5 comments about The Flight of the Romanovs: A Family Saga.

1. This book is an easy read for the non-academically inclined reader. I thought I was finished with books like this when I graduated from college, but now years later I realize that I do enjoy reading comprehensive books on intriguing parts of world history.
   
   This book is gripping from the first page to the last & when the book is over, you almost feel like there should be more of a story to continue regardless that the family line has ended.
   
   Very enjoyable!



2. This book provides a good view on the star-crossed Romanov family, as we see the downward spiral until much of the royal family is killed off and the remainder flees into exile. The volume features an extremely helpful genealogy at the beginning. I found it useful to refer to it from time to time to keep the "players" straight.
   
   The story begins with Tsar Alexander II, a reformer, who was rewarded by assassination. In some senses, this was most unfortunate for Russia, since his efforts at reform moved a far piece from the backward, insular, autocratic system preceding his reign. His successor, Alexander III, learned a lesson from this: no more reform. As the text reads (page 29): "Alexander III checked the liberal course abruptly; extreme conservatism resulted."
   
   He suffered from Bright's Disease and succumbed in 1894. The successor? Nicholas II (of Nicholas and Alexandra). With the Kerensky government and then the Bolshevik Revolution, the Romanovs were swept from power, and many executed by the Bolsheviks. Others escaped.
   
   The volume follows the survivors over their life course. It also provides great detail on other of the Romanovs before the Revolution. Some were quite able; others were of little moment and possessed little talent.
   
   The book provides a good picture of the family from Alexander II and his reform efforts to the death of the final "inside" members of the royal family in the late 20th century.
   
   The book is a fascinating portrayal of a royal family. Sometimes, the detail becomes almost excessive, but that also enhances the richness of the historical perspective. All in all, a nice volume.



3. I really enjoyed this book. It begins with czar nicholas and takes you right up to the present day romanovs. There are loads of similiar names, in fact all the romanovs seem to be called nicholas or alexander, but theres a family tree at the beginning of the book and i was constantly flicking back and forth to keep track.
   
   A fascinating read and one that'll keep you gripped. It deals with the history of all branches of the royal family and what has become of their descendants. The title may be a little misleading, the actual flight of the romanovs doesn't occur for some time into the book. Id recommend the book if you're a novice like me and really hadn't a clue about the romanov history.



4. Very little of this book actually deals with the flight of the Romanovs. The first one doesn't leave Russia until page 179 and most of the rest of the book deals with various Romanovs in exile after they fled. Absolutely trivial, useless anecdotes are abundant. It was impossible to keep all the players straight, partly because everyone had a nickname in addition to his/her given name. It would have been better to describe each branch of the family separately, rather than discussing everyone at once.



5. Absolutely fascinating book! It starts off long before Czar Nicholas. In telling the story of the extended royal family, it provides detailed accounts of what it was like to be there during tumultuous times.
   Plenty of foreign troops played a role in this drama.
   
   The end of Czar Nicholas isn't the end of this book. Amazing tales of flight by the rest of the family.
   One day they were filthy rich and privileged, the next day many were poor and all were refugees.
   
   Escape wasn't the end either. Many exiles, wishing to restore the monarchy, had to deal with Stalin's henchman.
   
   WWII saw many exiles siding with the Germans against the Soviets. They paid a horrific price.
   
   I enjoyed learning who the contenders are for title of legitimate heir to thrown.
   
   As others have pointed out, it does have a degree of bias against many of the Romanov family.

2 comments about Aubrey's Brief Lives (Nonpareil Books, No 77) (Nonpareil Books, No 77).

1. Lives of the rich and famous recorded a time when there were no libel laws meant that even the dirt that wasnt fit to print could be disseminated, whether true or not. It still makes fascinating reading.



2. "Brief Lives" has always been a delight, but it was Oliver Lawson Dick's scholarly editing that revealed Aubrey's genius. And Lawson Dick's Introduction, "The Life and Times of John Aubrey", is a miracle of synthesis and compression: certainly one of the finest biographical essays ever written. This Nonpareil Books edition is sumptuous - a joy to read in these days cheap, quickly produced paperbacks.

5 comments about Akhenaten: Egypt's False Prophet.

1. If you are remotely interested in the reign of Akhenaten, which most of us interested in Egyptology are, you can find enough different depictions of the man to leave you thoroughly confused. Was he a pragmatic politician out to break the power of the Amun priesthood (Aldred)? A megalomaniac who enjoyed watching his people broil in the noon-day sun (Redford)? A predecessor of Moses seeking truth in monotheism (Hornung and Lorton)? The deranged gay lover of his brother Smenkhkare (Allen Drury?) Or something else? Where Reeves sticks to the generally-agreed facts provided by recent research, he produces a good and very readable book on the Amarna period. But his own theories, many of them still controversial among Egyptologists (that Smenkhkhare was really another name for Nefertiti, that the late 18th Dynasty were a homicidally dysfunctional family in which Akhenaten, Nefertiti and Tutankhamen were all murdered in succession, that the skeleton found in a disordered tomb near Tutankhamen's is actually that of Akhenaten, and that the woman's mummy found in a side room of the tomb of Amenhotep II is Nefertiti) keep getting in the way of the facts. In order to get a really thorough view of Akhenaten, I recommend reading all of the above treatments (well, maybe not Drury, since it is admittedly a novel), which will show you not the whole truth about Akhenaten, but how much we DON'T know about him after over a century of research.



2. Akhenaten has to be one of the most fascinating characters in Egyptian history and the deliberate destruction of much the documentation of his historical legacy by subsequent Pharaohs often leaves the Amarna period open to the wildest of speculations. Nicholas Reeves presents a wealth of information in this book, often including many quotes from original sources and photos of original art work so that the readers can judge some of his conclusions for themselves.
   
   The book is carefully researched and the general argument that Akhenaten used his religious beliefs to legitimate his power is well supported by the evidence quoted. This does not of course preclude the notion that Akhenaten was sincere in his beliefs and Reeves does not suggest this. In fact it seems far from illogical that a ruler of ancient Egypt could have believed he was the son of god.
   
   Many of the conundrums of Amarna history are argued in a very balanced way in the book. Reeves effectively debunks the theories that Akhenaten was homosexual or that his appearance in statuary was due to Froehlich's syndrome. He provides interesting evidence in relation to suggestions that Akhenaten may or may not have suffered from Marfan's syndrome and that Nerfertiti may or may not have been promoted to the status of co-regent. At times, however, Reeves takes fairly extreme positions based on somewhat flimsy evidence. He claims that Akhenaten's 'dictatorial rule' led Egypt to the 'brink of disaster', that Akhenaten's rule involved 'wanton destruction' and 'deliberate neglect'. He describes the later years of Amarna as a 'terror' and suggests that Pharaoh's lover Kiya had an evil personality and may have been pulling strings behind the scene. These extreme positions are supported with arguments based on evidence where the author and purpose of the documents quoted is often ignored. One document marshalled in favor of the sorry state Egypt had descended into was written by a priest of Amun, who would obviously have had a significantly biased agenda.
   
