5 comments about Joan of Arc: In her own words.

1. I've begun reading this, along with 3 other books I purchased. It is not a narrative read, and more along the lines of a journal or notes, but it is excellent, and breathes new light into Joan of Arc as a woman beside & within her every belief.



2. I bought this book several years ago and it is one purchase that I do not regret. Wonderful for grabbing a thought, it often ends up in the pile of my inspirational books. There is nothing like a word from Joan before facing the day. As history, it is an excellent tool from which to derive direct quotations from one of the greatest enigmas of all time. JOAN OF ARC: IN HER OWN WORDS puts the reader in contact with the mind of the saint and the events which she faced so courageously. Her boldness, her femininity, her adandonment and her triumph are all there.



3. This was a good book. It enlightened me to many things I didn't no about Joan of Arc. Like her childhood which it covered very well and even mentioned her dreams of becoming a solider and father's nightmares and even her favorite spot to play.
   It covered her military conquest in great detail and made it interesting in a way I have not before on her. But I have to question the parts that reveal personal information on Joan's dreams. She was illiterate her entire life, right? So how did the author get the documents to prove this.
   
   The trail sequence was also very well done. The questions and answers, even though very redundant, were both enlightening and showed Joan's personality extremely well. The references to the saints were like said in the notes slightly changed to make it make more sense.
   
   All in All, good book but contradicts itself in some parts. Probably when the author was changing the letters to first person instead of third, but that is mention in the notes. There are also some randomly blank pages in the notes leaving parts out. The book is very accurate and is a good read for people who wish to learn more about the heroine.



4. I read this right after buying it, but it was published in 1996 and the publisher apparently went out of business in 1997. I would like to know whether it is my copy or the entire edition that is defective - the Notes end in mid-word ("Excluded with then are passages merely rou-") on p.147! Then p.148 is blank, and there is no p.149/150, after which the pagination resumes with p.151.



5. Reading Jehanne's own words is simply an amazing experience. The way the book is written, you can almost hear her speaking with all the passion & fervor she posessed. Reading this book is like being there, back in time, actually watching & hearing all as it happens.

5 comments about The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Volume I (Rise & Fall of the Confederate Government).

