5 comments about Henry V as Warlord (Classic Military History).

1. Henry V was one of the most ferocious of England's kings. Through sheer force of will alone he was able to quell his English nobility into following him, and then turn to the French and do the same to them.
   
   Seward does a great job in using the contemporary sources of the time to illustate who the man really was, all the meanwhile not falling prey to the trappings of the propoganda of the time. His illustration of the man's short life is invaluable to anyone reading French or English history, but especially for anyone who is looking for information on the Hundred Years War.
   
   A must read for history buffs.



2. ... Desmond Seward's book does much to clear the myth about Henry V from the theater and movie images but as the title of the book suggested, Henry V was a warlord and a pretty good as that. I enjoyed reading this book, clearly written, neatly on focus as Seward does not spread himself too thin and kept his eye on the military aspect of Henry V's career. That was his purpose for the book, wasn't it? The book revealed that Henry was a gifted commander, brutal as any but no more then any for the time period. he waged an aggressive war and took advantages of his enemies. That don't make him a bad man in my book, not during that period of history. Henry V's only sin, it seem was that he simply died too soon and left a son too young. Overall, a very good book, author's effort to show the "real" Henry V was a success but Henry's accomplishments were real enough that Shakespeare wanted to make him a national hero!



3. Henry V was one of the most evil kings to occupy the English throne. Shakespeare's play about him glorified him because he conquered so much territory in France. Even though he only occupied the English thorne for 9 years, he caused 600 years of political damage between France and England. His motto was, "I'm the scourge of God and I'm here to punish men for their sins."

   Normandy, one of the best grain producing regions of France was practically raised to the ground. It was devastated along with other northern regions of France. The English murdered, raped, pillaged, and committed almost every kind of evil to France during this period of medieval history.

   After his victory at Agincourt in 1415, Henry V invaded France while it was in a civil war. At the Treaty of Troyes, he dictated his own terms for the future of France. Charles VI, "the mad king of France", didn't have a say in the treaty because he was insane. Henry took advantage of this. In the treaty, it stated that Henry would marry Charles'daughter and if Charles VI died, Henry would become both king of England and France.

   When the Hundred years war was dormant, Henry rekindled it for another 50 years. His only reason was to declare that he was the true heir to the French throne. During those 50 years the English committed so many atrosities to France, they paled in comparison to what the Saracens did to the Crusaders. This is the main reason the French mistrust and dislike the English to this day.




4. Those who admire Shakespeare's Henry V and Kenneth Branagh's film adaptation, and who are curious about the real King Henry, will find this book to be a good read: fluently and clearly written, neither too short nor too long. Henry was a sort of monster; he was also a great man. The human race naturally admires such men, and for that reason one should not fault Shakespeare for creating a great national hero out of a ruthless military genius. What is remarkable is that so much of the real Harry comes through in the play. Even so, the disasters of war inflicted on the French are appalling to read about in this book. The Nazi occupation was mild in comparison. The French are notorious for their aversion to English speakers. Is the reason, as Desmond Seward says, the memory of this quintessential English hero?



5. Shakespeare's Henry V forms the basis for most people's impression of this monarch. This remarkably effective piece of propaganda presents Henry as an inexperienced and brave young man with a number of attractive features. In this fine book, Desmond Seward presents a realistic picture of Henry V that is quite different from the Henry in Shakespeare. While Henry came to the throne at a young age, he was already an experienced commander and administrator. His skills had been developed in the rather vicious politics of contemporary England and by the leading role he played in subduing rebellion in Wales. Based on a careful reading of sources and his extensive knowledge of Medieval Europe, Seward presents Henry as an unusually capable and ruthless leader bent on consolidating royal authority in England and conquering France. Seward's well justified analysis of Henry's motivations are based on Henry's insecurity over his claim to the throne, which had been usurped by his father. Seward infers that the undoubtedly pious Henry regarded his attempt to conquer France as a trial by God over the issue of the legitimacy of his crown. Henry's successes then were sanction of his efforts to conquer France and his right to occupy the throne of England. This book provides fine narrative of Henry's life as a soldier and campaigner. Seward's descriptions of Medieval warfare and politics are excellent. He addresses well why a small and relatively sparsely populated country like England could do so well in combat against the French. Seward addresses also the question of why the English presence proved to evanescent. My only complaint with this book is that it did not cover other aspects of Henry's life. This is not entirely fair as Seward aimed at covering Henry's life as a attempted conquerer and he achieves his aims easily. This is not an attempt at a comprehensive biography. Seward's intelligent treatment of these aspects of Henry's life makes me wish he had attempted a broader book.

