5 comments about I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years, 1933-1941 (Modern Library Paperbacks).

1. A must read for all those who are compelled to understand the insanity of Nazi Germany. The evil is in the details as these journals so devastatingly reveal. Sometimes necessary to read only a few pages at a time as the devastation and slowly increasing helplessness of this man's life is revealed. A critical historical document.



2. As an educated Professor of Philology, Victor Klemperer documents life as a Jew in Nazi Germany. The very act of keeping this diary was grounds for his demise.
   The essence of these incredible documents, is that it records the tightening of control of the Jewish people under Nazism. The progressive pogroms took away simple things such as going to a movie or taking a ride on a tram. The taking of one's own home and living in a communal Jewish home further degraded the Jewish people. The simple fact that each had to wear the yellow star which indeed put all Jews into harms way.
   Mr Klemperer was forced out of his professorship because he was a Jew. Even though he was an honorable World War I Veteran, he was forced to live on a half pension.
   The only thing that saved Victor Klemperer was his Aryan wife Eva. She never abandoned Victor as I'm sure other wives in similar circumstances did. Looking at this, I think is an incredible act of love by Eva. Her subjucation to Nazi Life living with a Jew for 12 years was indeed a severe prison term.
   The diaries are edited to delete repetition. However several things are constantly repeated. Victor was always at death's door with an ailing heart. The other repetition was he and his wife's constant physical hunger.
   This set of diaries should be required reading for anyone who is a serious student of 20th century history.



3. When my son told me a student said the Holocaust was much less gruesome than reported and was exagerated by people over the years, we started to read this together... Not that he needed to be reminded, but how incredible that even today some are still floating this insane rumor!



4. This is a great memoir that any history buff or historian or anyone should read. It ranks right up there with Anne Frank's diary. It offers a unique view since Mr. Klemperer was married to a German woman during the Holocaust. It is this unique view on the Holocaust that makes this memoir so good.



5. Victor Klemperer's diary of pre war Germany provides fascinating insight into what life was like for ordinary citizens in Germany. Interspersed with the mundane aspects of life, e.g., shopping, driving, going to the dentist, etc. are ever increasing examples of the insanity that was Nazi Germany. It was a little difficult to get into, but it soon became a page tuner. The later years are particularly interesting. I couldn't put it down.

5 comments about General Patton: A Soldier's Life.

1. Aside from excellent points made by other reviewers, I found Hirsohson's book full of repetitions, untenable assumptions or conclusions and in some cases too much detail; all of which reminded me of the lecture of a brilliant history professor who has been kept on the job too long and whose mind is approaching senility. There is useful new information about Patton and some of his subordinate generals but this is not the "definitive" biography.



2. I was reviewing my wish list and noted the low average rating this book received. The author invested more than a decade reviewing source documents and interviewing primary sources in order to complete this book. The book is very readable, entertaining, comprehensive, flows well, and is replete with relevant facts, as it should be. Any rating below five is ridiculous.



3. I read somewhere that great men have great flaws and General George S. Patton was no exception. Gruff, volatile, arrogant, and self-promoting, Patton was nonetheless a bold tactician. Stanley Hirshson, far from presenting a hagiography, has decided to concentrate on the former. Indeed, it appears Hirshson has a sizeable axe to grind.
   
   Though no particular fan of Patton, I couldn't help but notice that much of the author's unfavorable narrative was not only anecdotal but defamatory. True, Patton was an extremely controversial figure with viewpoints any objective person would question, but Hirshson plainly contradicts himself when accusing the general of ant-semitism. His claim that Patton did not respect Jewish junior officers seems to be at odds with the fact that Patton sent several to free his son-in-law from a POW camp in Germany.
   
   One also detects a socialist ideologue deeply offended by the concept of meritocracy. Patton simply didn't share the author's worldview and Hirshson's dismay at this bleeds through to the written page. When not immersed in these complexities, Hirshson does the battlefield a disservice with maps that are basically worthless. The troop dispositions and maneuvers of the ETO's most daring general are completely ignored. Rather, we are given town names and not a heck of a lot more.
   
   Can Hirshson write well? He can. Did the book hold my interest? It did. But, as I closed the book for the final time, I did not feel the satisfaction that a good book provides. Instead, I felt I'd been piloted through the life of Patton by a man not disinterested enough to drive. 3 stars.



4. Overall, GENERAL PATTON: A SOLDIER'S LIFE is a good, solid, if unspectacular tracing of George Patton's life.
   
   There is a photograph in the book that shows Bing Crosby visiting a war zone to entertain the troops. The crooner has eschewed a steel helmet, and wears instead a less-protective soft cap. The caption announces that General Patton threatened, in fact, to have Bing Crosby court-martialed for his choice of headgear.
   
   Okay. So here's my question. Was General Patton being serious? (Which would mean he was a mean old son-of-a-gun.) Or was Old Blood and Guts just teasing? (Which would mean he had a caustic sense of humor). I don't know: nowhere in the body of the text is Bing Crosby mentioned.
   
   Similarly: George Patton's fatal car accident is mentioned. But we don't learn whether this was a dumb, avoidable car accident, or a one-in-a-million, odds-defying tragedy, or possibly a conspiracy. Stanley Hirshson, the book's author, doesn't take us to that level of detail.
   
   Similarly: we learn a good bit about George Patton's performance as an Olympic athlete. But we don't really learn what **Patton himself** felt about the experience. We just get second-hand stuff. Mustn't Patton have spoken or written about his pentathalon performance at some point? If so--let's have it!
   
   In short, this book will give you a good overview of Patton's life and it raises some interesting, even provocative ideas, but overall it remains just a bit flat and incomplete.



5. Stanley P. Hirshon has written an average study of an important American war hero. Two and a half stars is really the rating I would like to give this book. Hirshon argues that he has written a different book from other biographers. While that is true, what he is really trying to do with that statement is distinguish himself from Carlo D'Este who published his Patton biography after Hirshon had invested four years of research into this project. He encourages his readers to compare his biography to others. I am not sure most people will do that, but I am also writing a book on the making of the film "Patton." As a result, I have consulted and examined both biographies and what I find is that Hirshon comes to a number of different conclusions, but most of them seem to exaggerate minor differences and/or reflect a lack of familiarity with the military.
   