   Overall though, the book is extremely readable and paints a fascinating picture of power politics in Egypt, where priests, generals and the Pharoah himself vie for power and influence in a manner so typical of politics throughout the history of mankind that it certainly rings true.



3. The subject of Reeves' book is Akhenaten; a Pharoah who attempted to remake Egyptian society from country where a host of gods and idols were worshipped to a monothiestic society which recognized only one god: the Aten, or sun disc.
   
   Reeves looks further back than most other authors for the origins of the Aten cult, seeing not just the trend of a priesthood that was becoming more and more politically powerful but also in other events during the 17th and 18th Dynasties which might have effected Akenaten's thinking. Reeves also discusses archeological proof as he tells the story (as it is known) and writes about different theories to explain this or that. Reeves does NOT fall into the trap of discussing the Aten cult as predecessor or influence on Judaism, which has become fashionable as of late. Overall, a good book.



4. If you are fascinated with ancient Egypt, do not miss this non-fiction book about Pharaoh Akhenaten,which reads like a well-written novel. The mysterious Pharaoh Akhenaten, who tried to introduce one god, Aten, and overthrow the all the other gods, and became known as the "great heretic" is one of the most interesting and debated historical figures of all time. It is beautifully illustrated with photographs. It also has an early section that summarizes the history of the period up to that point, and it continues on to the reign of his son Tutankhamun. Worth the photographs alone, but well written, not dry.



5. If you've read one Akhenaten title you've basically read them all. As with the countless versions which have preceeded Mr. Reeves treatment of the socalled False Prophet, the author reproduces and supports many of the curious claims surrounding the Amarna periods infamous ruler. One area the author appears to make headway is in identifying Amenophis III with the Aten. In detailing Amenophis III and his adoption of the Aten personna as his "deified physical manifestation", Mr. Reeves appears to defend Akhenaten from the status of "False prophet", but he quickly backpeddles and returns to the normal persecution completely ignoring his own statements.
   
   So was Akhenaten a mad religious zealot or merely a devoted son expressing loyalty and love for his departed father? Was Akhetaten a new capitol city or simply the grandest form of tribute to the man whom truly gave him life? If Akhetaten was indeed the capitol city as is claimed then it appears that the new Pharoah was more of a visionary than many of his predecessors as the location of this new city was a centralized location. Halfway between the old capitols of southern and northern Egypt "as Mr. Reeves points out". This would serve to unify the country and make the Pharoah and his court more accessible to the population and not isolate them as is claimed in this book. Another curious and unverified claim adopted by the author from previous sources is the decline of the Egyptian empire under Akhenaten. As I have said this is an often repeated claim which is never verified. None of the authors who preach of the Egyptian empires decline under Akhenaten ever present verifiable facts to support their claim and Mr. Reeves is no differnt.
   
   Most desturbing is the introduction of often repeated claims of incest on behalf of Akhenaten, again I would ask where except in the mind of the author is the proof of this? What Mr. Reeves does is introduce some very interesting ideals only to shrink back into long excepted ideals and accusations. I can only speculate as to the reason for Egyptology's deep animosity toward Akhenaten as he is befar the most reviled figure in Egypt's history. The hatred expressed for the man and his ideals by those who study him from a distance seperated by thousands of years is almost always skewed in the most vile manner. The use of bricks and usurption of temples constructed by Akhenaten by later rulers is helf up as proof of the hatred the man engendered with his ideals. Yet it is completely ignored that Ramesses "the offending Pharoah" did the same to his own father's constructions. So was Akhenaten anymore hated than any of his predecessors by his own or he simply viewed as a threat by outsiders struggling to make sense of a history long ago written?

5 comments about Mein Kampf.

1. Mein Kampf from a history lovers point of view, is a great read. However, if your not a fan of the history subject you may find this book to be increadibly boring, a continuous flow of long words and sentences before our time. Understanding the complete facts about the second World War, is to understand both sides. If you only keep yourself to a one sided story, your no better than any of those critics or movie makers that produce films that slander our country. Such as Ferinhight 9/11. Excuse my spelling as I'm sure I mis-spelled quite a few words in this writing. If you plan on reading this book, understand what your getting yourself into. Yes, you may find some chapters to be increadibly obscene and stupid. Yes, I had to force myself through a couple of chapters. But, I promiss if you read this book, it may very well bring you to a better understanding of what was happening politicly and personaly to the people of Germany the few years before the second World War. All in All. I felt it was a good read. Do I believe everything and agree with him on everything he has to say???.......No.....



2. [...]
   
   What I read so far is fascinating so I guess I'll have to order another version of this book so I can finish reading it.
   
   Jeff Marzano
   
   The Mind of Adolf Hitler the Secret Wartime Report
   
   The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956
   
   First Circle



3. I've given "Mein Kampf" 5 stars based on its historical importance, not on its literary or organizational quality. As a literary effort, the book is a disaster. It is an absolute whirlwind of ideas, observations and prejudices. Hitler repeats himself time and again and rarely follows an idea to its conclusion. Hitler would have done well to have employed a first-class editor but, given his ego, this was not a possibility. Perhaps it is even more remarkable that this thing became the Bible of the Third Reich and was actually given as a wedding present to all newly married German couples. I have little doubt that some of Hitler's true believers must have recognized the book's defects but were afraid to make any real criticism. This, in fact, is one of the real problems with leadership--dictatorships in particular. The leader almost automatically is insulated by a thick layer of 'yes-men' afraid to speak the truth. A fairly recent and egregious example of this was Sadam Hussein's inability to recognize that he was staring down the twin barrels of an American shotgun about to blow his head off. His numerous syncophants were too terrified of Hussein's lethal anger to speak the truth.
   
   Even so, the book is of value to the insightful historian. Hitler, in his own words, tells of the forces that shaped his belief system. To be certain, he frequently lies, perhaps to himself as well as the reader but even lies can lead to the truth. Antisemitism is not the main emphasis of this work but it's there. He claims, disingenuously I'm sure, that he never even heard the word 'Jew' while living at home i.e. that his anti-Jewish opinions were the product of personal observations of Vienna Jews. Then he turns around and cites the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' as proof of Jewish malignancy. He hints darkly that the 'Jews will get theirs' but doesn't elaborate.
   