1. Jefferson Davis was a decent man, a man of his time, a man upon whom history bequeathed a horrible burden; to lead a people to defeat and virutal ruin in great and bloody war. He had many faults, as all men do, and many great qualities too. But he was a man of his time and any historian trying to judge Davis based on present standards of moral or even political correctness, is being very ignorant.
   By the same token, I do not think that James M. McPherson deserves the harsh criticism being levelled at him, by some, for writing the introduction to this work. McPherson wrote and writes incredible material and if he is hard on Davis for Rise and Fall, it is, in my opinion, fair comment.
   Rise and Fall is an IMPERFECT work but it is Davis's testimony and final shot across the bow against his critics, north and south, for their malcious judgement of him, and little else. It is a hard read and shows the one-time President of the Confederate States of America doing his best to justify the Cause for which the South took up arms and nearly destroyed the Union. But that, too, is to be expected of a man who felt the weight of history and (justly) remained proud and defensive about those many soldiers, alive, dead, and/or wounded, who fought on at his command during four years of horrible struggle, in a lost war.
   For Davis, then, to be expected to admit that the cause the South fought for was 'wrong' is niave of anyone, then and now and in the future. If the South was wrong, those soldiers and the people of the South suffered and died for nothing. But if the South was right, and still lost, then they were simply beat by overwhelming resources and numbers; that is far easier to swallow than the fact that they took up arms to protect slavery, which is and remains the root cause of secession and Civil War, regardless of what anyone else tries to convince themselves of.
   Davis, of course, largely ignores this important tidbit, yet it remains the Achilles Heel of every pro-Southern defence of secession and the subsequent war. Instead he focusses on the constitutionality of secession, and states rights. The fact remains, however, that even though most Southerners DID NOT OWN SLAVES, the country they were fighting to defend/create, was founded on the great principle that Black men were not equal to White men and deserved to be in bondage, at least according to Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens.
   Whether the common soldier cared about it or not is not the issue; even Robert E. Lee owned no slaves and he stands head and shoulders above virtually all others in that conflict. The Confederacy was created to protect slavery from being abolished and, in the process, actually sped up emancipation by at least two generations. The rest is smoke and mirrors and justifications by Davis and others who share the pro-Southern point of view.
   But, again, however, I do not begrudge Davis for it; infact, I rather admire him. His cause was lost, his 'country' overrun and occupied, its manpower depleted, it's property freed or confiscated or destroyed, and yet he still clings to the rightness of it and vehemently defends the memory and honour of those who paid the price to defend it, as well as himself. The trouble is that, without this perspective, Rise and Fall can come across as being very self serving and self-deluding and that's not fair either.
   Davis is NOT 'self deluded' nor is he trying to be self-serving either. He is, rather, stubborn and defensive, because he MUST BE; only the victor, after all, has the option of being magnanimous and kind to those whom he has beaten. The loser, however, must stand up and say 'we did not win, but, darn it, we almost did adn we are still right and honourable people' and find ways of defending that against those who would brandish them as evil or immoral.
   Davis was not evil, any more than the Southern people were and are, then and now. They were simply on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of fate. Had they prevailed, slavery would still, in all probability, have been abolished and perhaps the Union and Confederacy would have re-united again at a later date, regardless. But the South did not prevail and so Rise and Fall was written, and, perhaps HAD to be written.
   It remains, therfore, a fitting testimony, and a dogged defence if not an idictment, by the leader of that lost cause, against those who, even 150 later, would try to defame and shame those who fought in it.
   Like Davis, however, it is not a perfect work but it is a very personal work; a labour of love from a leader who had to bear the shame, pride, and honour of being the living embodiment of a people's shattered hopes and dreams (and perhaps the only person who could do so, with such great dignity and grace over the remaining years of his life). By that same token, therefore, it is also an important work and one that I believe has, and deserves, a place honour (like Davis himself) on the shelf of every honest student of Civil War history alive.



2. Ignore for the time being the fact that this is only the first volume of this work. Search for Vol. II will probably bring one to light certainly at a much higher price. Vol I is the most interesting of the two and offers great insight into the post war mind of Davis. If we want to understand the mind of this period we need to read this book along with the Buchanan expose of his presidency, Butler's Book by B. F. Butler who nominated Davis as Democratic presidential nominee, the Diary of Edmund Ruffin vol I, and many more, npne of which are neutral or even accurate in many ways but if we don't look at the reflections of the participants we are condemned to seeing history only through the eyes of later writers. Forget that McPherson introduces this book and that it is only volume one. It is a necessary and even fairly interesting read.



3. Whether we agree with Jefferson Davis or not, knowledge of his point of view is essential to understanding the causes of the Civil War. The forward by McPherson helps to give balance and explanation.



4. This is a work that any one should read concerninig the details of the life and death of the Confederate nation.The principled beliefs those who founded the other American nation are presented.
   
   Jefferson Davis' work is thorough and detailed concerning the his belief in the constitutional basis that secession was legal and that the desire to peacefully seperate was the absolute goal of the southern states. Bear in mind the 4 states of the upper South (AR, NC, TN and VA) did not leave the Union until Lincoln called for forced cohersion of the other southern states.
   
   His work is also quite detailed in the military aspects of the War Between the States and his personal eyewitness of events are well written and easy to read and grasp. A great read!



5. This is probably the most accessible reprint of Davis' book on the market today. It's well indexed and available at an economical price. My only complaint is that they got James McPherson, a confederacy-hating Marxist, to write the intro.

2 comments about Philip II of Macedonia.

1. Ian Worthington has added a much appreciated update to the still all too slim bibliography on Philip II, founder of the Macedonian Empire and father of Alexander the Great. This volume is exceedingly well researched and written, far surpassing R. Malcom Errington[ASIN:1566195195 History of Macedonia] as a general source, at least for Philip's era. I must note, though, that for military fans (such as myself), there's much less focus here on Philip's battlefield accomplishments than can be found in either Nicholas Hammond[ASIN:0715628291 Philip of Macedon] or James R. Ashley[ASIN:0786419180 Macedonian Empire: The Era of Warfare Under Philip II and Alexander the Great, 359-323 B.C.]. All the same, I strongly recommend this title for anyone who is at all interested in the subject of ancient Macedonia.



