Europe Books

This book might be the most widely read among Bloch¡¯s works who is the pioneer of Annal school. This book typifies the methodology of Annal school. History as a science took off in the 19th century. But Bloch argued that it was not history but just chronicles of events and political episodes. Bloch posed the fundamental questions: ¡®What is the history?¡¯ and ¡®What does history serve for?¡¯ To be a science, the object of history should be not the particular but the universal. Bloch did not think the universal law is possible in history. Then, the object of historical research should be the relation which may refer not to the law but to structure. This structure sets the boundary (or in Braudel¡¯s word, the possible and the impossible) on the everyday life, and has the not-so-easily changeable long-term duration (or in Braudel¡¯s term, longue duree). Whereas Braudel¡¯s trilogy, ¡®Civilization and Capitalism¡¯ is about the capitalism as longue duree (for more detail, see my reviews on those volumes), Bloch¡¯s ¡®Feudal Society¡¯ is about the feudalism as longue duree.
Marxists and others maintained the feudalism originated from the sudden and violent collision between Roman society and German society. It¡¯s the child born from the violent and coercive marriage. But Bloch argues that resulting form of feudalism had its origin not directly in German invasion but in subsequent invasions of the Moslem, the Norman, and the Hungarian. These added up to the uncontrollable chaos all over Western Europe, and ended in the collapse of effective ruling of the state. Feudal system as we know emerged in this stalemate which Frank empire and other states of the time faced. State apparatus could not be maintained for state could not pay bureaucrats salary. Frank empire pioneered the alternative system which was later known as feudalism. What characterizes feudalism is the unique social type based on the principle of subordination and custody. The principle is similar to the patron/client relationship of Roman age. But feudal one is based on the principle of contract which is premised on reciprocity. Put another way, feudalism is the network of reciprocal relationship of rights and responsibility from king to serf. Ruling class could not wield power over serf in unilateral way. In this vein, feudal system is both social (between classes) and political (among ruling class) relationships. Bloch maintained this relationship should be called as feudalism. It¡¯s a social type which is not limited to the economic terrain as Marxists argued.

I suppose I should be of two minds about Marc Bloch's "Feudal Society," a French work from the late 1930s which became available in English in the early 1960s, and was still fresh and exciting back when I was taking a freshman course on "Western Civilization." In theory, the book (and it is one book, although published in paperback in two volumes) has two major drawbacks. In practice, I find it solid, admirable, and well worth reading.

One drawback is the author's romantic glorification of the medieval peasant -- Norman Cantor has called attention to this in his "Inventing the Middle Ages," pointing out that Bloch gave it Marxist trappings. I call it romantic because I suspect that Bloch owed at least as much to Jules Michelet's nineteenth-century historiography, initially with a veneer of "science" added. Of course, Bloch actually went out and did fundamental work in the archives, and tried to get a real picture of how, in the long term, life had been lived by ordinary people, instead of relying on Michelet-style suppositions. (Yes, Bloch's "Annales" school is supposed to be the antithesis of the enthusiastic Michelet; but, while Bloch established its methodology in reaction to existing approaches, in Bloch's last book "The Historian's Craft," Michelet is still among "our great forebears.")

The second is the concept of "Feudalism" itself, which these days makes anyone with a serious background in medieval studies very uncomfortable. A very good case can be made that "Feudalism" is largely a set of modern constructs, re-invented several times since the sixteenth century to suit different legal, political, and social purposes, and presented as an "Historic Fact" alongside contemporary and later "discoveries" such as "Anglo-Saxon Liberty," "The Norman Yoke," and "Our Ancestors the Gauls." (A short, pointed, introduction to one aspect of the problem is J.G.A. Pocock's "The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law: A Study of English Historical Thought in the Seventeenth Century.")

If it means anything for modern-day historians, the term applies to how control of land, and its revenue, was linked to social status, political authority, judicial functions, and reciprocal military obligations -- a large, messy, topic. So the feeling is growing that the word is best avoided, as carrying too much baggage, and too likely to be invoked as a substitute for thought.

Indeed, as picked up by Karl Marx, Feudalism, equated largely with landlord-tenant agriculture instead of sub-divided political and judicial authority, became a theoretical concept to be applied to a variety of extra-European societies, as a stage in an inevitable social evolution. In this role, it produced, or at least became a part of, bitter, and literally murderous, disputes over the nature of Russian and Chinese society, among others.