4 comments about Brother to the Sun King: Philippe, Duke of Orleans.

1. Though I disagree with some of the author's opinions, it's always good to read and learn more about easily misjudged historic characters.



2. This book sets out to right a great wrong. The Duke of Orleans comes across as a petty and, at times, annoying figure in the Memoirs of St Simon. Ms. Barker's work does much to make up for what St Simon has done in the past. However, the work is flawed by Ms Barker's use of Freudian psychology to explain the Duke's homosexuality. This is probably the only real flaw in this book, but it is sufficient to undermine an unqualified recommendation.



3. As only brother to the Sun King, Louis XIV of France, Philippe, Duke of Orleans lived forever in the shadow of his older brother. Because of the numerous uprisings in France by a younger brother of the King, Philippe was taught from birth that he could never outshine his brother or be given any prominent place in his government. Because of this, Philippe led a fairly "wasted" life, perhaps best known for his flagrant homosexuality. Yet author Nancy Nichols Barker points out that when allowed to shine, the Duke was a competent soldier, lover of fine arts, good father and the founder of the Orleans dynasty which eventually ruled France. While the progeny of Louis XIV died out with the revolution, the descendants of Philippe populated the great Catholic thrones of Europe.

   The author does a good job with source material and especially the "psychological" background of her characters, such as Philippe and his two wives, Henriette of England and Elizabeth Charlotte of Palatine. The first marriage was a disaster but the second marriage flourished for a long time. Elizabeth Charlotte or Liselotte is given a major part of the biography and her background is presented in a very interesting manner. I would recommend this book highly to anyone interested in French history.




4. The story of Philippe, brother of Louis XIV (also known as Sun King) is very exciting and iteresting. The book provides knowledge not only about Philippe, but also about his surroundings and with link to all possible things that were happening in France of that time. The description of his life is not like in most history books - you can even feel the atmosphere as you were there! You can also learn about Louis XIV from it and about their family realtions. The book covers both official and privat aspects of Philippe's life. Great book and very good work of the author!

2 comments about Princess Remembers; Memoirs of Maharani of Jaipur.

1. I have read many books about the Royal lives from various parts of the world. This book by "Gayatri Devi" is exquisite and her narration simply makes the book premier of them all. The details and the wonderful experiences amazed me. Her life has so much vitality and enthusiasm. Its a book by someone with bright spirit and great soul.



2. I have always been interested in the history of Princely India because I find the lives and times of the great Maharajas of India very fascinating. I found the first edition of this great book at an Indian book store in New Jersey. I was very ecstatic about my discovery since one can hardly find books about the history of Princely India in the States. This is the perfect way to find out what it was like during the time when the Maharajas ruled India. Her Royal Highness, the Maharani Gayatri Devi has done a superb job in writing this book. Her writing makes it seem as if we are there in Jaipur when they welcomed Her at the Rambhagh Palace, and we feel the emotions she might have felt when Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi imprisoned her on false charges. This book is easy to follow and flows very nicely from one chapter to the next, and from one situation to the other. The English used in this book is not too complex either, and has many great pictures so that one can feel as if they are right there when She wins the elections and welcomes Jackie Kennedy at the City Palace. This book is a must read for all people who are interested in Princely India, or interested in famous influential women. It is a must read for people who like to read a romantic story, but it is a must read for people who like to read and gain new knowledge.