   Much of 'Mein Kamp' is a bitter diatribe against the extinct Austria-Hungary. His hatred--and Hitler has a lot of hatred--is partly because the A-H Empire sucked Germany into WWI but also because the Empire had become a polyglot of peoples [make that slavs] many of whom had positions in the Austro-Hungarian Parliament. Young Hitler, starving in Vienna and with time on his hands, seems to have spent a significant amount of time observing the parliamentary wrangling which he likens to something like the cacophony at the Tower of Babel. He describes how his observations pushed him towards anti-democratic beliefs.
   
   He makes a fairly insightful statement. He writes that in parliamentary democracy there is no one to take real responsibility. If things go right, everyone takes the credit. If things go wrong everyone points to members of the opposite party. How much better, he writes portentuously, that one man take responsibility, a person who is big enough to take both the credit and blame. Of course, this is precisely what Hitler eventually did.
   
   He pats himself on the back many times. He hates the Communists but not individual German Communists who he sees as men, much like himself, who are aimless, post war wanderers looking for solutions. He cites a number of cases in which Communist goons enter his beer hall meetings in order to heckle and break things up. He claims that these same goons walk away convinced Nazis.
   
   Is it true? Maybe. Communists appealed to 'true believers' as did the Nazis. As Erich Hofer writes in his 'True Believer', it is not possible to convince a true believer but you can convert him. Hitler was a powerful and charasmatic speaker and no doubt appealed to true believers--even Communists--seeking for answers. I've even heard the testimonies of two Jewish men who were prevailed on to attend a Hitler speech. Both testify as to the power of the event and how, before the speech was over, they too felt a need to 'do something about the Jews.'
   
   Hitler writes that one of Germany's greatest blunders in WWI was to fight a two front war. Of course, Germany had little alternative because Russia and the Western Entente declared war on Germany almost simultaneously. We, in reading Hitler's book have knowledge how he actually performed when he came into power. Early on, most of his moves were fairly reasoned and were, of course, extremely lucky. He was able to make a treaty with Soviet Russia and the West backed down time and again. It started to come apart when he invaded Poland but again--and against the advice of his generals--he proved incredibly successful against the Poles and then the French.
   
   He was stymied by the English...but...if he had continued to exert full force against the English he might very well have proved successful in driving England out of the War. He did something both remarkable and inexplicable. He invaded his erstwhile partner, Soviet Russia--leaving the fighting English on his flank. In doing so he directly contravened his own military advisors and, more particularly, his own advice in 'Mein Kampf'. Why?
   
   For what it's worth, I'll offer several possibilities. Following his own star, Hitler had proven ridiculously successful even in the face of detractors. He may have believed that he was fated to achieve victory...no matter what. Another explanation is that Hitler really didn't want to destroy England. He reckoned that they were fellow Aryans and would sooner-or-later partner with him. They were, in his opinion, neutralized by his occupation of Europe and U-boats. On the other hand, this would have been a truly stupid conclusion. The English had battled valiantly and showed every sign that they would fight on.
   
   My own suspicion is that Hitler, who was probably bipolar, was starting to feel the effects of his physician's daily amphetamine injections. Hitler became, quite simulataneously, increasingly grandiose and paranoid. He thought he could fly over tall buildings. He couldn't miss. Proof? His subsequent personal and military behaviour. Time and again he made increasingly stupid military decisions. Some of the more remarkable were his orders to Rommel, defeated in North Africa, and von Paulus, surrounded at Stalingrad, not to retreat. Rommel disobeyed orders and his army lived to fight another day. Von Paulus followed orders and lost an army of 340,000 men. Another is at Kursk, the largest battle in world history. Hitler and his staff had evidence that the battle plan was compromised but went for it anyway and lost big.
   
   Another is the D-Day invasion. Hitler's staffers, terrified of his towering anger, didn't wake him up to tell him the truth. The Battle of the Bulge is another. The war was all but over but he organized his scant reserves--forces that could have been better used to slow the advancing Russians--to try to force something like a major victory against the Western Allies. Again Hitler only managed to hasten his end.
   
   Ron



4. AN AUTOBIGRAPHICAL BOOK OF HITLER.
   A PRICELESS MANUSCRIPT OF A MANS DESIRE TO CREATE A WORLD IN WHICH HE ALONE WILL RULE,A MILLION MAD MEN WILL HAVE WRITTEN BOOKS LIKE THIS AN NO ONE WILL TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY YET HE CAME CLOSE TO ACHIEVEING HIS VISION,HOW EVER DELUDED HE WAS, HOWEVER EVIL HE WAS ,THIS BOOK IS A TEMPLATE OF HIS VISION AND VIEWS.



5. From my point of view this is probably one of the most important books written. This is one of those books that changes history. Yes, this means I completely disagree with what Hitler said about books. He mentioned that books don't change history, but a good speaker/leader does. While this is very true, books usually exist in conjunction with this. I think you need both because the book is far more timeless than the speaker and often times a book precedes a major turning point for a movement. Look at texts like "The Bible", "The Principia," or Euclid's "The Thirteen Elements". All these texts were turning points in history and changed the way we look at the world. "Mein Kampf" would forever change the way we looked at the world as well. It literally moved nations to act... in opposition of such a major power struggle.
   
   I do not advocate Hitler's methodology in what he did, but I do acknowledge the profound impact it has left on the world and the major advancements we were all forced to make in realms such as technology. Now that this book is part of history you can't help but think of the "what if..." scenarios as I read through this massive text, I'll play into these concepts as I touch upon specific areas. Now I'm not a World War II or World War I historian by any means, so it was a hard book for me to read some of the more minute details Hitler referenced in this book. However, I read it more for the prospects in philosophy.
   
   This particular edition is split into two different volumes with an excellent introduction by the translator. Volume I was printed in 1925 and then Volume II came out in the year 1926, so they were written very close together. The first was mostly philosophical and recounts his childhood growing up. The second was more a general history of the political party and how to deal with foreign nations. It's interesting that Hitler didn't put out any other books after these two and I assume it's because his involvement in politics took up much more of his time and no longer had the free time to write. However, they did find another book he was working on after the fall of the Reich and is now published as "Hitler's Second Book". This edition is great because it compared the first printing with the second printing and footnotes the discrepancies. It also adds in details on the people Hitler named specifically in this book who would be relatively unknown to the rest of the world outside Nazi Germany and especially helpful to me because I haven't read that much about this period in history to know the extreme details. In Volume's I and II Hitler specifically references incidents in World War I that really helped shape the beliefs he has here.
   