Even with all this in mind, and many years after first reading it, I find Bloch's emphasis on the material basis of medieval society refreshing, and think that he carried it out with reasonable consistency. Whatever his agenda, he went looking for real data, and adjusted theory to match it, which is where he parts company with both Michelet and Marx. That later work has revealed a more complex, and in some ways different, picture does not discredit his effort. And having the hardworking peasant as a sort of collective hero helps hold together discussions of things like field rotation, strip cultivation, and plough-teams, which most readers will not find all that gripping on their own.

More important, in some ways, Bloch presented feudal *society* -- not some imaginary entity called "Feudalism" or "The Feudal System" -- as a whole set of ways of ordering people and institutions, and making resources available to various parts of a diversified ruling class. The unsystematic nature of actuality is not denied, but it is classified in terms of common elements.

This getting down to practical realities may not sound so impressive, but a couple of generations of scholars had been smacking each other over the head (in this case, figuratively) in an argument of whether "Feudalism" was *really* Roman or Germanic, with partisan sub-divisions on whether either origin was a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. Somehow, figuring out how it worked had seemed less important than what Mircea Eliade called "The Prestige of Origins" -- a form of mythical thought as much as a topic of historical research.

So instead of a broad theory of a single "origin," we get "The Growth of Ties of Dependence" (volume one of the paperback edition), followed by "Social Classes and Political Organization," showing the extent to which the pattern of rural hierarchies did, or did not, carry over into "higher" or "more advanced" developments.

Although probably much more accurate for France than for other parts of Europe, and for some centuries more than others, the book does manage to present a (by and large) convincing picture of how Europe re-organized itself between the collapse of Rome and the High Middle Ages. A reminder of the people who made it all possible, but were usually left out of the chronicles, and certainly are missing from most of the chansons de geste and romances, is not a bad basis for a book.

Still, largely for reasons of documentation, Bloch is sometimes rather better at explaining how the military aristocracy was supported, than at presenting the daily lives of the people who were doing the work. His analysis of how some knights and officials had "fiefs" which were simply stipends, or even what we might consider cafeteria privileges, is an interesting sidelight to "life on a medieval manor" approaches. It also reveals that methods of supporting the clergy and the nobility were not all that different, which shouldn't be a big surprise, given the limited options available.

So I continue to think of Bloch's "Feudal Society" as a valuable contribution, to be read and pondered, although not taken at face value, by anyone seriously interested in medieval European society, or supposedly comparable systems elsewhere. Since it has also generated a half-century of follow-ups, attacks, and defenses, it is also a good book to have read as part of getting acquainted with a wider literature.

I read this book for a contemporary historiography class. As has been told by other reviewers, Marc Bloch is the founder (together with Lucien Febvre) of the Annales school. As a non-historian, I won't comment on its importance for historiography, but as a very valuable read for non-historians who want to understand the history of Western civilization reading the best books that have been written on the subject. This is my first book on the middle-ages and, although it took me quite a while to finish it (about a month) and it is definitively not an easy read, since it is an extraordinarily erudite work, it is a very worthwhile read. It provides a fairly good picture of how the feudal society developed after the Hungarian, Muslim, and Scandinavian invasions, which allowed it to flourish. I would point out two basic concepts that were of particular interest to me (although not explicit in the text). First, the concept of sovereignty. It is particularly interesting visually, since land was divided among an infinite number of lords as a bottom-up chain starting from the lowest peasant through the prince or monarch. So land belonged to everyone and to no one at the same time. This is a very original idea of sovereignty, rather opposite to modern sovereignty. The second concept is that of the "hommage", which I would call contract. The hommage between serf and lord was not that of subordination entirely, but it was neither that of equals--such as the contracts of the bourgoisie were, that we can trace back to the XIIth century, and personally I was moved by Bloch's analyses of this first contract among equals--, and it was originally voluntary. According to Bloch, this hommage influenced many other contracts we know of, namely marriage, courtois love, and even representative parliamentary governments.
To conclude with, I would say that my historiography teacher told me this is the best work on the middle-ages, so I decided to read it, and it wasn't easy, it took me a while, but it was very rewarding. I don't recommend it for people who don't read a lot, but if you enjoy history and want to know what the feudal society was all about, this is a very rewading book as an introduction to the middle-ages. I strongly recommend it.

