5 comments about The Leper King and his Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem.

1. A remarkable book, fine product of a thorough political and military research analysis. It has answered a lot of my past questions regarding the chaotic period (1174-1186)hence the period before the cataclysmic crusader defeat at Hattin.
   I suggested it for all those readers who are looking for a different or an alternative approach regarding the behaviors of famous crusaders like Raymond of Tripoli or the infamous Reynald of Kerak, based on comparative scientific historical data which pour new light to a supposedly known story.Not for readers without basical knowledge of the crusaders era.



2. This was a very informative book. However, contrary to what the title would lead you to believe, the Leper King and His Heirs provides very little actual material about King Baldwin IV. However, the events that occured after his death are covered in great detail and I would still recommend this title for anyone doing academic research on the Crusades (or who just enjoy reading about historical events). Well written and very detailed.



3. Bernard Hamilitons scholarship is unsurpassed. The book does long overdue justice to the Leper King, and goes some way to correcting the demonisation of Reynald of Chatillon. Clearly exposes the widely beleived myth that if the Crusaders would of come in line with the thinking of Raymond of Tripoli, Saladin would of lived peacefully coexsisting with the crusaders.
   
   The book is full of detailed accounts of the most intresting events of the selected period: Reynalds raid on Arabia, the details of Balwins disease, Ramond of Tripoli's ambitions, etc..
   
   A much more credible account of the Leper Kings reign, backed up by endless foot notes and evidence, that bravely disputes the widely held, 'Steven Runicman' view on the period.



4. I greatly enjoyed this book! The reign of Baldwin IV, the Leper King has been long, long overdue for a good, historical revision! The usual story: Saladin/Raymond of Tripoli good guys, everybody-else bad guys (particularly Agnes de Courtenay, the king's mother, portrayed as a cross between "Vampirella" and Marilyn Monroe), with the poor Leper King in the middle (usually portrayed as a cross between The Little Lame Prince and Count Dracula) has always been too simplistic---I thought so, even before reading this book. Hamilton gives you all the details, all the facts, and even an appendix discussing Baldwin's illness from a medical point of view. Get this book!



5. Baldwin IV, king of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem is largely - and unfairly - unknown in the west today. But, as Bernard Hamilton details in The Leper King and his Heirs, he deserves so much better. For a start, he accomplished so much more than his famous Crusading near contemporary Richard the Lionheart, and under infinitely more trying conditions.

   Not only was his childhood troubled - his father Amalric had been forced to disown his mother Agnes when Baldwin was two years old before the aristocracy would accept him as king, and Baldwin was only 13 when Amalric died and he took the throne - he contracted leprosy at a young age (Baldwin's symptoms are discussed in a useful appendix by Piers Mitchell).

   The disease could not be hidden; "It grew more serious each day, specially injuring his hands and feet and his face, so that his subjects were distressed whenever they looked at him," William of Tyre, chief contemporary chronicler of the day, relates.

   A lesser person would have quickly broken under such circumstances. But Baldwin was animated by both a bold spirit and a tremendous sense of duty, of his obligation to his people. One of the most human touches is William of Tyre's depiction of Baldwin as "a good looking child for his age" who grew up "full of hope" and "more skilled than men who were older than himself in controlling horses and in riding them at a gallop," (p 43). Baldwin had taught himself this skill, vital to a knight, despite already losing feeling in his right hand. And he continued to ride at the head of his men into battle when there was no way he could have remounted had he been unhorsed. Determination and courage were to be the hallmarks of his all too brief career.

   For Baldwin was by any measure a successful king - considering his circumstances and limited resources, a great one. Though his people were massively outnumbered and surrounded on three sides, this boy, who took the throne in 1164 and died aged not quite 24 in 1185, for 11 years frustrated the ambition of Saladin, the greatest warrior of the age, to forge unity among the Arab people and drive the Christians from the Holy Places.

   Despite being significantly outnumbered, he defeated Saladin in two major battles, Mont Gisard in 1177 and Le Forbelet in 1182, and forced him to raise the siege of Beirut in 1182 and the major fortress of Kerak twice, in 1183 and 1184. On the latter occasions he was blind and so debilitated he had to be slung in a litter between two horses.