No comments about George III (Very Interesting People).

5 comments about Henry VIII.

1. Sometimes appearances can be deceiving. When I first received this book and saw how HUGE it was (and in small print, yet), I thought I was in for a long, tedious and boring read. In other words, the kind of book that you start but it becomes harder and harder to keep reading until you finally give up way before the ending.
   
   To my surprise, this book engrossed my attention from day one and became impossible to put down. Jasper Ridley has done a masterful job of giving us a very detailed biography of one of the most memorable kings in history. Unlike so many other books about Henry, Ridley refuses to monopolize the subject matter with sensationalistic details revolving around Henry's wives. Instead, he concentrates on the much more important religious, political and social aspects of his reign.
   
   I think this book captures the true essence of Henry VIII--a tyrant, selfish, arrogant, and demanding. A person who in almost every instance was able to manipulate people into doing his dirty work for him. An individual who could play tennis with a subject he considered a "friend", such as Thomas More, and then easily have this bosom companion executed without nary a shred of remorse whenever it would serve Henry's advantage to do so. One of Henry's most popular practices was to sail the Thames surrounded by women and fawning courtiers while a former close advisor, friend etc. was being executed. This king was a master of disguise, making it appear that he had little or nothing to do with distasteful events and absenting himself from the controversy at hand.
   
   The author mentions early on that, in effect, while gazing at the famous Holbein portrait of Henry VIII in all his glory, people were mesmerized by the majesty as portrayed in the painting. What they did not notice were the hard, unfeeling and pig-like eyes that were barely visible in the already bloated face. If the eyes indeed are the "windows of the soul", Henry was a very cruel individual indeed.
   
   Although his reign was extremely productive in many ways, such as his interest in solidifying England as a naval power, the most striking aspect is, of course, the religious break with Rome. Here too, Henry waffles back and forth as the winds blow. To say this was an achievement is merely subjective; it began a period of intense religious misunderstandings which resulted in the deaths of untold innocent people who refused to accept this or that form of religious belief and worship. As such, I cannot classify Henry's break with Rome as a positive issue. I am not religious, and therefore perhaps not qualified to judge this. But the results of this action are being felt well into modern times. It is a subjective issue as to whether this extreme action on his part set his country and Europe on the right course.
   
   As initially stated, do not be put off by the size of this book. It will engage your attention and provide a picture of Henry (essentially minus the much touted wife leaping) that probably comes closest to what this famous monarch was actually like.



2. Yet again, J Ridley takes the reader on a remarkable journey, guiding you through the maze of factual background without ever letting your hand go. His mastery of the English language and notable training as a barrister make him the best narrator of the century.



3. Ridley is brilliant as ever. In his masterly style, he portrays both historic detail and periodic insight in such manner that the reader is captivated from the first page onwards. The ongoing battle with Lady Antonia Frazer's biography is a delight (especially when historical inaccuracies in her biography are condemned to footnotes). A book one cannot put down for a single moment.



4. Jasper Ridley's bio of Henry VIII, if nothing else, suggests to me that executioners must have had a steady employment during early 16th-century England. In Ridley's biography, England's formative king is essentially a psychopath, and the country became Protestant, not because of any doctrinal attachment to the Reformation, but as a consequence of political machinations and goals on Henry's part. This, in fact, is one of the book's great strengths; Ridley is rare among biographers in his thorough attention to and excellent summary of the thicket of political events surrounding Tudor England, and this book does an excellent job of explaining these intricacies. Especially fascinating was the depiction of the conflict between Henry and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Henry would have probably gotten the papal annulment that he wanted to dissolve his marriage to Katharine of Aragon, if only Charles had not effectively controlled the pope and been such a bitter enemy of Henry's; then Henry would have found no need to break from the Catholic Church, and history would be entirely different! For a Renaissance monarch, Henry seems more to resemble one of the 20th century's bloodthirsty dictators in this book. While the depiction initially surprised me, Ridley backs up his claims with such excellent documentation and use of primary sources (which I was able to check), that he definitely has a point! A fascinating bio.