Bloch's work is one of the ten most important and influential books on medieval Europe. Bloch displays true excellence in sholarship and narration. Nothing is stated without factual documentation to support it, and no information is carried beyond its logical conclusions. It is essential to read this two volume work before moving too deeply into medieval studies. Combine this work with Strayer's Feudalism (out of print, unfortunately) and you will have a good understanding of what society was like in a good portion of the Middle Ages.

Certainly an undeniable classic in the field of "history of the middle ages". As other reviewers have already noted, Bloch was one of the initial members of what grew to become the "annales" school of western history, though, to be fair, he died before you could call it a "school" or "movement".

Volume one of the two volume set looks at the growth of feudalism in western society, and by western I'm talking about Northern France, Western Germany, England and Northern Italy. Bloch's main concern in this volume is setting the conditions which led to the developmen of feudalism from 800 AD to 1000 AD and then describing the various forms that feudalism took.

The book is well translated, and I found it hard to argue with much of the thesis. I too have read Norman Cantor's "the Making of the Middle Ages" where he calls Bloch a Marxist (and maligns the entire Annales school). I've also read more recent productions from the Annales school. I have to say, based on this particular book, I don't really see where Bloch is a)romanticizing the peasant (another Cantor criticism) or b) a marxist.

It seemed to me that Bloch's explanation for the growth of feudalism was, basically, that central government decayed to the point where various muck a mucks needed to find an alternative way to "rally the troops" in the face of frequent small to mid size invasions. Feudalism, with its emphasis on individual obligation and quid pro pro, was an attempt to remedy the lack of communication over long distances and lack of central authority.

The peasants didn't really figure in this book at all, except near the end. Certainly, one wouldn't accuse this book of being filled with marxist/post-modern/decontructionist gobbeldy gook. This is a must read for those interested in the field, especially lay men.

This is the perfect guide for anyone planning a trip to Italy. Pocket-sized, and beautifully illustrated, Gelato, will be the ultimate way for any tourist to get the inside scoop, literally, on Italy's gelato hot spots. Gelato is a way of life and with this book you can experience Italy through the eyes of someone who knows the best places and hippest areas in the country. This will definitely make your Italy trip all the better. If you like this book and want to learn about Michael McGarry's newest venture check out [...]

A wonderful book, but whatup with the price? So bizarre, as I purchased it online for $10 + shipping. Check around before you buy, someone's database is broken.

When investment banker Michael McGarry's wife received a year-long art history fellowship in Bologna and Rome, he wasn't sure what he would do while she was working. A visit to Bologna's La Sorbetteria convinced him that his calling was gelato. And so began a year of first-hand research that culminated in this impressive book. If you love ice cream, you'll love this book. McGarry reviews over 50 gelaterias in northern Italy as well as Rome and Naples. He plans a follow-up volume on southern Italy and Sicily. Interspersed with reviews, McGarry explains the history of gelato and how it is to be eaten properly. He also includes a glossary of over 75 flavors, which is very helpful for any serious gelato lover/traveler. The author has a special place in his heart for the legendary Roman gelateria, Gioliti. "Half of it is the experience. It is always packed and there is always a scene he says," he says. Gelato changed McGarry's life. He has left investment banking and started his own publishing company.

I was given this book right before I went to Italy for vacation. I am not the biggest Ice cream fan but I have been told that Gelato is an experience of its own, which I found to be very true. This book is very funny, it had me laughing out loud at certain parts. Not only does the author take you visually through the gelataria, he lets you know what to expect and gets you prepared to face the "gelato man". He even gives you tips for when you get jammed up, with what is call his "go to cones".

Great book!

"Gelato: Finding Italy's..." by Michael McGarry is not only a book about Gelato, it is a "how to" book for enjoying Italy. I will give a copy to everyone I know who is embarking on a trip to Italy whether it's for the first or fifteenth time. It is well researched- full of history, practicle tips, and richly flavored with humor. The guide is well organized and creatively illustrated. And it's just the right size to fit in a large coat pocket next to your passport. However, if you're not planning a trip to Italy soon- you can still drool over this book at home- it will be the inspirations for a host of sweet dreams. Ciao, J Kordonowy

Most people are fairly informed about the D-Day invasion at Normandy from the American, British and Canadian view. I knew little about the battle from the German side. Book was very informative and interesting. I also have just read Dunkerk and the Ambrose book.