   Anyway the introduction that prefaces this edition is rather lengthy, but well worth the read. It adds more of the historical background into the text you are about to dig into. It has interesting anecdotes about Hitler's involvement with the party, like in the text he states he was the seventh member of the DAP, but later it was found out he was 555th and this was corroborated with an unsent letter from Drexler, one of the founders. In fact when historian's looked at the membership items that were left behind after the war they could see that Hitler's had been altered physically. Also the introduction has an excellent overview of the printing of this book. Such as how it is not allowed to be printed in certain countries. Luckily in my country no such restrictions apply to any printed document, so I am free to read and review whatever I wish, regardless of how inaccurate a printed document is. I'm definitely glad there was an introduction even though it added another twenty pages onto an already daunting read. The introduction also forewarns us that Hitler can have a tendency to ramble in forms that eventually make little sense. I'm glad this warning was stated because when reading this book it was quite clear when Hitler felt particularly passionate about the subject he started to go off on these ridiculous tangents and tirades, often times in run on sentence form.
   
   In the spirit of this book, I will review Volume I separately from Volume II. So first we discuss Hitler's philosophy and growing up. Personally, I think Hitler should have stuck with the philosophical approach and left politics to the politicians (regardless of the fact this didn't mesh with his philosophy). Hitler's main point in doing the things he believed in was to change society for the better. It's very clear that he truly thought he would be saving the world and putting Germany in the forefront of being that savior. Hitler's conclusion was that it would most easily be changed through moving into the political realm. He specifically outlined his plan for getting access to the political realm and the backing of the people through propaganda. He even spells out that the propaganda doesn't always have to be true; it just needs to draw a person's attention. Realistically, when we look back on what he was planning on doing and how he did it, none of the world should have been shocked that this is what would happen. He pretty clearly outlines where his prejudices are and why he has them.
   
   Hitler starts his story as a young boy growing up and becoming disillusioned with the world around him. His father wouldn't let him do what he really wanted to do, which was art. He doesn't seem like the over confident Hitler that history portrays today. In fact I would say the movie "Max" starring Noah Taylor as Hitler did a pretty good portrayal of that possibility, only that movie was not about Hitler in his High School years, so it was a little unrealistic. When World War I started Hitler joined the military and I think this is where his confidence in himself really started to take root. This is also where he became convinced that propaganda was the key to winning the war because upon viewing the enemy's propaganda it was better than what Germany was putting out. It would appear his assumption was correct; since via propaganda he got many crowds gathered to listen to him speak.
   
   Probably the most well known facet of his beliefs is the anti-Semitism that brought on the Holocaust. He eventually ended up in Vienna and I think this is where his prejudice became firm. You can see where his theory turns into some sort of paranoid dementia, because before you knew it he was calling everyone on the street a Jew in disgust. This was mostly based on looking at the person and guessing. He believed they had penetrated the newspaper industry and were completely lying to everyone in the world. As Volume I continues you find that eventually this belief grows into him thinking that they also controlled the governments. I think a lot of this stemmed from one other text, which he mentions in this book "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This is a hoax that has existed for a while and first started getting published in 1897. I believe the global conspiracy outlined in that book only solidified what Hitler suspected with his newspaper theory. I was surprised that Hitler had originally wanted to start out as an artist and actually held a few gallery viewings of his work. I wonder at this point if there is any Hitler original art around. If I remember correctly I heard actually wasn't a very good artist. It's interesting to note that as Hitler continues with his tirades I this book, you can tell he has a special soft spot for art because he wants more of that industries presence in Germany.
   
   Overall I was surprised at how little anti-Semitism there was in the book in comparison to the length of the text. I was actually expecting a lot more. Don't mistake me, he took jabs wherever he possibly could and there was an entire chapter dedicated to the subject. However, I felt like in the first volume he spent more time criticizing the Slavs and the Austrians as being a much more immediate problem. It's almost as if the first and foremost problem was his own government and Austria; the issue of the Jewish population was a more of a global problem and probably seemed to be less immediate. You get a wholly different feel by the time we reach Volume II though.
   
   I was also very surprised at the countries he referenced as being respectable, specifically England and America. He must have been greatly disappointed in England when they refused to side with him during World War II and he must have felt doubly wrong about his initial assessment of America when we funded a lot of his enemies. Being an American I found some of his comments curious since it seems he felt we had a dominant German aspect of our country. I found this odd since it was essentially founded by England and France mostly. I couldn't help but think that Hitler was misinterpreting his history or the books he was reading were just plain wrong.
   
   For the most part Hitler is a pretty good writer. I found that he appears very intelligent and very well read, also very arrogant. He has sections that discuss the part of his life where he was looking into the political arena and when he came across the German Workers' Party. He doesn't hesitate to point out how superior his ideas were or how much better things worked when done his way. From the point of view of a leader, this seems counter to what you would want. Since his ability to elevate his own status seems to be his main underlying motive rather than helping his people, despite what he actually says. There is one instance when he was recounting the first speeches given for the party and how the first speaker was rather boring, but when he spoke the crowd became excited and into the words, they stood up and cheered even. History recounts Hitler as a very excellent speaker and I have no doubt this is true, but it's curious to see that he puts himself over his own party members constantly in this book. There were also sections where he got very passionate about a topic that became very confusing, as I explained above. I don't think this speaks to his inability to write, but rather his inability to write clearly when he is really trying to get his point across on a topic he believes as a core problem.
   
   Either way you looked at it, I couldn't help but think by the end of Volume I that Hitler would have been one of the world's most celebrated leaders if he had just put his prejudice aside. This was the case... at least until I read Volume II. Through Volume I he seems to genuinely want to help his people and the world around him. The one major crux in his argument is that he believed in some overly prejudice driven conspiracy. I think Hitler really had to start struggling in the end when it was becoming even clearer that the Jews weren't as well off in Germany as he believed they were, especially during the great depression. I was surprised at his focus on helping the middle class and a seemingly focal point on intelligence and action. It appeared his main push to change the nation was centered on elevating the knowledge of the German peoples as well as moving them to the desire for action to help their nation. I think this is a great point and he's most certainly not wrong about it being needed. However, my interpretation of this concept would be dashed by Volume II...
   
