, so I can't figure out what Ms. Pryor expected him to see in the place? I suppose to understand her reasoning, or her expectations, one would have to refer back to Dr. Wilson's quote above.
   
   Also, according to Ms. Pryor, Lee had "poor cross cultural communications skills", a term apparently taken from today's lexicon of multicultural drivel. In this case she was referring to his "communication", or lack of it, with the Comanches. I ran this past a native American friend of mine and he almost fell over laughing. I'm not sure there were too many folks at the time who had good cross cultural communication skills with the Comanches of that era, as this particular group wasn't usually given to such things themselves. Would that it were possible to transport Ms. Pryor back in time to the 1850s and observe how her "skills" with the Comanches would fare? I would be taking bets on how long she kept her pretty blond hair.
   
   In sum, this book, touted though it is by most "contemporary" historians, is one more example of the sham that has become what we used to call, "the field of history".
   
   If you feel compelled somehow to read it, buy it used and pay as little as possible. When you're through with it, it will make for an excellent target at the firing range.



4. Historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor has based her biography of Robert E. Lee on a huge collection of Lee family letters so that the reader sees Lee through his own words in repsonse to life situations. He comes through as a very complex person with a largely conflicted life. Lee of course was primariy a soldier (at one point he had been superintendent of West Point) and while Lincoln offered him the leadership of the Union army he followed his Southern background and in a few short weeks sided with the Confederacy. In this book we also see Lee as a husband and father. One example of Pryor's insight shows the reaction of Lee and his wife to the Union army taking over their Arlington estate which had been in his wife's family and their recognition that the house had been looted, and as the war progressed their land turned into a military cemetary for both Union and Confederate dead. Pryor says that that incident made the break complete and left the Lees embittered for the rest of their lives.
   This is a fine study of the man based on his own words and is a valuable addition to Civil War history. I would agree that Reading the Man will beocme a standard reference on Robert E. Lee.



5. When I first heard of this book, I couldn't wait to get my hands on it. Now that I am finished reading it, I wish I would have spent my money elsewhere. Although this revisionist history does provide some compelling and dramatic insights into Lee as a person, the author is clearly no fan of Lee or his legacy. I found myself wondering if Elizabeth Brown Pryor had any sympathy for Lee "the man" whatsoever. The concept of the book is very good, but the writer's analysis is shallow in many areas. She breezes over several significant events in Lee's life and Civil War career, yet makes it a point to showcase Lee's "racism" throughout many chapters. She uses a surprisingly narrow scope of primary documents. The writing style in some passages is mediocre at best. If you want a book about Robert E. Lee that a Left wing Liberal could love, then this may be the book for you. If you want a true portrait of the man, I would recommend you look elsewhere.

5 comments about Lafayette.

1. This is one of those "fast-paced" narratives that is long on drama, but short on quality research. Should not be used as a reference at all for Lafayette's experiences during the American Revolution, especially for the 1781 Virginia campaign. Very inaccurate.



2. Fascinating book about a man I knew only by name and whose name and dedication to the fight for independence is not as well known as it should be. There should be a national holiday for this man. I had not known about his passion for manumission. I did know about his failure to bring human rights to France and failed during the Great Terror and his wife's role in aiding the poor at great risk.
   
   An exellent beginning book because I would like to know more.



3. This was the second book I'd read on Lafayette, the first being General and Madame de Lafayette. Get that one, not this.
   Not that this book was horrible, but it was, like another reviewer said, written very simply. Rather than having perhaps a poetic effect, at times it feels condescending -it might make a good book for a middle school student, but certainly not for one in high school. My biggest point against this book is that it seems to be attempting to overly flatter him in the reader's mind by omitting some of what we might consider character flaws, such as his extramarital affairs. If you want a more complete picture read General and Madame de Lafayette. I have since read numerous books on Lafayette and not found a better one. If you must read this book, get it from the library -you will not feel the need to read it more than once.



4. This is an extremely disappointing book of "history"? As one earlier reviewer indicated, the book contains some appalling historical mistakes. Here are two that blew me away because they are so completely inaccurate and so obvious - on page 60 "Saratoga had been America's only military victory since the beginning of the war" - well I guess Concord, Trenton and Princeton must not have been victories!!! On page 120 regarding Benedict Arnold, "...Arnold suffered a crippling wound in the disastrous American assault on Quebec...and his injuries left him reluctant to assume anymore battlefield commands". Of course this is completely inaccurate since Arnold was certainly never "reluctant" to take on any military command and in fact his most successful military actions, (as you can find in any basic book on the Revolution) Valcour Island and Saratoga, occurred long after Quebec.
   