This book compiled for the most part from original sources such as diaries and letters depicts the struggle in Normandy from the German viewpoint with emphasis on the grunts doing the fighting. But, the book transcends the viewpoint of either side. It relates in detail the receiving end of what students of military history now describe as industrial warfare. Many of the first person descriptions repeat the overwhelming material advantage the Allies possessed. German tanks especially Panthers and Tigers, "88" caliber guns, their equivalent to our bazookas, and machine guns were far superior to the Allies. Their soldiers were confident until faced with the massed airpower, artillery, navel gunfire, and the strangling of their supply lines by the allied strength in the air. Still, they fought a courageous and skillful retreat except for the trap at Falaise. The book reminds one of the amazing job the American Army did in putting divisions with no combat experience in the line and succeeding in attack without catastrophic losses. Despite the massive literature on the Normandy campaign, I recommend this book to those interested in military history, WWII, students, military professionals, and libraries.

This book is great, and really opens your eyes to the side of losing that war, and what nightmarish things they went through.

Santa put this in my stocking. Many adjectives and cliches come to mind: "page turner," "can't put it down," and even just "Wow."

Hargreaves masterfully narrates and is possessed to tell this story from the German view, only turning to an Allies' account of some key event when it is only absolutely necessary. He stitches personal stories, official records, and historical context of June 6, 1944 together for a whole and complete German account of the battle for France.

This detailed perspective of The Germans in Normandy is refreshing and a long overdue addition to the works of Paul Carell's Invasion! and Stephen Ambrose's D-Day works (D-Day, Band of Brothers, and others). If you enjoy WWII history, Hargreaves has written the next book you should read.

This is a superb book that is well researched & examines the battles fought in Normandy in 1944 from a German stance. The author explains how the Allied invasion was seen as the last opportunity to turn the tide & how Rommel made great strides in his short time in 5-6 months to strengthen the defences. However, the author does not just cover off the strategic & key high command personalities but more importantaly he looks at the Normandy battles from the common fighting German soldier (Landser)& has drawn on many first hand accounts, letters, diaries etc. The book examines how the German soldiers fought on despite been overwhelmed by the Allied material superiority & air supremacy. The Allies command of the air was a key factor in the German defeat as all German movement by day was effectively paralysed & soul destroying to the troops. But as the author points out 'despite the Allied material supremacy, tank for tank, gun for gun, the Wehrmact was more than a match for its enemies'. Unfortunately for the Germans, their losses incurred in men & material could no longer be made good. This is the story of the German soldier & how he fought & endured those battles in the West in 1944 (especially around Caen & Falaise), been driven on by their comradeship for one another. Highly recommended reading.

I am so impressed with the John Adams DVD set and wonder what Tom Hanks and his crew could do with this beautiful Trilogy written by George Blackburn. Anyone know him well enough to send him the series?

"The dream of going home will now actually come true. The thought is intoxicating. But try as you will, it is impossible to suppress the feeling that this is only a temporary pause before another push, or at least another training scheme - there has always been another." ~ George G. Blackburn ~

Mr. Blackburn, who earned his Military Cross (M.C.) for his effort in helping to save the Twente Canal Bridgehead in Holland, is truly a brilliant writer. "The Guns of Victory" is one of the most absorbing books I've ever read. His use of "You" instead of "I" is his way of transporting the reader into the war zone and gets the feeling that you are actually there experiencing the horrors of war.

This is the third and last volume of George Blackburn's engrossing trilogy of military books about World War II, which faithfully chronicles the last eight months of the war on the Western Front. This book is divided into four parts: Part One - September 6 thru November 8. It covers the Clearing of the Channel Ports and the Battle for the Scheldt; Part Two - November 9 through February 15, which traces the troops settling in the Nijmegen salient near Groesbeek. Part Three - February 8 through March 10 is all about the Thirty-Day Battle for the Rhineland. And the last part covers March 11 through May 15 about Crossing the Rhine to Sever Holland from Germany. It also contains sixteen pages of twenty-nine black and white glossy photos from National Archives of Canada including a nice photo of Groesbeek Windmill taken by the author himself. Groesbeek Windmill was used by Mr. Blackburn, a Forward Observation Officer of the 4th Field Regiment with the Canadian Army, as an observation tower during winter of 1944 and 1945.