2. The author chooses to ignore Eugene Borza's theory and the evidence supplied to wage his own pro-Greek diatribe that can only be described as anti-Macedonian as the Athenian orator and politician Demosthenes in his rant contained in the Philipics.
   
   The author while talking about pro-Greek views fails to mention how modern Greece was created, how Greece's first King was Otto the Bavarian, not Alexander the Macedonian and how Greece obtained Macedonian territory for the first time in 1912-13 and promptly began a hostile process of forced Hellenisation among its Macedonian, Turkish and other subjects while also shipping in Greek speaking Christians from Asia Minor, who today identify as 'Macedonians' in 'Greek Macedonia'.

5 comments about Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant.

1. This is the amazing memoir by U.S. Grant, who rose from obscurity at the outbreak of the war to be the Union's brightest military light. It is slightly apologetic in tone, but much less so than it could have been, considering the degree of scrutiny Grant's command decisions had endured. Among his few regrets are the assaults upon Vicksburg and Cold Harbor.
   
   One telling anecdote comes from his early life, when he went to buy a colt from a Mr. Ralston. Upon arrival he tells Ralston, "Papa says I may offer you twenty dollars for the colt, but if you won't take that, I am to offer twenty-two and a half, and if you won't take that, to give you twenty-five." As the child is father to the man, so is the horse trader father to the general.



2. Very detailed and complete rendition of the chronology of his personal life as well as his military life. I learned details of both aspects of this era in history.



3. Written by the dying hand of one of the chosen men of his time. For any scholar of Grant, Civil War or Military History, these readings are a must. Grant's military genius was without equal. Had his superiors, early on, had his keen foresight, the Civil War could have ended a year or two earlier. Another great read is "Grant" by Jean Smith.



4. Grant finished this lengthy memoir on the eve of his death from throat cancer. Impoverished at the time, the ex-President made his wife rich from the proceeds. Simple, straightforward, earnest narrative, sometimes ironic, sometimes colorful, always unpretentious. Inevitably self-justifying, but candid nonetheless.
   
   The most memorable anecdote describes his first action in the 1861-65 war. Although he was a combat veteran of the Mexican War fourteen years earlier, he was scared, almost frozen, as he led his men against the enemy position. When he arrived, the enemy had evacuated. "The reb commander was as scared as I was. It was a lesson that served me well for the next four years."
   
   Excellent general's-eye descriptions of the battles for Fort Donaldson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Cold Harbor. His proudest contribution to the Union victory seems to be his strategy of "coordinated attack". He believed the early rebel success was due to the fragmentation of the National fources, which allowed the outmanned rebels to concentrate on one fragment at a time.
   
   Grant is full of forthright and fascinating judgments: he revered Lincoln and Sherman, detested Hallek, disliked Stanton but respected him.
   
   Civil war buff? Don't neglect this.



5. This has long been regarded as one of the better memoirs to come out of the post-Civil War period and I can see why. Grant seemed convinced that the course he was on, and more importantly, the course the Union was on, would lead to eventual victory. Grant wrote his memoirs in the hope of providing some financial security for his wife and family upon the event of his death, which came very soon after finishing his memoirs. This is a refreshingly honest, fair, and generally unpretentious account detailing his own role in this pivotal event in American history.
   
   We get a brief glimpse into his early years, his time as a student at West Point, his military service in the Mexican American War and the most well-known period of Grant's life, his service in the Union army during the Civil War. I found the early part of the book to be very illuminating as I did not know that much about his life before the Civil War. He could be very self-effacing, could admit weaknesses, in other words he just seems to come across as plain spoken and honest about himself. Throughout the book he utters what I considered to be very insightful and thoughtful comments. For example, he admitted the reputation attached to Lee by the Northern press and other Union commanders, but he realized that Lee was still human. He also relates his first encounter as a commander in the Union army as he's about to face the enemy and finds that the enemy was just as frightened as he was. Grant's attitudes toward the earlier war with Mexico and the Southerners' attachment to their cause also offer revealing sentiments.
   