   I simply can't believe these inaccuracies (along with many other questionable statements) were allowed to be included in a history book, where were the editors! I was really looking forward to reading the chapters on the Lafayette's involvement in the French Revolution (since I am not too familiar with that period) but since the ARW content is dubious at best I decided not to waste my time and possibly be led to believe inaccurate facts that I do not have the knowledge to recognize.
   
   Finally, the book seems to white wash Lafayette to the extreme and makes him appear to be the most important and sometimes only player in a number of the most dramatic events of the war, other than possibly Washington. For instance there is little about Franklin's involvement in winning French support for independence. The best portions of this book are the letters the author has included. Lafayette was certainly one of the most important and noble people in the history of our country - but I'll have to find another book to satisfy my interest in him.



5. This book is apparently not well researched and has at least three errors so far and I am not a fifth finished with it.
   
   For one on page 71: "After signing the treaty, (The Treaty of Alliance between the United States and France) Franklin, Deane, and Adams were officially presented to the king..."
   
   Unger means Arthur Lee, not Adams. The treaty was signed on February 6, 1778, the presentation ceremony was March 22. John Adams didn't arrive in Paris until April 8.
   
   This is pitiful and I could list the other errors and I certainly will if it is requested. But I resent the time involved to do it, they are not my errors! Why the Library Journal claims this is a "well-researched" biography one can only speculate. The (few?) errors make the whole suspect. A sad event for publishing. Perhaps we should wait another 20 years for an accurate book.

2 comments about Royal Affairs: A Lusty Romp Through the Extramarital Adventures That Rocked theBritish Monarchy.

1. Royal Scandals: A Lusty Romp Through the Extramarital Adventures that Rocked the British Monarchy is a compendium of just that: all the famous (and infamous) affairs the English monarchy conducted over the course of a millennium. From Edward II and his shameless promotion of his court favorites, to Henry VIII and his six wives, to Charles II and his many mistresses, to Prince Charles and his affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles, Leslie Carroll gives us a "tell all" about famous royals' love lives which is absolutely fascinating to the modern American.
   
   Its in her favor that the author isn't a professional historian; these royal affairs are related with a gossipy tone. However, there's a caveat to this: some of Carroll's facts are incorrect. She's primarily a fiction writer, and she tries too hard at times to adopt the lingo--she's fond of such terms as "heir and a spare" and "maitresse en titre." It's also difficult to credit an author who lists Michael Farquhar's A Treasury of Royal Scandals: The Shocking True Stories History's Wickedest, Weirdest, Most Wanton Kings, Queens, Tsars, Popes, and Emperorsas one of her sources. But nonetheless, its clear that Carroll must have done a lot of research in order to write this book, and that she's really enthusiastic about her subject matter.



2. Publisher's Weekly called Amanda Elyot (a/k/a Leslie Carroll) the "Queen of historical fiction". Well, the Queen has now turned her attention to fact, in her non-fiction debut, "ROYAL AFFAIRS: A Lusty Romp Through the Extramarital Adventures that Rocked the British Monarchy".
   
   For lovers of salacious tabloids, this book is a MUST READ! It's hard to believe the goings on among the Royals. Fans of Showtime's "The Tudors" and the popular novel and film "The Other Boleyn Girl", will love the fact that "Royal Affairs" spotlights the TRUE stories behind these beloved (or reviled -depending on how you view it) historical personalities. The old cliche, "truth is stranger than fiction" absolutely applies here. The actual shenanigans of these royal figures and their lovers, as Ms. Carroll recounts wittily, are frequently more exotic, exciting and passionate than those engaged in by their fictional counterparts. Just imagine our ancestors devouring every word of delicious gossip about the royals of their time as we've all digested every titillating word about Prince Charles, Princess Diana and royal mistress Camilla, who had the guts to hang on in until the Prince made an "honest woman" out of her.
   
   The reason for most of these royal marriages was not love -but political and economic gain. So it's not surprising that many kings, queens, dukes and duchesses indulged their libidos without benefit of marriage. Ms. Carroll is a meticulous researcher and her efforts recall various forms of sexual encounters from flirtations and love letters to rampant sex with glamourous (and not so glamourous -or beautiful) men and woman who willingly shared their wares.
   
   For sheer FUN, pick up a copy of ROYAL AFFAIRS... it will make a truly marvelous addition to your summer reading list. You might also pick up some royal tips to add sparkle to your own sex lives.