   
   
   Hirshon uncovers a number of vignettes about Patton's life that are new. His coverage of Patton's experiences in the Olympics is particularly good. One of D'Este's major themes was that the most significant factor in shaping Patton's life was his dyslexia. A major theme that Hirshon pursues without mentioning D'Este's name is that Patton was NOT dyslexic. He certainly has an argument, but he takes it too far. He also spends a good deal of time discussing Patton's father and the wide divergence in their political views. The senior Patton was an important politician in California, who played a key and underappreciated role in getting Woodrow Wilson reelected in 1916. While Patton's relationship with his father could have been better than it was and their different political values are part of that story, the differences are not what made the son historically important and the emphasis Hirshon places on them seems excessive.
   
   
   
   When most people think of Patton, they think of a 43-year old raspy-voiced actor named George C. Scott standing in front of a giant U.S. flag giving a war speech: "We have the finest food and equipment, the best spirit and the best men in the world. You know, by God I actually pity those poor bastards we're going up against. By God, I do. We're not just going to shoot the bastards, we're going to cut out their living guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun bastards by the bushel." Hirshon spends a lot of time discussing the real speeches that Patton delivered to his soldiers and argues that these were the basis for atrocities that troops under his command committed. The story of killing civilians is hardly as new as Hirshon claims--other historians have looked into these events--and while some soldiers at the time tried to say they were following Patton's instructions there is a world of difference between giving a blood thirsty speech designed to inspire men to go into combat, and giving a formal order to kill non-combatants. Hirshon believes that had this event been better investigated at the time that it would have led to Patton's removal from command. This argument is difficult to accept, but one on which the author places great emphasis.
   
   
   
   On other matters, the writing is adequate. The research is good and the author has consulted new sources that other biographers have not but their importances is open to question. What strikes me most is that Hirshon came to dislike his subject during this project and it shows. On the other hand, D'Este offers his readers a detached and balanced account that shows his readers Patton's strengths and weaknesses. D'Este is also quite alert to the details of military life. (I gave it five stars in an amazon.com review). You won't go wrong reading Hirshon's book, but there are other titles out there that are better on the same subject.

2 comments about The Recollections and Letters of General Robert E. Lee (Civil War Library).

1. This is one of the best books about Lee! It is written from his youngest's son's point of view. It's a great book for every library.



2. Robert E. Lee never had the chance to pen his own autobiography as U.S. Grant did. He meant to, but kept holding it off until heart disease claimed his life five years after the surrender of Appomattox.
   
   Many of those who served under him during the Civil War wrote biographies of the great Confederate General, claiming to know how he felt, and what he thought. But only two of them really came close. The ponderous but solidly written "Memoirs of Robert E. Lee" by his Aide, Colonel Long, and this volume, comprised of letters actually written by Lee, and the remembrances of those who knew him well, and none more so than the author of the book, his own son, Captain Robert E.Lee, Jr.
   
   Captain Lee describes his childhood in the Lee household, of General Lee's love of animals, especially horses. He describes a man who smiled, was warm, as compared to the austere, solemn descriptions and illustrations of him once the Civil War commenced. He writes how Lee agonized within his own family of the decision to leave the U.S. Army, and then join the Confederacy, even though wishing for a quiet, neutral life, and of Lee's personal losses during the war - a daughter who passed on, a son wounded and captured, the son's frail wife also passing on, and the known loss of their dearly beloved home in Arlington, which was turned into the national cemetery of the same name.
   
   Captain Lee studiously avoids the controversial sides of Lee, his stand on slavery or the rights of the South, concentrating mainly on the personality of man and how he dealt with others.
   This is a volume that belongs on the shelf of any Civil War buff, especially those interested in the life of Robert E. Lee.
   I recommend this book, and Burke Davis' "Gray Fox" be purchased together.

5 comments about A Venetian Affair: A True Tale of Forbidden Love in the 18th Century.

1. 
   We have romantic notions about the balls, the masques, the outings, the houses and the art of this period. We don't often consider how little personal freedom the the young nobles attending the balls in the ornate palaces had. Young people could not enjoy their youth. They had to navigate double standards set by society. How did they cope with the emotions and hormones of youth?
   
   With power and money at stake, romantic love was considered indulgent and selfish. In Venice, matches needed not only parental approval, but also approval by the oligarchs. Blemishes on the reputation of a parent or grandparent diminished their progeny's value in the marriage market. The probablity of a happy marriage was very low. Love, courtly love, was a dream of novels and songs, not for the children of dynasts.
   
   The young people that come alive through the letters inherited by the Di Robilant family know they are fated. Unlike Romeo and Juliet, they accept their fate. They carry on and maintain a friendship through letters.
   
   I felt very sorry for Guistiniana, who had NO social or emotional support for her feelings. In contrast Andrea had the love of his parents and the admiration of a society that allowed him to flirt and enjoy dalliances that were hurtful to Guistiniana. He seemed very cold at times for not ackowledging her risks. Mrs. Anna, never acknowledges her role in hindering her daughter's future.
   
   While this book could have been much shorter, it was worhtwhile. It paints a portrait of how the time's social mores played out in the lives of two teens as they become twentysomethings... and how they made a life for themselves.
   
   I came to this after reading Lucia: A Venetian Life in the Age of Napoleon by the same author which describes the life and times of the next generation of the Memmo family. While "Affair" is good and I recommend it, I even more highly recommend "Lucia" for people who are interested in this period.



2. I don't think this is a very good book. The time period (18th century Venice) is interesting. The topic (two lovers unable to marry because of a difference in social position)is interesting, as are the circumstances (the book is constructed around letters discovered many years later by the author's father). The letters themselves, however, become increasingly dull and repetitious; eventually, I began to skim them and then skip them altogether. The author's prose is weighed down by such extraneous detail, such tiresome step by step accountings of clandestine meetings and so on, that I began to regret that these letters had not fallen into the hands of a novelist. Henry James, to be exact.