5. Ridley paints a picture of a King who is as ruthless a tyrant as any 20th Century dictator. Henry VIII is shown as a ruler who forced his ministers to do his bidding and then executed them to satisfy public opinion, once his policies began to loose popular support. He would stop at nothing to get what he wanted, including breaking with the Pope in Rome and reforming the Church in England with him as the head, when the Pope refused to grant him an annulment from his wife, who could not give him a male heir. Thereafter, Henry played Protestant and Catholic factions against each other, so that he could remain in complete control as an arbiter; alternatively burning influential Protestants as heretics and Catholics who refused to recognize him as Supreme head of the Church of England as traitors. Ridley's picture shows us a king who would stop at absolutely nothing to get what he wanted, including turning society and 1000 years of religion completely upside down! A fascinating look at the Stalin of the 1500s!

No comments about Queen Victoria (Pitkin Guides).

5 comments about The Search for Cleopatra.

1. Cleopatra would not qualify as "black" because she was not a "woman of color" as some falsely allege. She came from a Dynasty that intermarried with one another. Her ethnicity was Hellenic Macedonian. She and the Dynasty she belonged to spoke Greek. . If there was even a hint that her origins were anything but that of a Hellenic Dynasty who ruled over Egypt then the ancient Greek and Roman writers would have stated as such given they did so with other people who were of "mixed" origins. Plus Cleopatra's family are Greek descendants from Northern Greece and an ancient painting from Vergina, Greece depicts Ptolemy I Soter during a hunt as being fair in coloring. Some ancient writers even claim him the son of King Philip, making the Ptolemiac Dynasty descendants from the Hellenic Argead Dynasty of whom the Macedonian royal family claimed descendant from. Its only been in modern history that this myth about Cleopatra being "black or mixed race" came about. This theory originated in the 16th century - that is thousands of years and centuries after Cleopatra's death. Most writers who question her heritage are not even ancient writers or historians but modern revisionists. Cleopatra's paternal grandmother was Cleopatra IV, her paternal/maternal grandfather's(Ptolemy IX) sister. Cleopatra's maternal grandmother was Cleopatra Selena, again the sister of her paternal/maternal grandfather's(Ptolemy IX) AND the sister of her paternal grandmother(Cleopatar IV). Making Cleopatra's paternal grandmother(Cleopatar IV), maternal grandmother(Cleopatra Selena) and paternal/maternal grandfather(Ptolemy IX) all brother and sisters, in other words the brother had children with both of his sisters. The parents of Cleopatra VII's father were Ptolemy IX and Cleopatra IV and the parents of Cleopatra's mother were Ptolemy IX and Cleopatra Selena: making Cleopatra VII's parents both brother and sister and cousins all at the same time. This was a common practice among the Ptolemeis, marrying their sisters, bothers, cousins, aunts, uncles, parents. The Ptolemies were not liked by native Egyptians who they considered "foreigner rulers". In fact Cleopatra's father survived two assassination attempts, this was the reason why they kept to themselves and married amongst each other, they distrusted foreigners. Which why the likelihood of Cleopatra's grandmother being anyone outside the Ptolemaic family tree, ie. native Egyptian, Nubian, Hebrew or anything else is zero given the xenophobic views the Ptolemies.



2. I like the author's philosphy of history: in the first chapter of "The Search for Cleopatra," Foss writes that our picture of the past "is not some absolute of historical truth founded on a mountain of small certain facts." Rather, history "reveals itself in drama, passion, elemental conflict, emblematic events that become the basis for mythologies."

   Cleopatra was a fascinating character, a myth in life and death. She was more brilliant than beautiful, a consummate politican and a ruthless leader. She was the mistress of the two most powerful Roman leaders of her era, partly because she wanted her Ptolemaic dynasty to survive and partly because she seems to have been genuinely devoted to her two lovers.