   I'm not going to describe every campaign Grant was involved in, but you will encounter Grant in the western theatre first, with notable successes achieved at Forts Henry and Donelson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chattanooga, and etc., up to his appointment as Lieutenant General and head of all U.S. armies in the field. The nearly epic battles fought between Lee and Grant in Virginia from the spring of 1864 up through Lee's surrender at Appomattox in April 1865 are obviously covered, though we also get information on Sherman's movements in Georgia and the Carolinas and other important sections where the war was being waged. I think it's fair to say there is a certain amount of spin or a sort of expectations game being displayed in Grant's memoirs, for example, how the Union armies usually always inflicted heavier casualties on the Confederates, how the North, despite its superiority in numbers, actually had many disadvantages and etc. Some of his points are very valid, but there can also be no doubt that his victories in Virginia came at very heavy costs in terms of Union casualties.
   
   Grant offers opinions on the quality of the soldiers and officers, both North and South. He also demonstrates throughout his memoirs his rather magnanimous feelings toward his opponents, the rights of Southern citizens and their property (i.e., showing restraint in terms of looting and wanton destruction of private property and etc.). Some of this, I'm sure, was an attempt to improve his own image, but no doubt, there had to be some truth in his sentiments expressed. The maps included in this volume are very detailed, but often difficult to read. As a military narrative of the movements, battles and strategies of the Union armies, this is a must read.

5 comments about Lincoln's Sword: The Presidency and the Power of Words.

1. This is an important book for two reasons. One - it explains Lincoln's success as a great communicator. Two - it offers a template for those who wish to influence people and events with their words. The book dissects Lincoln's method of writing, his thorough preparation and his eagerness that the reader obtain the right interpretation of what he has written. A fascinating study.



2. Lincoln's Sword: The Presidency and the Power of Words (Vintage) I enjoyed this book immensely.



3. Author Douglas L. Wilson once again hits the bull's-eye, this time with a painstaking study of Lincoln's rhetoric (the President's personal "sword"). This book should appeal not only to persons interested in the Great Emancipator, but to those interested in the craft of writing. Wilson takes us step-by-step through the process Lincoln used to hone some of his most famous statements, a journey revealing principles of clear writing. Wilson shows that Lincoln's clarity of expression wasn't effortless, but resulted from hard work.



4. Bold in concept and careful in execution, this work is a gem. Lincoln's constant revising, his sense of what was appropriate in given situations, and his surging command of the language over decades impress the reader. Wilson's understanding of the context of Lincoln's deployment of language is impressive. Cautiously revisionist.



5. Lincoln's Sword illuminates the power and clarity of Lincoln's words. Even if the reader is not a Lincoln devotee or scholar, this book's treatment of Lincoln's speeches are clear, concise and pleasureable. This is a book that anyone would enjoy reading.

5 comments about Never Give In: The Best of Winston Churchill's Speeches.

1. Most of us even with a cursory knowledge of history have heard or read of some quotations of Winston Churchill. Such phrases as "This was their finest hour", "An Iron Curtain has descended " and "Blood toil, tears and sweat."
   Even taken out of context these words stir the emotions and inspire. I have read many of Churchill's speeches all the way through. They are indeed inspiring and very well thought out.
   In this two CD disc set conceived and produced by his grandson Winston S. Churchill, we actually hear these speeches as they are given. Not all the speeches selected were indeed recorded. Those speeches that weren't were read by Churchill's grandson.
   What must be remembered that when the majority of these speeches were given Great Britain was indeed fighting all alone. What we hear is Winston Churchill defying Nazism and inspiring and indeed explaining all what was happening in the War against the Nazi regime.
   Indeed he was the Spokesman as well as Defense Minister and Prime Minster. Also in his spare time he was the Speechwriter.
   In hearing these famous speeches one can feel the calming effects in Churchill's voice. Also you can hear his anger and vehemence at Herr Hitler. These indeed were desperate times but these speeches served to inform and inspire the British people. Churchill inspired an Empire to never, never give in.
   After hearing these speeches in the desperate times of World War II, one can attest that Churchill was the greatest orator of the English language.
   I really don't have enough Stars!!!