   Volume II made it incredibly clear to me that Hitler had no place in becoming a leader and especially no place on deciding education reform. Shortly into Volume II he has a lengthy chapter on what he plans to do with education to bolster a more national spirit for young Germans and to create what he refers to as a "folkish state". The concept of the "folkish state" is discussed in great length throughout Volume II and seems to be the main focus. One of the first things he was going to do was decrease the amount of time in classrooms and increase the amount of time for exercise. Following this he would decrease the amount of subjects being taught in school. This completely conflicts with his desire for an intelligent Germany, and he also discusses at length how the intelligentsia of the area are all weaklings and spineless. He notes that many students learn quite a bit of frivolous subjects in High School, which is true, but I personally believe that being a well rounded student is far better. I do agree that people need more exercise, this is painfully clear to me living in America, but to sacrifice the access to knowledge is not a viable solution! He complains at length that too many people complain about certain political actions, but being spineless professors they never actually do anything about it. Hitler sought to change this and part of this included that right after High School the population (men) would go directly into the military. Hitler being a Veteran clearly thought his experience taught him strength, so he thought that what was good for him would be good for everyone else. If only such things were true, this is clearly something that cannot be put into practice. A lot of these crazy ideas may have seemed plausible on paper, but realistically they are a fool's errand... an errand Hitler was intent on running! After a citizens completion of Army service they were then allowed into the community to pursue whatever higher level career they saw fit to pursue. His purpose in High School was to expose the students to enough generalities for them to make a choice, which is a good idea, but his plan of execution was fairly far fetched and unrealistic. Personally, in 2008, I don't think High Schools are teaching students enough to prepare them for college or to perform in the working world. So it would seem less education on academics is not the answer, but the world really does need to find some kind of a balance on this subject, even Hitler recognized that and he lived in a vastly different era from our own.
   
   Volume II also takes a drastic turn in terms of anti-Semitism and his foreign relations outlook. England seems to have been demoted into a nation that they could possibly not ally with due to the financial control of the Jewish empire. The United States was also seen as a victim of this disease, but his knowledge of American finance seems to have been quite limited. Granted there were some major firms in the U.S. that were founded by German Jews, namely Goldman Sachs, but what about firms like J.P. Morgan? In terms of the major American firms there was a balance and in the 1930's Goldman Sachs nearly went out of business in the Great Depression, so clearly this racial favoring of economic power was quite unfounded. I think Hitler spoke on these foreign nations rather out of turn because it was pretty clear he didn't know all that much about the nations and had gotten all of his knowledge from books, which may have been biased. For he terms Ford as one of the only free American business men, but in the second printing he no longer names Ford specifically, I felt this was curious. This was a drastic change from my perspective after reading Volume I, where he praised America. So even within his own book he is very contradictory. Also the focal point of being against the Slavs and Austrians has been replaced by Germany's mortal enemy... France. This sort of came out of nowhere, since in Volume I they were not "mortal enemies" just the regular kind. Hitler must have read a lot more on the subject and decided the French were far worse than they once appeared. I find all this curious because he prefaces Volume II, with saying that it's going to be about the party history and formation. The above topics have nothing to do with the party history or its formation, rather Hitler's own pet peeves about the problems that he saw after World War I.
   
   Most of this Volume is spent complaining about current (1920's) Bourgeoisie decision making and discussing what Hitler plans to do to fix that. I personally wasn't buying it, but then again, his book is so long that I doubt many of the general workers ever actually read what he wrote. He did spell out in Volume I that he was essentially going to dupe the masses into following him by creating the best propaganda to get people to go to the meetings. At that point he probably understood the concept of mob madness and let that do the rest for him. He recounts his early involvement with the party as becoming the head of propaganda, which is what he wanted because he believed propaganda, first and foremost, was the fulcrum to a party's success. Hitler even points out that it doesn't matter if the party is well organized at that time if the propaganda doesn't bring the masses in, they will have nothing to organize in the first place. He also discusses at length the rarity of a man who can organize and lead well; I couldn't help but feel that he thought himself to be such a man. He was a brilliant strategist and acutely aware of the power of the threat of violence on the general populace, especially after a major war that was still fresh in peoples memories. One of his main points was that he believed that it didn't matter what the people knew as long as an intelligent leader was looking out for them, and it's clear he believed that he was the person that could truly help the most and should be leader. This is regardless of the violence he would have to inflict; besides he only wanted strong people to be German anyway, so a show of strength went a long way with him.
   
   It's interesting to also note that he clearly wanted to rewrite some of the annals of history to favor the German people. In his long winded explanation of the Folkish State he points out that he believes the Aryan's are the only ones who could ever develop culture. No, he wasn't referring to the peoples belonging to the nation of India, but rather the Germanic peoples. See, the term Aryan comes from India, and I have no idea if Hitler knew this or not, but that's its origin. Indians clearly wouldn't have been high on his list, and certainly didn't qualify as those being able to create culture despite their history of creating that vast nation. Rather, it appears the legend and concept of the Aryan survived and came down to Hitler as the superior race. For some reason he equated that with the Germanic peoples. His whole concept of the white population being the only force intelligent enough to create culture is clearly unfounded. He gets even more contradictory in this concept since he was well aware that Germany was vastly tribal up until the Roman invasions. He states the reason was that "we were a young people". This is just foolishness because it was trade in technology that eventually brought what we call "civilization" today to the Germanic tribes. It has nothing to do with them being the only creative force in the world. He completely ignores the fact that Egypt existed long before as a civilization. I question whether he knew of the Arab city-states of Sumer, but it doesn't explain Egypt. I think Hitler merely viewed them as "uncivilized" or "not a cultured" or whatever other twisted elaboration he wanted to thrust upon them. Either way, he does not explain his reasoning in detail, and just states matter of factly that only Aryans harbor the creative force to develop culture and no one else.
   
   Overall I walked away with reading a superb book, in my opinion. At times it was very hard to read and I will be the first to admit that not everyone will struggle through this thing. There are too many sections of rambling that don't drive home the main points. It all sounds very smart at first glance, but when you sit down and analyze what he's saying inherent contradictions come to the surface. Then it occurs to the reader that most of his language use is merely superfluous for the sake of sounding intelligent (much like this sentence). No one wants an incredibly inconsistent leader (however, I feel like that's all we get at times!). Despite the racial hatred, I am glad I read this book, it gives me a great historical perspective and I now understand where Hitler was coming from. On a philosophical note, it really makes me think of the concept of evil and how that plays into perspectives. From Hitler's perspective he thought he was saving his people. He thought he was actually saving the world from the greatest threat and he really thought the other nations would see the truth that he saw and back him up. Alas, for Hitler he was chasing after rumors and ghosts that didn't actually exist.
   
   In reading this I also couldn't help but wonder about what the world is like today. Lots of "what if" questions come to mind. Despite the incredible tragedy that Hitler wrought on so many lives, it was really the need to ramp up production of war elements that brought the world out of the great depression. So Hitler really did end up helping the world in this sense by provoking everyone to action. He also motivated the world to increase production and research into massive amounts of technology. Atomic energy might not have come to us as soon as it has without this provocation. I can't deny this factor. Also, I have to look at the historical perspective that the country I now reside in is the major world power because of Hitler's actions against Europe! Many people will probably consider these horrible thoughts, but I can't deny the reality of the situation and it leaves me to wonder that if Hitler had become the artist he always wanted to be, would we be in the same situation? Would Israel exist today if he never came to power? After World War II the Cold War went quickly into effect and I wonder if I would even have the internet to relay my ideas if World War II had never taken place, since that also forced us to ramp up production and research in technology. As a philosophical perspective these are all very profound concepts and questions. Despite all the horror that was wrought in the war, if you step back with the utilitarian perspective of Mills and look at all that has come out of the war that has elevated our lives and the economy as a whole.
   