3. Andrea Di Robilant's book based on the correspondence between Andrea Memmo and Giustiniana Wynne paints a vivid picture of love in the 18th Century. The social division between the socially venerated Venetian family and the girl from the wrong side of the tracks is a classic tale. The correspondence between Andrea and Giustiniana who use subterfuge to be able to catch a glimpse of each other and be together gives the love affair a timeless feel. Some of Andrea's letters are positively steamy where he talks about his "little nightingale" and sends love letters glazed with sticky residue. Giustiniana's prose is eloquent and tortured as she considers every aspect of her love for Andrea in their correspondence. The political setting of European war, the shift of the Wynne family to Paris, London and Padua all serve to give a context to this love affair. At times, Di Robilant tends toward making this more of a research paper than telling a compelling story. However, the heat and obsession of a lifelong unrequited love more than come through the pages. Overall, I found this an interesting reading experience that allowed me to know a bit about the historical background in addition to the personal fortunes of these two real people and their romance. Enjoy!



4. This is a non-fiction work about the long lasting love affair between Andrea Memmo and Giustiniana Wynne who are forbidden lovers unable to marry because of their very different positions in society in eighteenth century Venice.
   
   I expected a story of romance and unfortunately I didn't find anything about this story romantic. I thought the lovers in this historical tale were crazy, lying, obsessive lunatics and if they lived in America in present time they would have had restraining orders filed against them by the other ones' family.
   
   I can't say that Andrea di Robilant didn't create a well written and researched story, he did. Unfortunately for me I didn't at all care for the people this story was about. The history was very interesting I will say that but again I didn't think this was a romantic story at all.
   
   I found the behavior of the lovers offensive and irritating. I thought that Andre Memmo was a controlling and possessive womanizer and I thought that Giustiniana was a dishonest and conspiring fool who used her fixation on Memmo to distract herself and sabotage any chance she had of being successful when she was a young woman.



5. I am an avid reader of historical fiction and usually dabble in non-fiction a few times a year. Venice seems to be a pull lately, and this wonderful and detailed account of two young lovers during the last days of Venice was a treat.
   
   First, it is thrilling to read a real life account of a love forbidden by class and social snobbery, and two people who could not help themselves but to risk reputation, political power and wealth in spite of it all. Similar to fairy tales, Andrea Memmo and Giustiniana Wynne must contend with scheming enemies, jealous contenders and a watchful and foreboding mother, and in response they develop a secret code and a network of informants, allies and spies that spans Europe at times.
   
   Second, they were pals with Casanova. How could life in Venice or Paris be boring when Casanova is around? His exploits have lived on for 250 years - thus reading anything that bears witness to his world first hand is fascinating.
   
   Third, all is not roses in this romance. In addition to the aforementioned barriers to their love, they must also overcome infidelity, jealousy, distrust and large, looming secrets. Reading excerpts from their letters and seeing how they accomplish these feats is amazing. Giustiniana in particular shows astonishing cunning at times - and manages to accomplish a feat which today still seems impossible to the media and general public. Just goes to show how the more things change, the more they stay the same.
   
   Finally, the European scene during this time is fascinating in and of itself. I loved having the opportunity to witness it through Giustiniana's eyes and words, and watching her grow as well. We see her develop from a sheltered, dreamy adolescent into a worldly woman who was a century or more ahead of the rest of the world with regard to women's roles and freedoms. Her lost love, personal sacrifices and struggles to be accepted by society shaped her into a fascinating woman.
   
   Andrea Di Robilant deserves enormous thanks for bringing his father's dream into fruition by translating these letters, researching family and political history, and writing it all down to share with the world.

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.

5 comments about Chester Alan Arthur (The American Presidents).

1. Chester Alan Arthur was a surprise president. He was selected to run for VEEP from pure political reasons. However, he fell into the presidency and, against many fears, did not mess up in that office. As the author states (Page 143): ". . .some men are neither born great, nor achieve greatness, nor have it thrust upon them. Some people just do the best they can in a difficult situation, and sometimes that turns out just fine."
   
   Chester Arthur was one of the United States' "accidental presidents," thrust into office because of the assassination of James Garfield. This book, as others in the series, provides a thumbnail sketch of Arthur (text is 143 pages long). Born in Vermont, his family moved to New York when he was ten years old. He began his political work as a bureaucrat and patronage administrator. While he was enmeshed in the "spoils system," he was not corrupt and was generally pretty well liked. In 1871, he received a coveted position--collector of the New York customhouse. He earned plenty in that role.
   
   Comes the 1880 presidential race. Garfield, a "dark horse," won the nomination and Arthur was selected as his V-P partner, as a result of torturous Republican politics. And he had never been elected to any office prior to that!
   
   The Republicans won, Garfield was assassinated, and Arthur became president. One comment says a great deal, when someone said (Page 61): "Chet Arthur? President of the United States? Good God!" Against the expectations of many, he served without any great errors, and with some positive contributions. (1) While he did not take an active role, he did sign the Pendleton Law, providing Civil Service reform. (2) He did take steps to modernize the embarrassing United States Navy. (3) He was involved with reducing the tariff. (4) Etc. Perhaps more important, he made no major blunders (as many had expected).
   
   He was diagnosed with a dreadful disease, Bright's Disease, which made the last part of his stint as President miserable. While he would have liked another term, such was not to be. He left the presidency with dignity, but with a disease that doomed him.
   
   All in all, a nice biography of a little known and not very great president--but one who did not make things worse than when he entered office.



2. Not all presidents are created equal. While there are plenty of big name presidents - Washington, Lincoln, FDR, etc. - there are also plenty of obscure ones who are mere footnotes in American history. Chester Arthur definitely fits in this latter category. As Zachary Karabell's brief biography relates, this obscurity is well-deserved. Arthur was neither good nor bad and served in a time that had no real crises.
   
   Arthur spent most of his career in appointed positions, not seeking election until asked to be Garfield's running mate as an attempt to balance the two wings of the Republican party. Arthur was, to be blunt, a party hack, a loyal Republican who may have been honest but was no activist. Instead, Arthur was a realist who rarely let his ideals overwhelm his pragmatism. Accepting the vice presidency only out of party loyalty and with no ambition for the top office; when Garfield was assassinated, Arthur wound up being one of the most reluctant presidents ever.
   
   Arthur did have some redeeming values and occasionally took risks, such as when he vetoed a clearly racist immigration bill. For the most part, however, he rarely pushed his ideas very hard. The most significant legislation to arise during his presidency dealt with civil service reform, but he didn't provide much leadership on the issue. When he did become president, he put the office above party loyalty, which would cost him any chance at the nomination in the next election.
   