2. Despite the sometimes ponderous language the man's grim determination never to give in on important matters is evident. His respect for parliament, the niceties of formal relationships and his conviction that democracy is the only acceptable form of government also stand out. His tremendous stamina is amazing. I'm glad I bought the book.



3. What can one say about this prolific writer and historical figure! I am so glad that someone has slogged through and excerpted the most uplifting and insightful of Winston Churchill's writings and speeches. I gave a copy of this to a LCDR in Iraq, who said it was the perfect book for him. When inspiration is necessary, this is a great book!



4. given the recent turn of events in the world, I became very interested in Churchill. This book does a good job of presenting some of his most famous speeches and giving the reader a look at a tremendous speaker and exceptional human being. His complete speeches fill several books, so this is a lot more user friendly for those who want the more condensed version.
   
   Churchill was a tremendous figure. Who talks like this now? What politician has the moral courage to go against what is popular or easy to do what he believes to be right?
   
   I really wish we had leaders like this in our time. Churchill lead England through a brutal period of a year and a half when nobody was standing against Hitler in Europe. He never sugar coated things. He believed absolutely in what he had to do, and more importantly, he explained things clearly to people and made them understand that he needed them. Just check out his speechs during the Battle of Britain. He drives you with his words, spurring his listeners to action.
   
   Anyone who loves history should buy this book and add it too their library. It's powerful stuff.



5. The disc never played. I was sent a replacement and that didn't play either.

3 comments about Flory: A Miraculous Story of Survival.

1. In 1939 as Nazi forces became a reality, the Jewish population through Europe faced options to flee and lose all or go into hiding. The author, a Holocaust survivor, faced this choice and her story follows her dark journey as she relates her teen years spent in terror when the Nazis invaded her neutral homeland of Holland. Any library strong in first-person Holocaust memoirs needs this.



2. This is a gripping true life memoir of a young Dutch girl named Flory and her life in German occupied-Netherlands. I listened to the unabridged audio edition of this novel, and it was very compelling. I found Flory to be a remarkably resilient and likeable woman. Her observations were insightful and pertinent. The Dutch Christians who hid her and tended her and her family through the war were quite brave.
   
   The only thing missing was more about the relationship between Flory and her husband. I admit I am curious how their relationship fared under such harsh circumstances, especially after such a quick marriage.. I understand why the author did not include details, but I admit, that I am curious a bit about their situation, especially since they both seemed so young and married under duress.
   
   I would recommend this to persons who are interested in educating themselves about wartime events and life in occupied Europe.



3. Flory A. Van Beek has written this memoir of the time she spent hidden from the Nazis. It is inspiring to read of her survival during World War II. I also am amazed by all the help various people gave her even though they were risking their own lives by helping her. After reading the book I saw on the internet that there may or may not be a television mini-series based on the book. I do so hope someone will make sure this story is told as widely as possible. A TV mini-series would be one way to do it. There are others. I just would like to see it done and the sooner the better while the author is still alive. Brenda Foust.

5 comments about A Schoolteacher in Old Alaska: The Story of Hannah Breece.

1. Hannah Breece was an amazing woman--strong, independent, and driven by her desire to help the people of Alaska during the early 1900s. This book is well-written, interesting, and informative. If you love reading about early Alaska, you will love this book! You might also check out a new release, When the Water Runs: Growing Up With Alaska.
   
   When the Water Runs: Growing Up with Alaska



2. This book is a great read. I was swept along by this story of a single woman working in the Alaskan back country. She takes a matter-of-fact approach to all sorts of alarming situations (e.g. being buried in a snowdrift and having a bear and her cub wandering about outside her tent).
   
   A great adventure story. Fascinating snapshots of turn of the century Alaska. Many of the most interesting parts of this book are those which talk about Alaska's relationship with Russia, particularly the power of the Czar and the Russian Orthodox church. Reading about this, Alaska seems more like a colony than a part of Russia. Maybe the Alaska America purchased wasn't Russia's to sell.
   