   On the reverse side, what if Hitler had actually succeeded in what he wanted to do? Israel surely wouldn't exist today. Would Christianity be the same? Since he seemed to respect Christianity and he was surely no atheist, so would his disdain for the Jewish people provoke him to edit the Bible down to just the New Testament? I've already said before that he clearly sought to rewrite history and I don't think anything would be out of his grasp. I do know one thing for sure though, I wouldn't have been able to read all the books I have under a reign like that, and I most surely would not have been able to criticize this book as I have in such a society. Thankfully his party was not in power for a long time, but apparently long enough to change the world.

5 comments about Madame de Pompadour: Mistress of France.

1. Really enjoyed reading about this amazing woman. I think the French monarchy was amazing in their choice of mistresses -- I would have hated being a wife!



2. Louis XV, historically France's "bien-aime, is rendered here the "bien-damne." Algrant's vision cuts deeply across historical accounts of both the king and his mistress. Students of French literature will recognize Madame de Pompadour portrayed as the intelligent and enlightened patroness of the arts.
   That the seeds of Louis XVI's demise were sown in the reign of Louis XV is not news. However, the degree of Louis XV's dereliction of duty and almost lecherous exploitation of teenage concubines portrays him beyond merely oblivious to the state of his country. He becomes almost "Nero-esque."
   While Louis XV "fiddled," Madame de Pompadour "burned" passionately with grandiose political schemes taking on the role of Prime Minister. Her political disasters drained France of both blood and money as she waged war against England and Prussia simultaneously. Additionally the monarch and former mistress carried on an aggressive building program. It is apparent why she was so greatly despised by the general French population, and remarkable that the French Revolution was delayed until some twenty-five years after her death. I cannot improve on a comment offered by Alistair Horne "...Madame de Pompadour makes you hear the rattle of the tumbrels, just thirty years down the road."



3. I was hoping for insight on more of the private life of Pompadour; instead, I got a very in-depth account of her political involvement. These were so detailed that at times, I tired of the seemingly endless political escapades Pompadour was a involved in. Sometimes, the book felt more like a biography 18th century French politics rather than the life of Pompadour. Her life was abrupt and her time as the romantic love of Louis XV's even shorter. After it was obvious that Louis XV no longer looked to her as a romantic partner, Pompadour positioned herself as a confidant, a friend, an advisor, among many other roles. This made her a very well-known woman in French royal society; some dubbed her as the Prime Minister of France, others called her the true Queen. While this book was well researched and well written, I still feel that it's a pity that this book focused more on her foray into politics rather than the overall doings of her private life.



4. Madame Pompadour broke through an enormous social barrier for women of society - she was the first of the bourgeoisie to be appointed "official mistress" to a French King. (Even in the Court of Versailles, women faced glass ceilings). Her relationship with Louis XV, a man of immense carnal appetites, was hardly the stuff of which romance is made: she was groomed for her role by a clique of favor-seeking investment bankers, who duly cashed in when she achieved influence. Pompadour's real talent - and greatest legacy - was her patronage of arts and literature, most notably Boucher and Voltaire, but also the fine arts such as the porcelain works as Sevres. Her role in policy, on the other hand, was hardly beneficial in the long run: for all the talented ministers she was able to promote, none of them solved the profound inequities of ancien regime France. What, though, could be expected under the reign of Louis XV? As Pevitt demonstrates, he must qualify as one of history's most boorish (and depraved) leaders. This is a well-balanced biography - giving all due credit to Pompadour's good taste and cultured eye, yet ruthless in exposing her pettiness and pretentiousness.



5. Remembered today in narratives of the past, heralded in poetry and song, Madame de Pompadour, born Jeanne-Antoinette Poisson in 1721, continues to be a fascinating and enigmatic figure.

   The daughter of a mother noted for her beauty and high spirits, Jeanne inherited both of these qualities. In addition, a fortune teller predicted that the little girl would one day be the mistress of Louis XV. This foretelling Jeanne later told Voltaire "struck her with the force of a thunderbolt." And, it was a prophecy that the young woman seemed hellbent on fulfilling.

   Christine Pevitt Algrant's comprehensive and cogent portrait of the woman who would, indeed, become the most potent force in the court of Louis XV is a welcome addition to the annals of history, as it includes a telling picture of a troubled France.

   Courtiers were shocked when the humbly born Poisson became recognized as the king's maitresse declaree. After all, the king's prior inamoratas had all been members of the elite, born of royal lineage. However, it was one thing to become his lover, and quite something else to become his sole confidante and the power behind the throne. A title was purchased for her thus the transformation into Madame de Pompadour was complete. She was reviled by many, and obeyed by all.

   With Versailles as her backdrop she became an important patron of the arts, nurturing such luminaries as Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, and Boucher. It was she who masterminded the building of the Petit Trianon Palace at Versailles.

   Yet as a part of the world continued to be torn her quest for power was unsatisfied. France and England were at odds, and she cast a pall over the treaty allying France with her hated Austria. She succeeded in removing her enemies from positions of influence, and replacing them with trusted friends. Her creation of an opulent court incurred public wrath, and her political maneuverings created foes in court.

   Nonetheless, the king's trust in his paramour never waned.

   Incisive and thoroughly researched "Madame de Pompadour" bursts with color and intrigue. It is fact even more fascinating than fiction.

   - Gail Cooke

5 comments about Queen's Jewels.

1. After reading this book and salivating at the photographs, I'll NEVER lust after anyone else's jewellery again. Apart from the sheer magnificence of the stones and the settings, the provenance of the pieces and just how they happened to be in the possession of the various members of the royal family, is completely fascinating. It's also a very interesting look at the social mores of the various eras. In Queen Victoria's time, she tended to wear more modest jewellery, much of which had a sentimental value to her, and so the ladies of the day tended to follow her example. In the following reign, that of Edward V11, the upper classes of the day followed the example of Queen Alexandra, who was a beauty and who dressed lavishly in her own particular style, which was followed by ladies of the court and which featured high necklines, decorated heavily with diamonds and precious stones. In the following reign of a very rigid George V and Queen Mary, the court seemed to be bolstering the idea of an unapproachable royalty, above the touch of scandal and to foster this idea by literally covering the Queen in jewels from head to toe. Today's monarch jewels up only on the most formal of occasions, but it's thanks to her and to the Queens of the past that this amazing collection has been built up over the years to amaze and bedazzle lovers of beautiful jewellery everywhere.