   As part of the American Presidents series, this biography is very brief (less that 150 pages) and focuses primarily on Arthur's tenure in office. With these editorial limitations, Karabell is restricted in giving much real details on Arthur, who winds us being a remote character who it's hard to get a feel for. Nonetheless, this is a well-written book and Karabell is able to put Arthur in the context of his times. As an introduction to this minor Chief Executive, this book works well.



3. As a cursory look at the shelves of any bookstore would show, figures such as Lincoln, Churchill, or the Roosevelts are often frequented by biographers to various levels of success. This is possible given both the amount of writings and speeches left behind from these types of figures, and their enduring influence in today's government and society.
   
   Harder to write are biographies on historical figures who seemed to have only passed through the night, important as links in a chain, but without personal significance in their own right. In the American Presidents series, John Dean was successful in resuscitating life into the otherwise dead legend of Warren Harding. Less successful was Kevin Phillips' book on William McKinley.
   
   Alas, this short bio on Chester Arthur by Zachary Carabell falls closer to the latter than the former in trying to find interest in a long forgotten president. Carabell acknowledges the difficulty with his subject since Arthur was the accidental president (took office after Garfield's assassination) and a person who was satisfied in acting as the unseen executive in the political machine.
   
   Arthur left no historical papers of interest. The most interesting anecdote was his venture into the 1850's Kansas-Missouri civil war. But even this ended without drama with his running back on almost the next train to New York.
   
   The author seeks to find importance to the Arthur administration, but his efforts are in vain. The author's best effort was discussing Arthur's efforts to redecorate the White House. That Louis Tiffany was contracted by Arthur to be the decorator showed exceedingly good taste for the widower president.
   
   As for policy, however, Carabell could only be said to have convinced himself that Arthur achieved any importance. Aside from some minor naval buildup, he initiated no legislation. Arthur vetoed a blatantly bigoted anti-immigration bill, but immediately signed a slightly revised version. He signed a civil service reform bill, but played no part in its passage and only after its passage by a lame-duck Congress that was soundly defeated in the just completed elections. The author concludes that Arthur could not be blamed for his party's resounding election defeats and later loss of the presidency, but that only magnifies his lack of influence within his own party and the electorate. Most odd was the author's stated surprise at the lack of biographies written about Arthur. After completing this work, one could only wonder why anyone would want to write anything more about him.



4. Back in the post Civil War days when many plum governmental jobs were gotten from political bosses, Chester A. Arthur had one of the best patronage jobs of all, collector at the US Customhouse in New York. Prior to the federal income tax, this was the country's principal source of income. The collector, under the perfectly legal rules of that time, got a commission on what he collected as well as a comfortable salary. If you paid an assessment to the party, you might be able to secure a patronage job. From this system arose the career of Arthur.
   
   The Republican party was divided into factions. The stalwarts (who had been Ulysses S. Grant supporters) were led by Senator Roscoe Conkling of New York. There was a reform wing of the party and then there was a faction, led by James Blaine of Maine (hmmmm that rhymes) called the half breeds. Arthur was aligned with the stalwarts and the patronage system. As a stylish New York lawyer who was in to the local social scene, he was happy being part of the bureaucracy. At times, he would lose his spoils system position in the bureaucracy due to politics but, he always had his law practice to fall back on. In 1880, his life changed as he ended up as a sort of unoffending compromise candidate for vice president on the ticket led by James Garfield. They were elected and shorly thereafter, Garfield was assasinated. Arthur, who had no aspirations ended up as president. He was as reluctant to assume the presidency as the rest of the nation was to have him take that office.
   
   There were low expectations for Arthur, after all, he was never elected to office other than as Grafield's running mate. However, although he may not have been a great leader, there were significant accomplishments during his term. Most notable was the Pendleton Civil Service Act which began the breakup of the spoils system from which Arthur had arisen. Arthur took moral stands opposing an anti Chinese immigrant piece of legislation and a pork barrel Rivers and Harbors bill. His opposition to both led to their being significantly modified but, he didn't have the political clout to ultimately prevent either from being enacted. All he really did was cut his stalwart ties without creating any real new alliance with the reformers.
   
   Arthur was ill. He had a kidney disease. Also, he really didn't want to be president. However, pride made him seek the nomination in 1884. He had cut himself off from his stalwart base and was not renominated. The Republican nominee, Blaine, lost a close election to Grover Cleveland. All in all, Arthur wasn't a bad president and perhaps deserves to be remembered in history. However, he was not a great president either. The picture that author Zachary Karabell paints is of a president whose legacy may be that he did a decent job of presiding over a period of peace and prosperity.



5. The wonderful thing about reading books concerning the US Presidents is that these men represent a finite group.....forty-two men and forty-three presidencies. Writing for "The American Presidents" series, Zachary Karabell has offered up a slightly expanded thumbnail sketch of our twenty-first president, Chester Alan Arthur.
   
   Since Arthur held the office of president, someone has to write about him. The problem with President Arthur is that not much about him survives. Most of his papers were destroyed after his death, so Karabell must rely largely on newspaper accounts of the day mixed in with a few anecdotes regarding the president, which, as the author mentions, may or may not be true.
   
   We know that Arthur was a bon vivant, never aspired to the presidency and was passable at being the chief executive during his tenure from 1881-1885. Indeed, most presidential ratings place Arthur squarely in the middle or slightly below. Even the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883, the most important piece of legislation passed during Arthur's presidency, was not a direct act of Arthur's leadership. (I think one more lasting thing to come out of the Arthur years, which Karabell doesn't touch on, is the adoption of Standard Time)
   
   The author does his best to be fair. The few parts of this book with any real drama are Arthur's dealings with Senators Roscoe Conkling and James G. Blaine. The president certainly had a balancing act to do with these two bitter adversaries.
   
   Chester Alan Arthur undoubtedly brought style and grace to the presidency and presided over a few relatively quiet and prosperous years in the United States. We should at least give him credit for that.

5 comments about Luther the Reformer: The Story of the Man and His Career.