   The book presents attitudes as they were without varnishing or apology. Some are decidedly racist. Hannah definitely saw her job as 'civilizing' the natives (nobody seems to have asked them if they wanted to be civilized). She talks about communities who lived underground - this was dying out as the US government didn't approve - the story of colonization the world over...



3. I fell in love with Alaska as described by Hannah Breece. She told an amazing story of a time that is long gone. She also showed great restraint in not "telling tales" on those who were her contemporaries. Her niece, Jane Jacobs, who compiled and edited her memoirs, fills in the "gaps," after Miss Breece's personal story is complete. I recommend this book to lovers of history, Alaskan history, early American history, education history and those with a romantic notion of how the "good old days," really were.



4. An excellent story with plenty of meat. Hannah Breece is a woman both of her time and ahead of her time. This book, although covering the early 1900's, really tells of a time when the balance and control of Alaska was switching from Russian influenced culture to American influenced culture. It is interesting to see that what was "correct" then is now "incorrect" and reminds the reader that values and judgements are culturally bound.

   The action of the book takes place over most of the major regions of the state including the gulf coast, the interior and the southeast.

   Jane Jacobs the editor did an excellent job of organizing and illuminating Hannah Breece's story. Without her careful introductions the story would have not had quite the same postive impact.

   This book is largely alone in covering the topic of teaching in the early 1900's. For those of you interested in the early history of teaching in English in Alaska then this is your book.




5. In 1904, Hannah Breece (1859-1940), was recruited by the Department of the Interior to teach in Alaska. Alaska at that time was quite different than today. Preferring to work in poorer, more backward areas, she saw a side of Alaska that does not normally appear in the history books. This is Hannah stories, as told by her, and edited by Jane Jacobs.
   
   This is a really great story. I found its depiction of life in 1904+ Alaska to be quite enthralling; Hannah certainly found her way into many fascinating adventures. The book shows life in 1904+ Alaska, as lived by the common people, including dealing with wild animals, sled dogs, fish famines, earthquakes, racism at many levels, and so much more.
   
   All I can say is that Hannah Breece must have been a formidable woman. I have never said this before of a book, but I actually felt honored to be able to look in at Hannah's life. I highly recommend this book!

5 comments about Attila: The Barbarian King Who Challenged Rome.

1. Pro:
   Extensive research
   Account of meetings with people and visits to places in contemporary time
   
   Con:
   Spends more time showing research than a cogent account about Attila
   
   In historical biographies I look for focused account about the historical figure. Exhaustive research, as done by John Man, is expected. Attila focuses more on John Man's studies than on the famous, or infamous, king, Attila.
   
   There is a subtle difference here that I can not over emphasize. If your expectation is to learn how a biographer collects research of a book, this is a good resource. The author provides much detail about places he visited and people he interviewed. Scattered in this are bits about the Roman world prior to Attila's ascent.
   
   If you are looking for a book where the author synthesizes his research into a focused account of Attila's life, including connected history prior to his ascent, this book does not do an adequate job. Examples of books on other topics that do include:
   
   --Elizabeth and Mary: Cousins, Rivals, Queens by Jane Dunn
   -- Queen Isabella: Treachery, Adultery, and Murder in Medieval England by Alison Weir
   
   A budding or experienced researcher may find this book intriguing. It lacks a synthesis of substance for the general audience interested in understanding Attila.



2. As someone said, a solid biography.Quite good on the aftermath of the Huns. But did anyone notice that this book has a list of illustrations but no actual illustrations?



3. In this volume, Man explores both the biography of Attila- 'the scourge of G-D', who carved out a massive Hunnish Empire strching from the Caspian Sea to the Rhine, with it's headquarters in what is today's Hungary.
   At the same time. he threatened the very foundations of the Roman Empire.
   
   The book traces the origins of the Huns, from the area around what is today Mongolia, and their migration across Siberia and modern Russia into Europe.
   Man attempts to sort myth and legend from fact, and also deals with the differing imagery of Attila, from bloodthirsty monster, in Western Europe, to a national hero in Hungary.
   He covers much of the literature and myhtology of Attila, and explains why the Germans during the First World War, were reffered to by the British as 'Huns'.
   The peoples of Hungary and Bulgaria claim descent from the Huns, but the author does not deal in real depth with the question of Hunnic descent.
   