   Hamilton also helps untangle the intricate web of domestic and international relations in which Jerusalem, the center of the world for three faiths, was ensnared. Baldwin had to balance the conflicting jealousies and agendas of his own nobility, always maneuvering to secure their positions first in the event of a regency, then at the succession; the knightly orders that were within his kingdom but not of it; the neighboring Crusader states; the attitude of the Papacy; the interests of Byzantium; and the distant and fickle responses of the western European powers. And overshadowing all this was ever-present menace of the Islamic counterattack that could come anytime, anyplace. Given this ever-precarious situation, Baldwin perhaps emerges with even greater credit for his diplomacy than for his skills with the sword. Certainly, he made no fatal mistakes and left the kingdom in no weaker condition than he found it.

   Hamilton makes no great departures in his work, but goes some way towards rehabilitating Reynald of Chatillon from his characteristic depiction as loose cannon psychopath. Following Michael Lyons and David Jackson's Saladin: The Politics of Holy War, he also demythologizes the Crusader's nemesis, emphasizing the traditional argument that the Christian state unnecessarily provoked Saladin into war is flawed: The great leader of the Muslim world had been working towards the cleansing Jihad his entire career.

   This is a book as much about an era as an individual, and at times, Baldwin as a personality tends to disappear inside it. Even considering the limitations of the sources, one wishes there was more representing his perspective in his voice. But we are limited to a heartfelt letter he wrote to Louis VII of France, humbly recognizing his limitations and offering to hand the kingdom over to a candidate as noble, and more healthy, than he: "To be deprived of one's limbs is of little help to one in carrying out the work of government... It is not fitting that a hand so weak as mine should hold power when fear of Arab aggression daily presses upon the Holy City and when my sickness increases the enemy's daring." (p 140).

   It was fortunate for the Kingdom of Jerusalem that this offer was refused. It is significant that just two years after Baldwin's death Saladin won his great victory at Hattin, fatally wounding the Crusader presence in the Middle East and setting in motion the chain of events that would culminate in their expulsion in 1291.

   "Few rulers have remained executive heads of state when handicapped by such severe physical disabilities or sacrificed themselves more totally to the needs of their people," (p 210) Hamilton concludes. Baldwin's accomplishments would seem to be the stuff of myth, but he was quite real, a testament to human courage and endurance, and Hamilton does a fine job of putting his life and times in perspective.

5 comments about The Reign of Edward III.

1. W.M.Ormrod is known world wide as the greatest living expert on Edward III.I'm happy to report that this book did nothing to spoil that image.I was very intrested by Edward's cheif ministers. My favorite would have to be William Edington because he was simply the best.
   I recommend this book to anyone who wishes to take a broder picture of Edward's reign with all its military,cultural,and political changes. I can't wait for Ormrod's new biography on Edward to come out.



2. I have started reading some of the Owen Archer series by Candace Robb and since my background in English history consists of a simple survey course taken some years ago, I decided to do a little research. One of the books I selected was W. M. Omrod's The Reign of Edward III.

   The intriguing face of the young Edward on the front cover (listed as an effigy of Edward III from Westminster Abbey) and the more venerable countenance from his tomb (also in Westminster Abbey) shown in plate 6 would lead one to expect a life rich with events and detail. To some extent this is true, but somehow the book is disappointing in this respect. There is little human dimension to Ormrod's Edward III. One has the distinct impression of viewing him through a screen or veil. Much of this is the product of the types of information left from the era in which he ruled (14th Century). Although the English were keeping a variety of records at this time, they were mostly economic, political, religious, and military in nature. Little of what might be called personal is left from the period.

   An artifact of this filter is that the work tends to be a catalogue of individuals given benefices or noble titles, at what time and for what reason. It is also the history of the political and legal relationships between the king and his nobles, the king and the commons, and the king and the clergy. Much of this is conducted in the arena of international politics and war, the latter carried out predominantly over the English held French provinces and over Edward's claim on the title of King of France. The author has a good sense of the social and constitutional changes of this reign, and analyzes their significance well. He seems to be an unbiased judge of the king and his reign, neither condemning nor apologizing for Edward's decisions. His discussion of the Black Prince, Edward of Woodstock, is more down to earth and less emotional than some authors, and his appraisal of the king's brother, John of Gaunt, is less condemnatory than some.