1. This was an exceptional biography of Martin Luther. While most biographies tend to focus on only a small portion of his life (usually his initial "discovery" of his doctrine of justification and the initial break from Rome), Kittleson tackles the life of Luther as a complete story. While he did spend far more time (i.e. the first 200 pages) on Luther's early life and "conversion," he spent the remainder of the book looking at the often neglected later life of Luther. While Bainton's biography was groundbreaking, and is still a good book, this one surpasses it in it's fairness and completeness (though it does lack a little of the entheusiasm that Bainton had).
   
   This book makes Luther's life and theology very accessable to non-historians. Kittleson always puts Luther's ideas and writings in context, giving us a feel for why he said what he said. While many of Luther's words still seem harsh and divisive, they are at least a little more understandable when looked at in context. Further, Kittleson does what most biographers fail to do when writing about Luther: he really helps the reader understand what Luther's personality was like. Instead of presenting Luther as a disembodied intellect pumping out ideas, he gives information that helps us put together a picture of what Luther the person was really like.
   
   The only complaints I have about this book are the brevity of his treatment of Luther's later life and his slight bias in favor of Luther. While I can tell that he is trying to be fair, he often ends up defending Luther's harsh comments and actions. While I do admire Luther, I have no problem admiting that Luther was wrong about some things, was far too harsh at times, and really was far more divisive than he needed to be. Kittleson seems to realize this, but always tries to defend Luther's words or actions by explaining that he was doing these things because he was so devoted to defending his conception of true doctrine. That may be, but does that really mean he was not wrong about some things? Lest you think that this book is merely a defense of Luther, it is really not so blatant as I am making it sound. In comparison to most Luther biographies written by a Lutheran, I imagine that it is very objective. Kittleson never explicitly says that Luther did no wrong, he just seemed to lightly imply it in many places. The mere fact that he actually presents the distasteful writings/actions of Luther in the book should speak volumes about his desire to be fair, and my complaint is really very minor.
   
   Overall, this is definitely a recommended book. It seems to be THE place to start in learning about Luther, even above Bainton's excellent biography. I have obviously not read every Luther biography out there, or even a decent portion of them, but I would be very surprised if there were a better one than this which covers Luther's whole life.
   
   Overall grade: A



2. Brought up as a Roman Catholic in the thirties and forties, I had a negative take on Luther. He was the heretic who caused so much trouble. I am no longer a Catholic, but mostly Buddhist. However, unable to find a Buddhist community in my area with which I could identify --- I tried some Christian churches, of which, naturally there is an abundance. I happened upon Peace Lutheran Church here in Las Cruces, NM, and found a place where I thought I might settle down at least for the sake of some spiritual community.
   
   I decided to read a biography of Luther -- starting but not finishing -- one by Ronald Bainton. I stopped reading it partly because of the writing style, and because i wanted some more time spent on Luther's theological explorations and the views that he came to have about Jesus and the Church.
   
   Luther the Reformer by Kittelson fitted my needs almost perfectly: It was clearly stated, well written, interesting, delving below the surface, but still not getting bogged down in erudite details.
   
   It was insightful, helpful, and an enjoyable book for me. Highly recommended.



3. The order arrived promptly, but all 10 books were defective. One section was inserted twice, and one section was left out entirely. I contacted customer service, who were very prompt with their assistance. I returned the defective books and promptly received a new shipment. This shipment contained five books that were correct, and five were defective, as before. I contacted customer service, who said they could not guarantee a good shipment, so my money is being refunded. It seems to me that once a defect is noted and explained to them, it should be pretty easy to look at the books before they ship to make sure they are ok. I was very disappointed with the lack of quality control in your warehouse.



4. Luther had many contributions to the history of the Christian church. He was the father of the Protestant reformation. Many of the reformers looked to him as inspiration, if nothing else. He also promoted the pillars of the Reformation: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola sacerdos, sola gracia, and sola Christe. He changed how people relate to God and impact people's daily lives. People denounced monastic vows and embraced marriage. Luther single-handedly weakened the power of the Catholic Church. By teaching Scripture, he undermined the sale of indulgences, destroyed the Church's sacramental system and undermined its ecclesiastical authority. The Church would be forced to clarify its teachings at the Council of Trent, which would push it farther away from the possibility of reform.
   
   After just reading a tortorous biography on John Wesley, this biography was much better. Even while Kittleson discussed theology, he kept it interesting and in context.



5. This is a terrific book, both for people who want a first book to read about Martin Luther, and for those who know the story well. Luther has been the subject of many biographies; Kittelson's book is unique in blending the development of Luther's theology with an account of the life of the man. Kittelson's expertise allows him to tell a complex story clearly and concisely. The book inspired me to read more about Luther, including some of his own writings.

5 comments about April Blood: Florence and the Plot against the Medici.

1. The politics of the 15th century Italian states was complex, confusing and in a state of constant flux. Trade, envy, dynastic alliances and associated power all had a part to play. Against this backdrop, a plot to murder the Medici brothers was hatched. In attempting to make the complex machinations less confusing, Professor Martines has included a wealth of detail about the setting, the times, and the key players.
   
   In summary, on 26 April 1478 in the cathedral of Florence, a plan to assassinate Lorenzo the Magnificent and his younger brother Guiliano was partially successful. Guiliano was murdered, Lorenzo survived. The core conspirators were members of the family Pazzi and were backed covertly by Pope Sixtus IV. This book examines the questions surrounding who was involved, why they became involved, the consequences of the partial failure of the plot, as well as what the consequences of successful execution of the plot may have been.
   
   In this book, Professor Martines details the story behind the events of April 1478 and places them in their broad historical and cultural context. The politics and culture of the Renaissance, and the role of the Medicean dynasty in the Florentine city-state, is a fascinating area of history. This book has much to offer the reader: for those seeking to understand the plot itself, and its consequences, this book is an excellent starting point. For those interested in the politics and culture of Italian Renaissance city-states (specifically Florence) Professor Martines offers a wealth of information. For students of this period of history, there is a detailed bibliography.
   
   I recommend this book highly - both to those who are students of the Renaissance - as well as useful background reading for those who enjoy fiction set in this period.
   
   Jennifer Cameron-Smith



2. PROS: Well written by an expert on the subject. Broad approach; very informative. Extra (pictures, maps, family trees).
   
   CONS: Disjointed. Biased.
   