   Man explains the decline of the Roman Empire, and explores the wars and interactions of the Huns with the Roman Empire, and such peoples as the Franks, Burgundians, Allemani, Alans, Visigoths and Ostrogoths.



4. Attila the scourge of western civilization and icon for the barbarians is given a thoroughly enjoyable story as written by John Man. What we are told is palatable compared to the outragous legends and Christian dogma written about Attila. Attila did not have the vision of Ghengis Kahn and left his vast empire with no clear mandate after his sudden death. This books gives fascinating details on the probale origin of the Huns, the going ons of the Roman Empire at the time and the eventual decline of both the Huns and the Roman Empire. Also I found the explicit details on how the Huns fought to be fascinating.



5. 
   With little information available, Man gives as informative a book as might be expected. Maybe 1/3 of it is about Attila, including what is known of his family, his headquarters, his entertainments and of course his battles.
   
   While the history of Huns and the rise and fall of Attila are the themes of the book, the author presents this period of the Roman Empire in a very readable way. Last year I had read the Peter Heather book on Rome and the barbarians, and for description of Rome in this period, these two books complement each other nicely.
   
   Rome, overly large and waning in ability to defend itself, hires Huns, pays ransom $ to Huns, bribes Huns and fights Huns. There are diplomats, an assassination attempt, competition and integration of other peoples and tribes and turning points. There are marriages, hostages and proposals. There scorched earth seizures and battles.
   
   Man has interesting friends who share his passion for Hun history. The run museums from Mongolia to Hungary, dig up artifacts and study mounted bow hunting. He introduces us to them in diversionary parts of the narrative.
   
   The best part for me, aside from the description of the Hun compound, was the summation at the end. Unlike Ghengis Khan, Attila had no long term vision and built no adminstrative structure. Nothing much really followed him. Man has some interesting phrases for experssing the ephemeral nature of it all. Attila created a bunch of "speed bumps" in the building of Europe and that his life was "a perfect balance of pluses and minuses, signifying nothing."
   
   A chapter called "Aftermath" citing the numerous poems, paintings and songs that celebrate his image, however misinformed, has the best epiteph of all. Due to these cultural creations from the middle ages to Kipling and Wagner, his name resounds as an "archetype of a certain sort of power." Its really apt... "a certain sort of power."

5 comments about Talleyrand.

1. The French bookseller responded "bien sur" when asked if he had Cooper's "Talleyrand" as if, language aside, it was standard fare at this Parisian bookstop. Published in 1932, still in print, "Talleyrand" comes with its own pedigree. The author had his own as well; author, poet, gambler, womanizer, diplomat. Duff Cooper writes with eloquence and insight about his 19th century libidinous French counterpart. His amazing career spanned ages; from kneeling at the feet of Voltaire, to pre Revolution activities, through the dark days of the Directorate, through the Napoleonic years and past the Restoration when he died in 1838 after making peace wih his God at his Parisian home in a scene wonderfully described by Cooper. "He departed with his credentials in order, his passport signed." Cooper delights in Talleyrand's quick wit and repartee' with Napoleon and "the allies" at the Congress of Vienna. The verbal duels with the French elite are delicious; Chateaubriand sees Fouche' walking arm in arm with Talleyrand as "a vision of Vice supported by Crime." By focusing on Talleyrand, his achievements, his miscues, the book moves effortlessly from era to era without being bogged down in the weeds. Cooper's admiration is obvious, his observations are precise and thoughtful; Napoleon's refusal to recognize impossibilities, the enmity of the Spanish people at the Emperor leading to his downfall, and the magnitude of Talleyrand's achievements at the Congress of Vienna by keeping France intact, and how he became through the dint of his craft and personality the determining factor at the Vienna settlement and the role of France in Europe thereafter.