   If one is interested in the rich texture of this king's life and times, one will probably be disappointed. If one is interested in social and constitutional changes in England at this time and their ramifications, then this is probably a good place to start. For further reading, the bibliography has a number of titles listed, mostly from the 1970s and `80s. Also included, although not by particular article or notation, is a list of abbreviations for journals, standard reference works, and primary sources which might interest the more serious student of the period.




3. As a collector of medieval books, I found this book to be wanting. You really don't get to know what this king's life was like. There is no detailed history of some of his greatest battles in France (Crecy and Poitiers), and nothing that tells you who he was. His son, the Black Prince, perhaps the greatest Prince of Wales there ever was, is hardly mentioned. I'm just glad I got this book at a discount. If you want to know more about Edward III, Froissart's Chronicles goes into more detail.



4. I assume that this book receives some praise only because of a lack of modern histories on Edward III. Unfortunately, the book is totally inadequate to its task - barely scratching the surface of Edward and the impact of activity in both England and France. Its complete lack of primary sources from France (except Frossiart so one should say reliable sources) and the lowlands is startling in a text that claims to study Edward III. It is excessively anglophobic in its view of Edward's reign and so cannot help but present a skewed and incomplete picture. Its organization makes the presentation even worse - by considering each estate separately, it makes a tricky history because of the time scale even more disjointed and trivial in scope and coverage. I could go on about the flaws and inaccuracies (such as lack of consideration of low land promised subsidies, etc.), but will not.



5. The author, W. M. Ormrod, is Director of the Centre for Medieval Studies at the University of York. Although his biography of Edward III is scholarly, it is so well written that it should appeal to the historian and student as well as the general public. Ormrod not only covers Edward's reign, but he discusses his impact on medieval English society. The book contains 34 color and black and white illustrations, almost 1,100 endnotes, a list of recommended books for further reading and a select bibliography of primary and secondary sources. I highly recommend The Reign of Edward III to anyone interested in English medieval history!

2 comments about Henry VIII and the English Nobility.

1. While I did not love this book, it is well-researched and makes a solid contribution to a relatively under-researched area of Tudor history. Given the extent of the shadowy way in which Henry VII came to the thrown influenced Henry VII and Henry VIII's actions, you would think there would be more books written on Henry VIII's relationship with his nobles.
   This book is relatively bland but it gives real insight in to the pressures of faction politics in HVIII's court, discussing how some nobles refused to participate in the trial of Anne Boleyn, how Henry VIII's succesful "judicial murder" of Buckingham cowed the nobles and encouraged Henry in his other outrageously tyrannical prosecution of nobles, and how some nobles would be complicit in these actions since they occasionally benefited if the victim's land was divided amongst the jurors.



2. Whatever his personal and political faults, Henry VIII was astute in the art of government, weaving a network around the throne, and around the dynasty he was setting out to create, of old aristocratic families and newly created noblemen. By examining the way in which the king selected "new men," created new titles, promoted existing peers, and saw to it that the extinction of a title was always to his own advantage, Miller shows how Henry's attitudes, policies, and use of patronage reflected his dynastic insecurities.

3 comments about Bitter Waters: Life And Work In Stalin's Russia.

1. This book was very well written and shows what effect being a political prisoner has on one man even after he returns to the "real world." This is an intelligent man who works in manufacturing and views Soviet life under Stalin in an unfavorable light. He knows how to work the system and keep himself under the radar until World War II breaks out. I found this book compelling and enjoyed reading it very much.



2. Many people think that Stalin's Russia was a productive industrializing country in the 1930s. Andreev-Khomiakov points out that it wasn't. This was a country which gave minimal wages to most of its workers. It was also a country that did not provide materially for its citizens. In a sense, this country was a totalitarian dictatorship where a few got rich, and most were poor. Industry was poorly run, since nobody was competing against another company. People also stole and cheated on the system because they had to. The author gives a convincing story on the system that Communism placed in Russia.
   