   This is a great book and some of the reviews on here simply do not do it justice. Of course, some reservations are understandable. The narrative does not flow chronologically, which can be annoying at times. Martines admits early on that he does not view Lorenzo di Medici favorably and this shows every now and then. He does go into great details but leaves certain other things out. Whatever the author's shortcomings though, this is a very interesting book that provides tremendous insight into a defining period of history. It is not ideal for someone unfamiliar with the Medici, although such people would still benefit from reading it.
   Martines tells the tale of the famous Pazzi conspiracy as well as its causes and effects. He also goes to great lengths to put everything into the proper context; many reviewers seemed to have misrepresented this as him going off onto irrelevant topics. The profile chapters for example should not be dismissed in any way - they help the reader to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the setting. Chapter 8 is also a great one, although it is not for the squeamish.
   For those unfamiliar with Renaissance Florence, the Medici family were extremely powerful and influential, eventually ascending to the papacy (twice). Lorenzo is sometimes considered to have been ruling at the peak of Medici power; he was a patron to some of the finest artists the world has known including Michelangelo, Botticelli, and Da Vinci. Sadly this book does not delve into much art history or the family's banking legacy, (which Lorenzo effectively squandered away).
   The conspiracy itself is addressed, but the Medici response is given just as much attention if not more so. In fact, the sections on the aftermath of that Sunday morning are some of the best in the book. I won't go into details for those who haven't read it yet...
   Again, this book is very well written. The chapters are not very long and they are divided into sub-sections that make it all an easy and quick read. I recommend it highly, especially for anyone who has some prior knowledge of the Medici and Renaissance Florence. If the author were not biased at times (it is not that bad) and some gaps were filled I would have given it five stars. It's a good read, but it's not perfect. If you're reading this review, then you should read the book.



3. I read April Blood it for a report, knowing little about the topic. Now I feel compelled to learn more about the Medici family. Beautifully written.



4. In 1478 there was an attempt made on the lives of Lorenzo de Medici and his brother Giuliano. Lorenzo survived, and he turned the event into a justification for both revenge and a consolidation of power unprecedented in the history of the Florentine city-state. "April Blood" tells a story closely connected to those events --- a narrative of sorts in which the assassination attempt serves as something of a magnetic center which binds the varied themes of the book, at times more strongly than at others.
   
   Thus "April Blood" is not strictly a narrative history, although there are long sections which seem to be that. But, as an author, Lauro Martines is no slave to chronology. His storyline frequently bends back on itself or meanders off into topical regions whose dates are simply unclear.
   
   The end result is a history, but also something closer to an anthropology of Florence's ruling class, with broadening to the rest of the Italian polities. Looming large is the papacy of Sixtus IV under whose auspices the assassination plot was hatched. Matchmaking, nepotism (especially within the church), financial structures, and certainly the making and uses of political power: all of these are treated. But the treatments are not of one piece; a theme occurs, then may reoccur at various spots in the book. The effect is something like a montage from which only gradually does a full picture emerge. (It's a picture, ironically, that includes very little on the art and literature with which we typically identify the Renaissance; most of that came later anyway.)
   
   In the decades leading up to 1478, Florence was ostensibly a republic. But as Martines describes it, the Florentine Republic was a flawed one, and, just like the Roman Republic, one already threatened by an addiction to violence. Martines describes how the assassination attempt threw completely open the floodgates of violence and asks was the death of the republic inevitable. Did the Medici's drive for power undermine the republic's foundations? The book might be seen as an ever-tightening spiral around these questions. In the end the author answers guardedly that "there can be no conclusive answers to these questions." This is perhaps unsatisfying, but certainly correct in maintaining a lack of inevitability for historical processes. But he also presents provocative, if not always clear-cut, theories of why events transpired the way they did.
   
   The author appears to have done an impressive amount of original research out of proportion to the small-format nature of the book. The book begins with a rush of names that may be difficult to keep straight for the reader not already conversant with early Renaissance Italy. To help, there is a brief "Personaggi" and two family trees (the Medici and that of Pope Sixtus). There are two maps, which prove to be sufficient, and a few portraits. This is a book more focused on themes and ideas than you might expect from the title, subtitile ("Florence and the Plot Against the Medici"), and blood-stained cover art. For sure, violence is one of themes. But what makes the book most rewarding is its ability to convincingly place the violence in the context of wider developments as well as personal dynamics.



5. When I purchased this, for some reason, I thought that this was historical fiction. What I found out was that it was history. Don't get me wrong, history about this group of people and this time frame I often find extremely interesting, but this one wasn't one of them. Unlike one of the reviewers I found the chapter dedicated to arranging marriages extremely interesting, but unfortunately, that was about the last chapter I found interesting. I finally gave up and placed this book in my "used book store" box where hopefully someone else will find it more to their liking.
   
   My star ratings:
   
   One star - couldn't finish the book
   
   Two stars - read the book, but did a lot of skipping or scanning. Wouldn't add the book to my permanent collection or search out other books by the author
   
   Three stars - enjoyable read. Wouldn't add the book to my permanent collection. Would judge other books by the author individually.
   
   Four stars - Liked the book. Would keep the book or would look for others by the same author.
   
   Five stars - One of my all time favorites. Will get a copy in hardback to keep and will actively search out others by the same author.

5 comments about Nisei Daughter.

1. Great book. Classic first person narrative of the times surrounding Japanese-American "relocation" (internment) in the Seattle area during WWII by a young girl turned young woman. The book is well-balanced with humor and seriousness. Many books of this Coming of Age genre are often boring ramblings of someone's traumatic teen age years. This book is much different. It provides a good balance of eyewitness accounts and personal musings. Not only it is a must read for anyone interested in the period or topic, it is on the short list pertaining to the Pacific Northwest in general.



2. I was required to read this book for My History of the American West course, and I enjoyed the book as it was a great story written by someone who experienced the internment, but after reading Strawberry Days by David A. Newiwert, I realized that Sone left out the true feelings of the War World II time period. She only briefly touches upon the racism and the hatred towards the Japanese during that time, and the injustices that they suffered. Still I did take into consideration the time period that the book was published, and the sentiments still being felt at that time. So I would highly recommend this book but I would also suggest to do any further reading of the topic to get a true feeling of the Japanese Internment.