2. There are few if any parallels to Charles-Maurice, Prince de Talleyrand, in the annals of diplomatic history. In modern times, there have been some examples of men who were able to somehow "dodge the raindrops" and serve for many years in high positions in tumultuous political environs. Anastas Mikoyan's ability to survive long and close proximity to Stalin is one notable instance; but he never possessed Talleyrand's gravitas and international influence, nor did he serve different, hostile regimes. No, Talleyrand is in a league of his own - more politically nimble and long-serving than even the satirical Vicar of Bray.
   
   In this classic 1932 biography by Duff Cooper (a picaresque political character in his own right), the legendary French Foreign Minister is treated with respect, almost reverence, and not without a touch of personal fondness. The author clearly does not see Talleyrand as Napoleon came to see him: as nothing but "dung in a silk stocking." Cooper constructs a portrait of Talleyrand based in large part on the diaries of men and women who mixed socially with the legendary statesman in the salons of Paris, London and elsewhere. I have found that such sources are most enlightening and allow the reader to gain a more nuanced perspective and human reflection of the subject. The picture of Talleyrand that emerges is one of a world-class charmer, a conversationalist nonpareil. One gets the sense that Talleyrand would succeed as well in early twenty-first century Washington as he did in early nineteenth century Paris.
   
   Much has been made of Talleyrand's unusual ability to survive the convulsions of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic period. Cooper suggests that he was sensitive to criticism on that account and defended his decision to serve such fundamentally different regimes this way: "At every epoch there is some good to be done or some harm to hinder; that is why, if one loves his country, on can, and in my opinion, one ought to, serve it under all the Governments that it adopts." A mode of thinking contemporary Democrats and Republicans might profit from.
   
   Cooper argues vigorously that Talleyrand was a man of a few deeply held positions on foreign policy, but perhaps little in the way of deeply held moral convictions. "He was not one who would die for his principles, nor even suffer serious inconvenience on their account, but he held to them with singular tenacity and was faithful to them - in his fashion." The overriding foreign policy issue that Talleyrand championed was peace and comity with England, France's historical nemesis. Cooper calls Talleyrand's position on England "fearlessly consistent" and ultimately far-sighted and sound. "He had welcomed it before the Revolution, he had striven for it by the side Mirabeau, he had pursued it under the Feuilant Government and under the Girondins, from exile he had urged it upon Danton, during the Directorate he had endeavored to return it, and under the Consulate he had promoted it at the Peace of Amiens; he had remembered it at Erfurt and supported it against Napoleon in good and in evil days." Talleyrand was not physically brave, but he was unflappable on positions of policy in the face of the toughest negotiations or personal invective, and the desire for a stable peace with England was a stance from which he never wavered.
   
   Talleyrand led a crowded and improbable life, yet I found the most arresting chapter of this biography to be the last. In the sunset of his life, this octogenarian ci-devant priest, this married bishop and lecher, this revolutionary ex-communicated by Rome, embarked upon a slow and thoughtful return to faith, literally signing his peace with the Catholic Church just hours before his death. It was a final peace treaty of sorts that absorbed as much time, deliberation, and posturing as any he had crafted in the realm of international relations.



3. This book is absolutely brilliant and I would recommend it heartily to everybody who likes history written in clear , precise and informative language. I will read more of Duff Cooper and am already delving into Tallyrand and hope to read his autobiography.



4. A good introductory book to Talleyrand. Unfortunately it does not contain references to qtotes, events or anything at all. There is not a single footnote in this book despite fact that author makes many references to quotes, memoirs, etc. Not surprising as the book was written in the 1930s. For a more scholarly (but dry) biography see Dwyer's biblio on Talleyrand (Longman Publishers).



5. Talleyrand is possibly the most intriguing person to come out of the French Revolution. When he is not selling his services to the courts of Europe he is offering the Directory and Napoleon vital information as to how they should conduct foreign affairs. Cooper does a very good job of putting Talleyrand within the context of his times and makes diplomatic history come alive through his traitorous character. For those who understand the basics of the French Revolution and Napoleon this is a great book to expand their knowledge of how these events impacted Europe. If you are writing a diplomatic history this is an essential book that has to be understood. Cooper uses many of Talleyrands writing for his sources and gives the best impression available of the minister.