   This is certainly a great book to read about how Stalin's system did not work. This shows the inner workings of Communism and why this system died in the 1990s. An interesting read for those interested in Stalin's Russia.



3. If you're one of those people fascinated by the Soviet Union in the 1930s your mind will be blown by this quite fabulous book. Like virtually no other work I've read on the subject it brings home quite how anarchic life was for many people and how the ludicrously inhuman way in which the Soviet Union was run helped crush the population's soul. Anyone interested enough in this topic to probe further should also read "An American Engineer in Stalin's Russia", which is almost as good as this work. Andreev-Khomiakov's greatest talent is his ability to wriggle right into the psyches of the opposers and the opposed to produce a graphic explanation of what was so wrong with the Soviet Union in the 1930s. He also produces enough anecdotes to show how some people can retain their most human qualities at a time when everyone around them is descending into brutality. I say again -- this is a quite extraordinary work. Buy it now!

3 comments about Yale English Monarchs - Henry V.

1. As mentioned in a previous review, Mr. Allmand's narrative is not strictly chronological. Roughly the first half of the book is the chronology of Henry V's life (yes - Henry dies half way through the book), while the remainder touches on various aspects of royal life and a description of the late 14th and 15th centuries (for example, the second half of the book discusses Henry's military establishment, his relationship with his family, court life, and the Lollard movement).
   
   Personally, I did not care for the bifurcated structure. I believe Allmand could have incorporated the themes from the second half of the book into his chronological life of Henry in a seamless manner. As written, the book is disjointed and can be difficult to follow in some places.
   
   Overall, this is a good read, but not great.



2. As brilliantly portrayed by Mr. Allmand, Henry V personifies not only the fearsome and powerful character of a dark ages monarch, but also that one of a business-sound and strategy-aware leader. Whereas Shakespeare stresses Henry's prowess as a soldier and a hero, Allmand throws in unbeknownst traits: goal-oriented business planner, egalitarian political strategist, tireless academician, merciless warrior and fearing christian. Even though Mr. Allmand's prose teems with passive verbs and endless sentences, sometimes puzzling and even confusing the reader, his book is one of its kind.



3. Prof. Allmand's biography of Henry V is the first coherent work on the subject for our generation. It is also the best bio on Henry V in the past 60-70 years. Allmand gives a fairly bare-bones analysis of King Henry V's brilliant but short life, and then expands in later chapters on several themes such as the royal family, law + order, and the like. Allmand's work is scholarly but does not drown the reader in details. Is a good read and moves along in a coherent manner. If you are looking to learn more about the man Shakespeare called "the Mirror of all Christian Kings" Allmand's deft work is a good place to start and a valuable resource.

No comments about Feargus O'Connor.

No comments about John Ireland and the American Catholic Church.

No comments about Benjamin Disraeli (Very Interesting People).

No comments about Saints of Northumbria (Celtic Saints).

4 comments about Churchill: The Unexpected Hero (Lives and Legacies Series).

1. Addison knows that Churchill's life has received almost as many words as Churchill wrote himself, as one of the most prodigous authors of the twentieth century, known and admired by many as the greatest figure of his time, "saving the world" from Nazi Germany, the right man at the right place at the right time.
   
   But Addison is not so sure. Churchill was maddeningly erratic, not only changing political parties twice but also inflaming deep hatred during his long, varied career as a military figure, prison escapee, politician, cabinet member, and prime minister. Much of the peculiarities about Winston we can attribute to his relationship with his parents, an American debutant and a half-crazed father who died young. Lacking their affections, and wanting to make a name for himself, Churchill took on risks and positions with abandon.
   
   Addison has done a thorough study, more remarkable for its brevity when describing a man whose life has been chronicled many times before in thousands of pages. While leading England during World War II, Winston came to symbolize the twentieth century but he was in many ways a man of the nineteenth or even eighteenth century, believing in the Empire and being more of an egoist than an egotist. Yes, he was a racist in today's terms, with his contempt for what we would today call "developing countries" and their peoples, but for his time Churchill was not out of step. He was, at times, indecisive and, yes, out of step with popular feelings. His writings were often efforts to cast himself in the best possible light. This was especially true when he wrote his memoirs of World War II, right after he was thrown from office at his moment of triumph. This cathartic and somewhat self-serving post-war writing process regained him 10 Downing Street, it also left him as the primary arbiter of his reputation from the war -- the leader of the victorious nations gets to write history.
   