Last year in May, Mr. Blackburn took a 'sentimental journey' and attended the 60th anniversary of the VE-Day and participated in the unveiling of a commemorative plaque in Groesbeek Windmill, and memorial services at the Groesbeek Canadian War Cemetery in Holland. He spoke with CTV News recalling his World War II experiences in the Netherlands saying: "We wished to God the Russians at that time would get to Berlin in time to defeat the Germans, so we wouldn't have to go back in it. But we knew that the end was going to be settled right there."

It was such a relief to read the last chapters of this World War II classic. It means the end of a nightmare and the achievement of victory, hence, "the resting of the guns." This is my very favorite from the trilogy for that simple reason alone. The last chapter of this book is entitled "The Resting of the Guns," wherein the Corps Commander, Divisional Commander, commanding officers, brigade commanders and all the infantry battalions participated in a solemn rite and saluted the guns before handing them over to the Dutch Government. The author described it as a "striking day of truth" and he was deeply touched with the simplicity and solemnity of this noble ceremony.

"As the first gun rolls slowly by, chuckling and clinking on its limber hook, there's a glowing awareness of just how deeply these cold, steel machines have endeared themselves to you. It's as though you're saying goodbye to old friends you shall never see again. . . then you hear a voice, as though from a great distance, saying: 'Well now . . . let's go and find something to drink.' And you realize the ceremony is over."

I salute Mr. Blackburn for writing his trilogy of books that are so moving and affecting, and to all his comrades, alive or deceased, for their heroic acts of courage, endurance, perseverance and bravery. They went to war to protect freedom and gain peace. They are truly the world's greatest heroes.

Mr. Blackburn is not just a good writer; he's an exceptionally great writer. He's also an award-winning composer having written a hauntingly beautiful and nostalgic "soldier's song" entitled "Are You Really There?" which he wrote for his wife, Grace Blackburn while he was in England during the war waiting for the invasion of France and overwhelmed by feelings of homesickness. The song conveys the sentiments of servicemen longing to be with their loved ones in the midst of war. The music video won three major awards: Silver Award at the 1999 Worldfest - New York, Silver Award at the 1999 Worldfest - Arizona, and Bronze Award at the 2000 CINDY Competition - California.

This book is a classic, a valuable piece of history and must be read by every generation. It merits my highest recommendation.

In this, the concluding chapter of Canadian war veteran George G. Blackburn's superb three-volume eyewitness history of our northern neighbor's involvement in the war in Europe, we find a truly stunning successor to the previous two volumes. As with "The Guns Of Normandy" volume, we discover a masterful narrative punctuating the combination of dramatic life and death struggles contrasted with moments of drumming ennui or utter despair. For the Canadian soldier on the ground, the several months following the heroic and costly landing on D-Day were seemingly a coda, a time that seemed unreal because while they had the enemy on the run, the remaining elements of the Wehrmacht fought savagely and well in the ensuing period of time. So, although many of the allies felt it was all over but the shouting, especially after the re-taking of Paris and much of France, as Blackburn shows us from the ground grunt's view, it was anything but over and done with.

This volume picks up the narrative thread where the previous volume left it, with the much-vaunted Canadian 4th Field Regiment ordered in to relentlessly pursue the Germans as they retreated through the treacherous topography of the flooded French area known as the `Low Country'. As the pursuit ensued, the soldiers began to reach the limits of their physical and emotional endurance. And the battle as it unfolded before them promised no respite from the hellish demands posed by an enemy with no real thought of surrendering or fleeing. Yet, as they knock the Wehrmacht from its hastily devised defense perimeters within the Scheldt estuary again and again, they gradually succeeded in creating the conditions for re-opening of Antwerp, and thus helped to unleash the productive power and formidable logistics trail previously left hanging for want of such a large and capable deep-water port.

In the midst of all this, the Canadians, along with the rest of the Allied forces, had to suffer through the worst winter in decades in the European theater in the open and on the ground, and many died from such harsh exposure to the elements. Yet the Germans, fighting under these horrific conditions, still were able to mount savage resistance as they fought even more ferociously even as they began to understand how desperate their situation was. And as they beat the foe back yard by yard, mile by mile, back across the Rhine, the Canadians are enlisted in the increased fight once more in the Battle of the Rhineland, the final push toward the German heartland. And, as victory finally comes, Blackburn assures us it was indeed a bittersweet experience, felt equally with measures of pride and relief, knowing the unbelievable ordeal of the last several years was finally over.