   The "Search for Cleopatra" is not a biography as such. Rather, it tells the story of a pivotal time in which Cleopatra played a central role. Foss sketches all of the major protagonists--Julius Caesar, Marc Antony, Octavian and a host of lesser characters--against the background of the Roman civil wars and Cleopatra's skilled but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to come out on top in a very high stakes game.

   Was Cleopatra a cruel, calculating woman, a person who did not hesitate to execute her younger brother and sister in order to rule unchallenged? Or was she a loving mother, concerned about the welfare of her children and genuinely in love with Julius Caesar and Marc Antony? As with any complex character, the answer may be "both," and this well-written book does an excellent job of making a powerful woman and a dangerous time a bit more understandable to the modern reader.

   If you are interested in the life and times of Cleopatra, you might also want to pick up "Alexandria: City of the Western Mind" by Theodore Vrettos. Vrettos devotes a substantial part of his book to telling the story of Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, but he also describes how Alexandria transmitted Greek culture to the modern world. Another interesting view of the subject is "Not by a Nose," an essay by Josiah Ober in "What If? 2," which ponders how the world might have been different if Antony and Cleopatra had defeated Octavian at the Battle of Actium.




3. Whether or not Cleopatra would qualify as "black" by contemporary definitions (and unless we magically got a DNA sample, that possibility simply can't be ruled out, given the limited information about her antedecents), we can be sure of two things: first, that she was vilified as have most other powerful women throughout the ages; second, that she was despised by the Romans as representing an alien, "Oriental" culture. Foss writes well, and by judicious use of the limited source material he re-tells the epic tale of the Queen of the Nile. The main elements (Caesar, Antony, asp, etc.) are thanks to Shakespeare, famous; less well-known are the tortured politics of Hellenistic Egypt. Cleopatra's family, the Ptolemys (the Macedonian dynasty which inherited the pharoah's throne from Alexander the Great) would satisfy any modern definition of "dysfunctional." With their unique blend of habitual incest, infidelity, profligacy, fratricide, patricide, matricide and perennial regicide, it took a political genius just to survive in the Ptolemy family, and Foss infers from Cleopatra's relative longevity that she was just such a genius. Provided you can get your head around relationships like "wife-mother" and "uncle-husband," this is a great yarn.



4. Why do you care if Cleopatra was African or Caucasian or mixed? Does it matter? You should not be thinking about the colour of her skin, more about the things she accomplished in her life! I look at the reviews above, and all I see is raving controversy instead of reviews (I am not a hypocrite...) I found this book to be extremely interesting, and insightful into the life of a great queen. Anyone who is interested in the Queen of the Nile should take a moment to read this.



5. I think that some of the reviews have missed the point for this book. The real controversy is not Cleopatra's ethnicity, because we have documentation on this that dates to her era. She was a Ptolemy; therefore of Macedonian descent. Study your ancient history and put forth a little effort into some research. From most accounts that I have read, all point to her being extremely proud of that Macedonian heritage. You in the 21st century, believe that you know more about this historical figure, than the writers of the first century. In this, you must agree with me that the information we have now, is inaccurate compared to the relatively recent information that they had. You cannot rewrite history.

2 comments about King's Counsellor Abdication and War: The Diaries of Sir Alan Lascelles.

1. Tommy Lascelles saw it all, but was raised in the grand tradition of the English Gentleman so censored himself way to often in writing his diary. So much has, therefore, been lost. Still, I highly recommend it for the "feel" it gives to a now gone era.



2. I question the selection of these diaries. Too much has been left out, I believe. It might have been better to do a diaries AND letters book. There is so little about the abdication that it shouldn't be in the title. This man was so knowledgeable that far better material must exist somewhere. As it is, it is almost boring, which is saying a lot for someone who led a far from boring life.

No comments about Royal Family Album.

No comments about Telling Lives: From W.B. Yeats to Bruce Chatwin.