3. As a real Japanese daughter in Tokyo of Today, I very much enjoyed Ms. Sone's narrative. This is a story about prewar Seattle and the life of Japanese-Americans, as well as her identity struggle during the war time.
   With the eyes of an observant Nisei girl, Ms. Sone tells us about people around her, and school life, both local and Japanese, in a positive (somewhat humorous, sometimes sappy..) way.
   This is amazing. No one told me such an interesting story like this. Travel guide books only show us lovely views or baseball stadiums. Japanese school textbooks NEVER mention Japanese-American history and heritage. What a waste. We could share their feelings...
   I could have been a Nikkei(JA) daughter if my great-grand parents had emmigrated to the West Coast. (Actually, they once lived in Manchuria instead.)
   Since I found this book, I also have searched my heart and wondered where I had come from... It's so stimulating.
   ARIGATO, KAZUKO-san ! Seattle does not only mean Ichiro Suzuki.



4. Part of Nisei Daughter's charm is the way Sone is able to weave entertaining anecdotes throughout her tale, a story which is essentially about what being Japanese American in the time around wartime America meant to her. Specifically, her position as a Nisei daughter -- child of first generation Japanese Americans -- is the focus of this tale.

   The disappointing thing about this book is how obviously self-censored the book is. Sone very briefly reveals deeply felt rage and resentment at intervals during the book, only to shake them off and quickly change to a more light-hearted topic. Granted, there is an ironic tone to many of her comments and situations, and again granted, she is writing for a post-war audience that probably would not be receptive to outspoken criticism of the Internment, but still Sone seems to sugar coat the experience just a bit too much for my tastes. By the end, with the patriotic speeches that make it sound like the Internment was as much the fault of the Japanese Americans as it was the government, I was getting a little tired of Sone's carefree and apologetic tone, especially after the highly charged preface. In the book, Sone all but thanks the government for interning her and her family and giving them this character-building experience.

   If you are truly interested in the internment and the impact it had on the Japanese Americans, try a book like Joy Kogawa's "Obasan." It's written about the Japanese Canadian experience, which was even more extreme than the Japanese American one. Kogawa also experienced internment first hand, but "Obasan" is written far enough after the fact that Kogawa is able to give the story more perspective and is able to put a more honest face on what really happened.

   Nisei Daughter is not a bad book by any means ... but it did not live up to my expectations either. Sone's self-conscious editing makes the story seem much more like a novel than the autobiography that it supposedly is. I kept wishing she would drop the mask she was wearing and let the reader see what she was really thinking!




5. Very nice memoir about being a first-generation Japanese American ("Nisei"). My biggest criticism is that the flow is not quite right. I attribute that to the fact that the author is not a writer by trade. The very extensive details that pepper the story detract to the overall flow of it, but nonetheless, this book is very interesting. Monica Sone explores the dichotomy that many "hybrid" people experience: the contradictions of culture, the generational gap made even deeper because of the cultural differences. In her case, these differences were quite extreme: from the demurred and modest Japanese ways to the boisterous, assertive American. She describes many examples of where these differences were patent, and does a very god job in the process. Another excellent area of the book is her analysis of the conflicting emotions she experienced. Here she is, feeling very American, and sent to a concentration camp, labeled as "the enemy". She and her fellow camp-mates experience a collective rage, but it is during these years and after her release that she finally comes to terms with her at times contradictory cultural heritage. The end has very patriotic overtones which I thought were quite sappy, given her circumstances. I wish she could have gone further into describing her family life after camp, and the reassimilation of Japanese into American society post WWII.

5 comments about Charlemagne (Vintage).

1. 
   I feel an obligation to make as much a clamour over the books I treasure, as over those I treasure trashing; and to that end, Derek Wilson will now take it on the chin from one who wholly regrets the purchase of his most recent mess and work of propaganda, so-named "Charlemagne."
   
   Wilson's biography of Charlemagne is short in length - no surprise there - but, too, it is short in temperament. Behind Wilson's self-loving prose is a wit born of clenched teeth and furrowed brows. If you can, recall being in the presence of professorial wit: politically oblique in nature, unworkable in structure, poisonous, unfunny, and appreciated (disingenuously and artfully) by only a certain few fawning graduate students who, with nervous, knowing titters and nods, wish to win professorial favour by saluting the feeble attempt at humour. Recall that manner of wit if you can, for in this book you will find yourself molested by it from cover to cover.
   
   While Derek Wilson presents his subject through the most prosaic of biographical vectors: birth-death-consequentiality, he entangles the otherwise contemporary apolitical story of Charles the Great with his own rah-rah essay on the necessities of the European Union (yawn-yawn). His premise (excuse) for such a rotten bit of scheming is a connection he determines between the geographical disposition of Charlemagne's realm and those independent national properties of the EU; where the 1957 precursor EEC "territory [was] almost completely coterminous with Charlemagne's empire." This is where the connection to Charlemagne ends, but where Wilson, leaning in such a position to move forward anyway, carries fruitlessly onward.
   
   The professor explains that the Soviet Union served well as a moderating force against the capricious inclinations of the United States of America. Europe was in grave danger living amidst this unsettled balance between two political behemoths, and "stood the risk of being swamped by [either] Soviet totalitarianism or American globalization." Some balance indeed.
   
   With the end of the Cold War came a settling of this balance; and an opportunity for an unimpeded America to freely assault the entire world, (including Derek Wilson's family), with American cookies, Coca-Cola, Seinfeld reruns, Hip-Hip CDs and i-Pods on which to hear them. While the brutal swampings continued around the world (and in the county of Devon), "...the 'free world' had to look to the Middle East for its enemies," and I, upon reading these words, had to clench my teeth and furrow my brows till Wilson's work found its end on page 203.
   
   Whether or not his EU advocating worked on the souls of some readers, or whether his parachronistic sleight of hand was thought seamless by others, matters not a whit. The offense committed by this author is an offense of which every purchaser of his book is a victim. Professor Wilson cheated those who wanted from "Charlemagne" only Professor Derek Wilson's learned wisdom on the subject advertised; all 226 pages worth.
   
   But even so short a record of Charlemagne's contribution is diminished further by Wilson's offering of a mere 203 pages of content text. He fills the balance with such rubbish as "Notes" of no consequence, "Selected Biographies" of probable bias, and an "Index," where one can find such pertinent entries as: "Bush Administration," "Third Reich," and "Marx, Karl."
   