   He was a fickle, spoiled, epicurean of sorts who seemed to love a good fight -- even a good war -- if it helped him get ahead and helped England stay ahead or stay alive. Loved or hated, he deserves to be admired for what he got right, not for what he got wrong. Addison is critical yet quite balanced in this treatment of this great yet flawed figure. And for those who want the concise Churchill story, this is it.



2. Paul Addison has written a competent introduction to a life more interesting, in the sense of history, than any other of the twentieth century. His book is enlivened by many vivid quotes from a broad assortment of people who had reason to know Winston Churchill. However, I think the author, in an excessive attempt at balance, bends too far over backward in making use of certain highly negative assessments-- such as one offered by Evelyn Waugh at the time of Churchill's death.
   
   While he may have had feet of clay, his name remains remembered in Westminister Abby--and elsewhere over the globe.



3. 
   I've waited the past two months to receive a copy of this short biography on Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. Reading this book does not disappoint.
   
   This short work, though fair and favorable to Sir Winston, also discusses the controversies of his career. Not everyone in Britain was a fan of Churchill, with some disliking him, with others fearing he would ever have any part of the government. In spite of his monumental contributions to the World War II years, some never lost their mistrust nor dislike of the man.
   
   As an American, I see him as the beacon of hope for war-torn Britain. The best possible man to lead the country during those years, an uncrowned king giving the British people the hope and stamina needed to go on, day by day, overcoming all the suffering World War II brought them. Should he not have been the best, surely there existed no one better. When one thinks today of World War II Britain, one must think of Winston Churchill. They have become intertwined and inseparable.
   
   Even from his earliest years, Churchill always felt he was a person of destiny; so was able to equally accept and act in that role. One must wonder what England would have been without him. Prior to the war he was seen as too strident and hawkish, once the war began however his views and demeanor coincided exactly to the needs of the time. Once the war was over, most of the country turned their backs to him at the polls, feeling he was not up to running a tamer, peacetime government.
   
   Being neither British, nor ignoring his earlier government service prior to World War II (he was 65 in 1940 at time of his becoming Prime Minister with many years of government service behind him), I cannot agree with their post war thinking. And as discussed in this slim volume, I agree with the author that the mistrust and distrust of earlier Liberal versus Tory episode was ever overcome. Too many felt they just could not count on, nor place their full trust in this man.
   
   Winston Churchill is my 'cup of tea'. One of the few 20th Century men of both character and leadership. True, he had both great flaws and great abilities as well; and this book fairly shows both.
   
   Recommended reading.
   
   Semper Fi.



4. Though Winston Churchill has never wanted for biographers, over the past few years the publication of brief studies of his life have come into vogue. Written by some of the leading historians of the period - John Keegan, Geoffrey Best, Stuart Ball - they offer an accessible (if condensed) examination of one of the dominant figures of the twentieth century. Paul Addison's book is the latest addition to their ranks, and one that deserves to be ranked as among the best of these efforts.
   
   Addison argues that the heroic status that Churchill enjoys today belies much of his career. Considered an irresponsible genius by his contemporaries, he was a polarizing figure who was never completely trusted by any side of the political divide. Yet as prime minister during the Second World War he went on to become "the embodiment of national unity," a symbol of Britain's determination to defeat Nazi Germany. Addison provides a more nuanced view of Churchill's career, noting his ideological consistency in a politically turbulent age. When war came, the man and the moment were ideally matched; indeed, many of the traits that his opponents deplored - his enthusiasm for war, his advocacy of impossible ideas, even the fact that he was half American - became assets in the conflict and were keys to his successful leadership.
   
   Developed from his entry on Churchill for the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Addison succeeds in providing an insightful introduction to the life of one of the dominant figures of the twentieth century. Though hardly a hagiographical account - he freely acknowledges such faults as Churchill's massive egotism - his portrait is a sympathetic one, depicting the prime minister as "a hero with feet of clay." The result is a good read and a great starting point for anyone seeking to learn more about this fascinating figure.