2. Field has produced an excellent balance of text and pictures and has done an exceptionally thorough job of documentation. I was fascinated by his descriptions of how the jewelry was modified over the years to accommodate the fashions of the day and the taste of the current owner. The only reason I did not give this 5 stars was due to the pictures. Most are black and white (for obvious reasons), however some were of very poor quality, and very few taken with the intention of displaying jewelry. There was one delightful story of a gift to the young Princess Elizabeth, a necklace and bracelet, which the Queen now refers to as "my best diamonds". But do we get to see the diamonds? No, the only available picture was a distant news photo of the young Princess sitting at an angle and the jewels nearly impossible to see. For Princess Diana fans, don't bother buying this book. There are less than a half dozen images of Diana, and nothing you haven't seen before. And just a reminder, this is her personal collection. You won't see any of the crown regalia.



3. Leslie Field's "The Queen's Jewels: The Personal Collection of Elizabeth II" is a splendid, splendid book in every way. Field has gathered together hundreds of important photographs (of the nearly half million she saw altogether) of Queen Elizabeth's jewels. These are shown both in their cases and being worn by various monarchs, and we see how different royal family members have altered the look or the purpose of pieces as fashions and times changed over the years. Field has complemented these photographs with her outstanding, meticulously researched text. Even if you purchase the book mostly to drool over the photographs, you will end up being both captivated and educated by the accompanying text.

   Field begins the book with the ascension of Queen Victoria to the throne. Because of the Salic laws passed by the House of Hanover in 1833, Victoria was prevented from becoming ruler of both the United Kingdom and Hanover. The kingdoms were split for the first time in well over a century. Immediately, King Ernest of Hanover--an uncle of Queen Victoria--demanded his share of the royal jewels, arguing that since the kingdom had been split, so must be the gems. Victoria disagreed, and the argument went on for two decades before finally being settled in favor of Hanover. Subsequently, Victoria gave up several important pieces of jewelry to her uncle's descendants--but was already well on her way to amassing an important collection.

   Victoria was the first British monarch to make clear that some pieces belonged to the Crown and were for use by any Queen to follow her--and that some pieces were her personal property, and hers to dispose of as she saw fit. British monarchs have followed in her footsteps ever since and although Field showcases many sumptuous Crown pieces in the book, the bulk of what we see are the Queen's personal pieces. And what a collection it is!

   The collection is vast and jaw-droppingly beautiful. Field wisely divides the book into types of stones, from diamonds and pearls to emeralds, sapphires, amethysts, turquoise, and more. We see everything from parures
   (i. e., complete matching sets of everything from necklaces to brooches to rings to earrings and more) to necklaces and tiaras which were gifts from other governments or from such quaintly named organizations as "Girls of Great Britain and Ireland" to pieces designed by Prince Philip expressly for his wife.

   Among the many stand-outs in the book are:

   - Queen Elizabeth's three-carat diamond solitaire engagement ring, designed by Prince Philip for his wife and set with a handsome diamond taken from a tiara belonging to Philip's mother (p. 85);

   - The Godman Necklace, which had been bought by an English naturalist in the 1890s while on holiday in Bavaria. His daughters, many years after his death, wrote to the Lord Chamberlain saying that they felt they owned jewelry once owned by Empress Josephine of France and that the Queen might be interested in it. Although it turned out not to have been of this provenance, it was undoubtedly a stunning and valuable piece, showcasing seven large emeralds and three smaller ones, and surrounded throughout with an encrustation of diamonds and platinum filigree (p. 95);

   - The Cambridge's Lover's Knot Tiara, shown being worn by the Duchess of Cambridge in 1818, the Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz in the 1890s, Queen Mary in 1926, Queen Mary again in 1935 (this time without the upright pearls which originally adorned it), Queen Elizabeth in 1955, and Diana, Princess of Wales in 1985. This is powerful testimony that good design and fine jewelry are both timeless (pp. 113 - 115);

   - Queen Mary's "Rose of York" bracelet, which is a breathtaking ruby and diamond pendant which was eventually turned into a bracelet (p. 143).

   Of course these are but a few of the many treasures in the book. It is a fascinating read, and a wonderfully complete and detailed account of what is probably the finest jewelry collection in the world today.




4. I was so impressed with and have gotten so much Joy from this book, it has inspired me enough to go ahead and try my first on-line review. When I noticed this was out of print I was very surprised. Even more so when I realized there was also a 1997-revised edition. I am hopeful its simply because the newly expanded volume is getting its finishing touches. With digital imaging technology having come so far since the publishing of the first two editions (87/97), the detail that is now available will hopefully be prominently featured in the next. A unique aspect of this book is the thoroughness of information presented on several different topics.
   The title subject is definitely covered in meticulous detail. Aside from the jewels it really is almost a complete mini-biography of most of the British Royal Family. After all the Men bought jewels too! It is amazing to see an 18th century piece on Queen Elizabeth and be able to trace it exactly from it origin through the centuries.
   The information in text and pictures give a much better understanding of the whole concept of continuity, with many surprises along the way. Tidbits like how Queen Victoria stubbornly refused to return gems that another Royal House insisted it owned. How important Jewels were to Queen Mary, not for their monetary value but because of their family historical importance. Its the little details like this that give you a much more personal understanding of monarchs, without being dishy or gossipy.

   Both the front and back inside covers gives a complete family tree dating back to Henry VII. Inside, thirteen categories/chapters cover everything from Diamonds and Emeralds to Sapphires and Amethysts, explaining who favored a particular kind of gem or style over another. Do not expect a very in-depth education on gems, however you get a great understanding of the history and importance of gems through the centuries as a symbol of power and status. There is a generous amount of color and B&W photos perfectly balanced with the text. Generations of Royals Portraits set-up three or four to a page wearing the same Jewels over scores of decades are some of the picture highlights. I really don?t think you need to be a Royal Watcher to appreciate the images. From all the individuals listed in the Acknowledgments many of them with titles you understand this book was published with the complete cooperation and help of the entire Royal Family. Its the photography that makes you appreciate this. A perfect example of this is the cover subject. A magnificent necklace part of a set named: The Cambridge and Delhi Durbar Parure. Inside there is another full color page showing the complete set, however throughout the book you can see no less than ten or twelve different royals wearing some kind of configuration of it. Including the World Famous snapshot of the late Princess Diana wearing the necklace as a headband.
   You cannot help but feeling like you know the members of the various royal houses a little better after reading a few excerpts. The entire volume gives you an impression that the author truly respects, enjoys and is highly educated on her subject. This is one of the few books that I own, that I know I will never post for sale used. I hope you enjoy!