As with his other books, here Blackburn relates his personal experience with a wonderfully literate and engagingly approachable writing style, and he surely uses his journalist's experience and his obvious facility with words to great advantage here, adding immeasurably to our understanding of what the experience on the ground was in as the first fatal hours and days turned into weeks and months of savage fighting, as the Allies bludgeoned their ways through the brutal resistance of a frenzied Nazi war machine. This is a story we should hear again and again, as we rediscover once more how truly amazing the feat of both the Canadians in particular, but all the Allies in general, stood tall in the very face of tyranny and smashed it into smithereens, saving the world from what has to be considered the face of absolute evil. Mr. Blackburn writes with surprising intensity and emotion, and his sense of recall of particular events and existential circumstances for himself and his fellows is both impressive and quite moving at points in his narrative. This is first person history at its best, one that employs both a more objective coda to the book, which also serves to lend a more authoritative aura to the proceedings than would otherwise have been possible. I recommend not only this book, but the other two volumes as well. Enjoy!

Not sure who all these Yankees are reviewing the quintessential Canadian war memoir, but they have good taste.

Written in the second person, this book is unique, but it doesn't end there. Blackburn has a rare ability to recall small details and the entire story rings with authenticity. His stories run the gamut, as all good war memoirs do, from the sad to the hysterically funny.

Second Canadian Division seems to have produced few authors (unlike the First Division, with Mowat taking the lead) but those few that have put pen to paper have been incredibly good. Whitaker and Williams were best when recounting the history of others, and this memoir stands out above any war memoir written by a Canadian in any single war. All three books in the trilogy are a terrific source of information about the Canadian Army in the Second World War.

And a stirring tale it is!

In a magnificent trilogy by a former junior officer in the Canadian Royal Artillery, George Blackburn records his experiences as a Forward Observation Officer (FOO), and those of the Canadian 2nd Infantry Division in general, in World War II's western European campaign. The first book, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE GUNS?, covers the training in Canada and England of Blackburn's unit, the 4th Field Artillery Regiment, from its formation in 1939 to June 1944. The second book, THE GUNS OF NORMANDY, describes the 4th Field's actions in support of the 2nd Division in northern France from early July 1944 to its arrival at the Seine River in late August. This final installment, THE GUNS OF VICTORY, chronicles the advance from the Seine into the Third Reich via the Benelux countries to VE-Day, May 8, 1945.

Should you read this series, you will, like me, come away with a heightened and supreme regard for the valor of the Canadian Army from D-Day to the end of the war and the value of massed artillery to the combat efficiency and survival of infantry units. Blackburn's personal account is perhaps the best description of men in modern war that I've ever read. The author's narrative is not a detached one. He brings you along into the mud, cold, rain, fatigue, terror, devastation, and apocalyptic arty barrages of the conflict's leading edge.

There are too many excellent passages to enumerate, but I shall give two examples.

At one point, Blackburn's observation post is in a Dutch windmill on the very border of Germany. As the Army brass plans the advance into the Reich, the author's vantage point becomes widely heralded as having the best view of the ground to be fought over, and to it, as if on pilgrimage, come the high and low, including Lt.-Gen. Guy Simonds, Commander of 2nd Canadian Corps, and Lt.-Gen. Brian Horrocks, Commander of British XXX Corps. But the interesting perception by Blackburn is the way the various officer ranks used battlefield maps.

"Corps commanders ... planning the best use of 450,000 men, swept open hands across map boards ... Division commanders and brigade commanders, reviewing the role of their brigades and battalions, stroke their maps with two fingers held together. Then come battalion commanders using a single finger for similar purposes in meetings with company commanders. But when company commanders returned with platoon commanders, maps were marked with razor-sharp pencils."

Much later, at a company command post, the author comes upon a Major Stothers and the Company Sgt.-Major opening parcels from home mailed to men already killed, the contents distributed to the survivors, and enclosed letters put into a pile.

"(Stothers) hands one across the table to you without comment. It is a hand-written note of only a few lines: 'Dear Son, the papers tell us that it is very wet where the Canadians are fighting now. So please, Dear, always be sure to wear your rubbers and keep your feet dry.' When you look up at Stothers, he tells you that her boy is the one lying dead outside the back door, face-up in the rain."