2 comments about Pursuit: The Chase, Capture, Persecution, and Surprising Release of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

1. There are different ways to write Civil War history. Some books that are designed for history professors are found filled with footnotes and trivial facts and esoteric comparisons which only another professor of history could enjoy wading through. Then there are others with no notes and no references to sources that tell a rousing good story but one that leaves the reader wondering if he has read a novel or a history book and no way to verify which. Clint Johnson has merged these two types of history into a book which, if you are interested in Jefferson Davis and his capture, is a must read. Johnson focuses on the details of Davis' flight and capture. For those who are looking for something new -- along with the fresh perspective that Johnson brings to the oft-told story of Davis' capture, he has unearthed interesting information, like providing newly discovered details concerning the story that Davis was wearing a dress when he was captured. Many are not aware the Lincoln actively sought to have Davis and his cabinet escape the US or that Davis was never tried for a crime because he never committed one [except in the eyes of the most radical Republicans] and Johnson lets you see the pickle the US government was in as the press and Reconstructors were screaming for Davis to be tried and hung. Johnson seems to have done his legwork. In Johnson's work I did not run across anything which seemed invented, contrived or went against modern Civil War research. Whenever I did want to check the source, I found the cited sources matched Johnson's version. The best part is that the book is well enough written that, once I started, I had to stay up till I finished it. A fascinating book about a fascinating figure in American history. If you are a Civil War history buff, or just want to read a well written account of a very interesting episode from the Civil War, then I recommend you read this book.



2. ...but that doesn't make him guilty of a crime.
   
   When the Confederacy collapsed in April, 1865, President Davis got Lee's message to leave while sitting in pew 63 at St. Paul's Episcopal Church...I have sat in that pew for Church services, and if you think that doesn't give a Southerner the shakes, think again. The civil government left town on a slow train that night..... Danville...Greensboro...Charlotte... One by one his cabinet faded away; Davis still wanted to make it to Texas, and continue the war. By then, that idea bordered on lunacy. Finally, after a month in which he ran, but not hard enough, the President was captured by Union Cavalry near Irwinville, Georgia [NOT IN VARINA'S DRESS--that story is a vile lie]. Davis was transported to Fortress Monroe, Virginia....then the real story started.
   
   Abe Lincoln has wanted a peaceful reunion of the country, and was inclined to let Davis, and the others, escape. Some of Lincoln's own people disagreed; we shall never know what would have happened had Lincoln lived. Abe was a strong leader...Andrew Johnson was not, and therin lay the problem. President Davis was locked up, even kept in chains for a week. The Union had several real difficulties...Democrat controlled newspapers came to Davis' support...good lawyers offered to defend him...the Justice Department couldn't come up with a crime to charge him with. Treason? Well...the Constitutional definition of that is very specific. Secession alone won't do it...secession had always been assumed to be legal. Overthrow of the government in Washington? We NEVER sought to do that, merely to form our own. The Yankees had treated us as a real country during prisoner exchanges; now, they were stuck. And then there was the matter of the Yankees' illegal admission of West Virginia. Does that mean I'm an unperson?
   
   Some Northerners tried to frame Davis for the Lincoln murder, but couldn't even get lying witnesses to tell a straight story. Davis would have NEVER traded Lincoln for Johnson, and Judah Benjamin would have never run such an operation without express orders from Davis. Mr. Johnson touched one interesting point, but did not elaborate: Secretary Stanton refused two different Union officers permission to accompany Lincoln to the theater. Both were strong men, who could have overpowered Booth...stories have circulated for years, hinting at Stanton's involvement, because he wanted a harsher Reconstruction than Lincoln would have allowed. The most that can be speculated is that knowing, somehow, about the plot, he withdrew protection.
   
   Finally, after two years [during which his treatment improved], President Davis was released on bail [paid by Northerners]. The Union had gotten itself in a legal mess by holding a man they dared not bring to trial, and were afraid to just let go. Mr. Chief Justice Chase came to the rescue with a novel approach to the Fourteenth Amendment, and the doctrine of double jeopardy. Davis never got his day in Court....
   
   I am a supporter of Jefferson Davis, but I will certainly not assert that he was without faults; pig-headed might be a nice way to put it. His inability to work with men he disliked led to the underuse of Generals PGT Beauregard and Joe Johnston, and hurt the South. Once he decided on a policy, he would simply not listen to reason. Still, his strength of character helped keep the South going. He gave the South someone to rally around during Reconstruction; to the day he died in 1889, he never backed down. He also committed no crime during the war...Mr. Johnson has written a superb book, part adventure story, part legal treatise, all great history.

5 comments about About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior.