   Derek Wilson's decision to dedicate the last third of his already anemic book to rallying support for the EU cause is a bad one. Rather than offering his readers a class in the history of the European Economic Community, Wilson might have better told the story of Charlemagne; or, better yet, told in greater detail the story of Charlemagne's illustrious grandfather, Charles Martel.
   
   In so failing, Wilson owes every cheated reader 75 good pages on the subject of something closer to Charlemagne than his own sour grumblings over Donald Rumsfeld's comments regarding the inconsequentiality of "Old Europe," which, if judged by Derek Wilson's approach to history, seem spot on.



2. Charlemagne was not only a king of one of the various "barbarian" groups that arose after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, but something that exists very rarely in human history. He was a warrior, a devout believer in faith, a politician, and an intellectual who ruled not only a mere kingdom but a dozen separate and squabbling regions and peoples who at time were only united in their differences. However, it was Charlemagne who united most of Western Europe into not only a single political force (brief though it was) but a single cultural force whose importance cannot for any reason be ignored by not just the student of history but even the average individual who includes him or herself as a member of the "West". Charlemagne should rightly be called the father, or at least one of the fathers, of not just modern Europe but also the idea of the Europe itself.
   
   However, Wilson doesn't just focus on the historical records of Charlemagne (few they are in comparison to the many myths that grew during the centuries after his death), but also the idea of what Europe itself is in light of Charlemagne's rule and accomplishments. What is Europe? If one believes the answer is easy then perhaps really hasn't studied the question closely. Europe, like any other region, has gone through too many countless migrations, changes, rulers, and faiths to be called a single cultural "people". It was men such as Charlemagne, and other such as Napoleon and even Hitler, who attempted to unite this divisive group into a single "empire" and cultural heritage. Granted, while the division his empire faced after his death was unavoidable, and was actually planned for, his rule and cultural influence through the Church ensured a legacy that outlasts almost all other would be conquerors. Most of the focus of the book is on this idea of a greater European identity which gives it an almost political science feel instead of a straight history but in doing so gives Charlemagne's accomplishments more credit than perhaps a normal history book could have done.
   
   The European Union is often compared to Charlemagne's great conquests and rightfully so. Wilson compares the six original members of the European Economic Community, who united from the ruins of the Second World War and would later give birth to the EU itself, to the exact region of Charlemagne's Francia and with it the idea that once more Europe could be more than just a group of smaller republics always at war with each other. Indeed, the European Union has ended almost any chance of open conflict breaking out between EU members especially as population movements and markets bring the states closer together. While the EU does a very "un-Charlemagne" thing by trying to lay down a single form of standards across its members, it does show the reality of what Europe can look when united and not divided.
   
   The only criticism I had for Wilson's work is that he could he have taken out chapters 9-12 or at least created a single epilogue that would have merged all of them into chapter 13. While Charlemagne was indeed used and ignored by future Europeans as Wilson's describes, a more concise reasoning for this would have cut out some of the more "rambling" parts of the book. I understand that there was an attempt to give a greater idea of Europe's development after Charlemagne's death but Wilson became a little too detailed oriented about post-Charlemagne Europe and that distracted from the main aim of the book.
   
   An excellent book for anyone interested in not only this rare, if not tragic, ruler and the ideas that would shape his world and later history because Europe, at least as we known it in terms of politics, history, and religion, would not have been possible for the works of this single man and his empire.



3. This is an excellent, in-depth biography of Charlemagne. The last few chapters of the book go beyond the life of the emperor and analyse the effect he had on European society in the Middle Ages and afterwards.



4. there are excellent and well placed maps that show the extent of Charlemagne's "empire".How much actual control he had over these territories could be debated. Charlemagne, from my read of the book, seems like the greatest inheritor of the religion, culture, and laws of the Chritianized version of the vanished western Roman Empire.Before him there seemed to be smaller pockets of Goths,Franks,etc.all of whom claimed to be the legitimate inheritors of western Rome.Charlemagne,from my read however,"stole the show".The permiscuous "noble savage" with Christlike vibes(and sometimes "Ol Scratch" himself).According to Wilson what makes Charlemagne different was his vision of a united Europe,although united primarily by Christianity,with a vital, generous helping of Roman and Frankish law.(Only for those not quite ready for "The Kingdom"?)Wilson links Charlemagne as the first to have a vision of Europe in a long succession of failure and success including,Charles V,Napoleon,Hitler(excuse me), and numerous others.The latter part of the book is devoted to the progression the the current European Union.This book attempts to bring the reign of Charlemagne into the present. By the way,i have run into so many who claim descent from Charlemagne,and from the brief observation of his sexual appetites in the book,including concubines,etc.(so what?)



5. I can wholeheartedly recommend this book. The idea that Charlemagne was responsible for the creation of a concept of a unified Europe that is embodied in today's EU is not original, as is witnessed by the book "Charlemagne: Father of a Continent" by Alessandro Barbero and Allan Cameron, released in 2004. (Full disclosure: I have not read Barbero and Cameron's book.) However, Barbero and Cameron take more than 400 pages, where Wilson takes just over 200.
   
   Charlemagne was lucky in that his brother, who inherited half of the France of the time, died young, thus giving him control of a unified France, or Carolingian Empire, which he could use as a base to push his western border out to include Saxony, Bavaria, and Lombardy. He did so in cooperation with the Pope, with the goals of spreading Christianity to the heathen, and creating a Christian Europe. He was also lucky in that he lived into his 70's, much longer than the vast majority of his contemporaries, which allowed him the time to accomplish much in terms of the unification of this territory and its culture. At the same time, he allowed a good deal of regional autonomy, which contributed to the stability of his conquest.
   
   In Charlemagne's time, French nobility did not pass on their territory to the oldest son, but split it up among all their progeny; so when Charlemagne died, his conquests were not permanent. One of his sons, Louis "this Pious", outlived the others and so kept most of the territory. However, the Germanic peoples split from France soon thereafter and thus was born the German / French rivalry that roiled the Continent thereafter. In all the turbulence that followed, the author shows how the ideal of a unified Europe never died.
   
   Wilson tells the story of Charlemagne's life as well as analyzing his impact up through the present day. Great read.