5. I can't say enough about this book. Leslie Field obviously loves her subject; the amount of research that went into this book is impressive. It is fascinating to follow a piece of jewelry through history from Queen Victoria to Princess Diana through pictures. The accompanying text is informative, but the pictures really say it all in this book.

4 comments about Vlad the Impaler: In Search of the Real Dracula.

1. Although the book has several chapters about vampirism and Bram Stoker's Dracula, the remaining chapters about Vlad Tepes are very detailed and a good read. Vlad surely was one of the most cruel tyrants ever and his atrocities are described with much detail. Contemporaries wrote about the "untold abuses, sad murders and mutilations by the cruel tyrant Dracula" and the author discusses the sources and their reliability by their level of interest in blackening Vlad. According to Trow, many of Vlad Dracula's acts can be interpreted as efforts to enforce his own moral code upon his country and to strengthen and modernise the central government at the expense of the nobility, because they had repeatedly undermined the power of the Wallachia's rulers (and buried alive his elder brother).
   An interesting section describes the `usual' way of impalement and the most likely way used by Vlad in the case of mass impalements or when a mother was impaled together with her baby.



2. I am no expert on Dracula but my historical sensibilities have been offended by several serious errors in the text. Here are just two examples: on pages 9-10 Mr. Trow writes:

   "...Oliver Cromwell, whose head ... may or may not have been separated from his body..."

   It is a well-known fact that Cromwell's head definitely had been separated from his body, and found its lonely grave only in 1960.

   On page 123 we find the following fragment about Jan Zizka:

   "...he had fought for the Teutonic Order against the Poles...
   Losing an eye at Tannenberg in 1410 fighting for Wenceslas..."

   These two incomplete sentences contain four mistakes. First, Zizka fought FOR the Poles AGAINST the Teutonic Order. Second, he did so at the battle of Tannenberg in 1410, therefore he couldn't fight there for Wenceslas. Third, the unnamed battle from the first sentence and the battle of Tannenberg/Grunwald are one and the same event. Fourth, Zizka lost an eye in his adolescence.

   In short, this book could really benefit from knowledgeable editing.




3. Expertly presented by crime writer and historian M. J. Trow, Vlad The Impaler: In Search Of The Real Dracula is an impressively researched, meticulously detailed, and superbly written study of the life of the ruthless historical figure whose memory and legend became the inspiration for the enduring legend of a blood-drinking, undead fiend. Yet there was a great deal more to this controversial prince (as vicious as he was), than what his legends say - he was, in historical fact, "more sinned against than sinning". Vlad had to contend with avenging the murders of his family, defending his nation-state from brutal enemies who took every pain to destroy his reputation, and who eventually became a defeated martyr, captured by the Hungarian King Corvinus. Vlad The Impaler is very highly recommended reading and a welcome addition to community library biography collections.



4. I was very disappointed in this book. While the history sections are reasonably solid, the author falls into the usual traps whenever he tries to make links between the historical Vlad and the Dracula of Bram Stoker's novel. Numerous times he states speculation as if it were fact. Worse, he makes statements that any reader of the novel "Dracula" would know are ludicrous: for example, that at the end of the story, Count Dracula has a stake driven through his heart; or that Dracula is unable to function during the day. To be fair to the author, I plan to write him directly and elaborate on all the flaws I found in the book. Maybe in a second edition (if there is one) they can be corrected. In the meantime, if you are looking for a reliable book on Vlad without all the nonsense about his being the inspiration for Stoker's novel, stick with "Vlad III Dracula" by Kurt Treptow.

   Dr. Elizabeth Miller
   www.ucs.mun.ca/~emiller [Dracula's homepage]

5 comments about Death of a Princess.

1. Itwas a great book and her life was a drama. Anyone interested in late-Ottoman history should read it.



2. This is a beatiful book. I have just finished it but want to read it again. This is a kind of story that captures you and even when you finish to read it it won't let you go. I keep visualizing the moment when Selma was playing with her daugther just before she died. Do you know what strikes you most, story is true. You just don't want to accept how a life can be so short, so colorful, and so sad at the same time. I still feel the sadness in my heart. I really want to visit her modest grave one day and leave a bouquet of wild flowers on it. Thank you Kenize Mourad.



3. The original French version is wonderful, hope the English translation is a good.



4. Though I have not yet read the english translation, the french text is amazingly beautiful.



5. I want to know if there was a sequel

5 comments about Catherine the Great : Life and Legend.

1. This is a good book to read to get a handle on the reign of Catherine the Great and late 18th C. Russia. Alexander covers the court intrigues, the attempts at reform, the complexities of foreign policy. He also avoids treating Catherine's personal life in a sensationalistic way.

   So if you read this book, you will learn a lot. On the other hand, the book doesn't really come to life in the way Massie's "Peter the Great" or Avrich's "Russian Rebels" did. It is recommended only to those with a serious interest in the time of Catherine, such as students, and not the casual reader.




2. I have read several books on the history of Russia, like Peter the Great, and the Romanovs, but this book frankly bored me. The author definetly knows his stuff about Catherine, but I got so tired of reading about all the political stuff in this book. I wanted to know more about her personal life, more details about her comings and goings, not about how she ruled her Russian cabinet officers. Also the use of vocabulary was way over my head, so it made it hard to enjoy reading because many times I needed to get the dictionary, and I feel I have a fairly good vocabulary. I would not recommend this book unless you want to know about Russian administration in her time.



3. I have read history books more interesting than this book. When i purchased the book i thought that it would be an interesting work. The book started off interesting. Then, as it progressed it got worse. Rent the movie. It would be much better. Trust me.



4. Alexander does a marvelous job retelling history without sensationalizing it. Many past biographers undertaking the job of writing about Catherine the Great have often focused too much on her sexuality, rather than her political prowess. John T. Alexander, however, thoroughly examines the political and cultural context of her life, and refuses to insult the reader's intelligence by dishing gossip or repeating long-held opinions. Having read four other biographies of Catherine the Great, I can assure you this one is probably the best. Impartial, informative, and interesting.



5. First of all, contrary to the review now on line, this book was not written by John T. Williams, whoever he is, but by John T. Alexander. This biography is a much more serious and learned biography than Henri Troyat's, which I read in 1987. This book has dull parts, but the story it tells is an incredible one. Catherine had an amazing career, and of course her parade of favorites is legendary. I found this book to be good academic history and it well deserves reading.

No comments about The Puppet Emperor: The Life of Pu Yi, Last Emperor of China.