1. This is a story of a soldier in an army in decline, a lost war and a premature end of a magnificaint career. It is also the most motivating war story that I've ever read. It is the story of a man with barely a 7th grade education who joins the army at 15 years old and earns a battlefield commission in Korea and in Vietnam becomes the only soldier to be awarded two Distinguished Service Crosses, 10 Silver Stars and three times nominated for the Medal of Honor (which he did not recieve) and became the youngest Colonel in Vietnam. The book is a cry for military reform and it is also a war story. Hackworth tells of the desparate fights on nameless hills in Korea in a fasion that makes you wish that you were there, not an easy task, with the Korean War. When a lackluster soldier is killed Hackworth is proud that he died well and makes him a hero to the unit. He never seems to feel fear-"I guess I just like war...I like the cameradship. Adversity brings out the best in men"- Hackworth told Ward Just in the book "Military Men." In Vietnam Hack often took hopeless situations and turned them into victory. In a way his resignation was a victory, this self educated soldier stood up to a buracatic army that was losing a war while others went along. This is the most motivating book that I've ever read, so much so that I retured to active duty after reading it, insisting on infantry. David Hackworth may have been "Once An Eagle" but he was no colonel Kurtz-as the hardback dusk cover suggested. Hackworth died in 2005 from cancer, the only fight that he ever lost.



2. Colonel David Hackworth was a soldier's soldier. Born too late to see active service in the crucible of WW II, he lied about his age and enlisted in the Army as soon as he could. Often credited as being the most decorated American soldier of his era, Hack was well-known within the U.S. Army for his courage, honesty, and derring-do exploits.
   
   Hack ranks right up their with the U.S. Marine's Chesty Puller and Gregory "Pappy" Boyington as the sort of officer who is a pain in the a** to have around in peacetime -- but who is exactly the sort of leader you want when the bullets start to fly. It is impossible to read about Hackworth's battlefield experiences during the Korean War without getting a lump in your throat for the privations those poor guys suffered. (Many U.S. Army units were airlifted from the States via Japan directly into combat in Korea, still wearing their Class 'A' uniforms -- totally unprepared for the Korean winters and the raging fighting they found upon landing.)
   
   Col. Hackworth's Vietnam experiences are fascinating, too. As he rose in rank he displayed an uncanny ability to call a spade a spade, and his dismay with how the war was being fought eventually led to his being personally cashiered out of the Army by the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army!
   
   Buy this book and read it -- you're in for a real treat! Hack was the real thing, and his demonstrated courage and abrasive honesty make him worthy of study and appreciation by both junior and senior officers throughout the armed services.
   
   Captain Michael L. Pandzik, U.S. Navy Reserve (Retired)



3. Excellent Read......... Highly Recommended ... 5 stars
   
   About Face chronicles the experiences of the youngest colonel serving during the Vietnam circumstances. The book itself begins in February 1951 with Hackworth facing the enemy in Korea and is divided into twenty-three chapters. About Face follows David Hackworth the length of his military journey from the days when as a young soldier nick-named 'Combat' he charged into the face of the enemy along a path to near ruin at the hands of disgruntled superiors. The work includes maps, author's notes, a foreword by Ward Just, an Epilogue and an Appendix including a Glossary, Index and final notes.
   
   About Face is a well written page turner presented in language clearly understood by the typical reader. The book is certain to interest those who have any link at all to the Vietnam situation faced by so many men and women from our country. The book helps to demarcate what happened, when and to whom.
   
   I first read About Face written by Col. David Hackworth during the late 1980s. I found it particularly helpful in helping me...a woman with little knowledge of anything military, understand better my children's dad, a land based Viet Nam combat vet and the problems he had to deal with before his death.
   
   As the wife of yet a second Viet Nam combat vet, special forces, I suggest this book for anyone who wants a better understanding of the debt of gratitude and respect we citizens owe those who served during the action in Vietnam and those who willing to serve in The United States Military today.
   
   Molly Martin
   Reviewer



4. This book was an inspirational read. Even though it takes forever to read this book, it's well worth the time. Hack's experiences shared in this book changed my outlook on life, and my outlook on human interaction/organization.
   
   I would recommend this book to anyone, as I'm sure his experience can be applicable to anything you will ever have to deal with in life.



5. Great book! Hackworth was a true warrior stud. He was the essence of an instinctual soldier and was quite lucky to have survived so many brushes with death. I did find his conclusions interesting as he was not entirely correct. He became a liberal after Vietnam and predicted things that did not happen with the USSR, Central America, and more. He did give great insight into how bungled the Vietnam War was and what could have been done to "win" it.