As the war's end approached, Blackburn had the reputation of being the longest surviving FOO in the Canadian Army, and 4th Field gunners, not without affection, had a pool going, the money to be won by the man who correctly predicted when the Baker Troop FOO (Blackburn) "got it". Lucky for us, George survived to pen his memoirs. By the end of the third book, I can even forgive him for writing in the second person, a quirk that, in WHERE THE HELL ARE THE GUNS?, almost put me off. But, in no one of the volumes, in the photo section of each, did the author include a wartime picture of himself. That's the only deficiency in an otherwise superb literary accomplishment.

To George, who recently celebrated his 88th birthday on February 3rd, and his comrades-in-arms, living and dead, highest honor is due.

Note: George Blackburn, through his son Mark, personally sent me all three of his books. Thank you, Sir.

Hitler's Prisoners offers great insights into the horrors of the Nazi regime's "other victims." Caught in Hitler's unthinkable plan to rule over Europe, seven German cell mates tell their stories of how a once ordinary life can become a twisted nightmare in an inescapable Nazi Prison. It is definately a war story of another kind. I highly recommend this book.

This is truly an amazing account of the hardships the average man and woman faced in Nazi Germany. This book is intriquing and a must read for anyone interested in a real life historical account of Germany during World War II. I strongly recommend this book.

Once I picked up this book, I couldn't put it down. I was shocked by the plight of Erich Friedrich and his cell mates. A fascinating and intriguing real life story and account of the "Other" side of Germany that we so rarely hear about. I strongly recommend this book. For other readers please let me know of any other books similar to this one.

Thanks

Persons interested in the rise of Nazism and World War II, who have read the general histories of the era will appreciate these personal stories by citizens who lived in Germany at the time. "Hitler's Prisoners," told by Erich Friedrich (edited by his daughter Renate)about his imprisonment for criticizing Hermann Goering and aspects of the war, also is the story of six others who defied or offended the regime in various ways. None were Jews or committed Nazis: Franz's "crime" was that as a Jehovah's Witness he opposed war; Fritz was a socialist, Gerhard an aristocrat, Alex a dilettante. Willi deserted from the Wehrmacht, so there may be some justification for his fate, but
Richard's chapter is titled The "Good German." All the men experienced the pre-World War I years and the political, social and economic unrest that spawned Hitler's rise and Germany's militaristic conquest of Europe and Russia. These true accounts, from notes kept by the author, are written in the form of a novel: each man in turn tells the story of his life as he awaits trial and sentencing - usually execution. The author is last to tell of his upbringing in Thuringia, campaign service and wounding on the Russian front, and harrowing return to Germany, where he was subsequently arrested and imprisoned until July 1944. After the war's end, Friedrich was employed as a detective and civil servant, before moving to Virginia with his wife to live with their daughter's family. A must read for understanding the gradual eroding of law, justice and civility in the Germany of 1933-45.

Having grown up in Germany during the Third Reich - I was nine when World War II ended- I have read obsessively about this subject. The question, " How did it happen"? has perhaps no answer. But this book offers a salutary counterbalance to Goldhagen's one-sided "Hitler's Willing Executioners." How many of us would follow our conscience into such a prison as Franzl, the Jehova's Witness and Conscientious Objector, Fritz Römer, the Socialist, or Erich Friedrich, the author, endured for their convictions? Friedrich was arrested for not giving the Nazi salute, and for making disparaging remarks about Hermann Goering. The government acted legally, because what these prisoners did was against German law at that time. This book shows the American reader, who has no personal experience of a totalitarian regime, what it means to resist such a government.

I read this book when it first came out some years ago. It was a watershed event in my understanding of Hitler's rise to power (and of history generally). I'd read many accounts before, and have read many since, of Hitler's rise to power. But this book put paid to much sociological claptrap about "impersonal forces" and showed the tremendous contingency in Hitler's rise to power. Not only wasn't it inevitable, it wasn't even remotely probable -- until it happened. It took many circumstances and events with which Hitler had little or nothing to do, and numerous actions by people who were contemptuous of Hitler, who had no intention of helping him, and who lacked any inkling of the ferocity and speed with which Hitler and the Nazis would act upon obtaining power, to put him there. The fact that many small and seemingly inconsequential decisions resulted in one of the great catastrophes of history is a far more chilling and disheartening story than the notion that it was the inevitable product of historical forces.

In the book Hitler's Thirty Days to Power, Henry A. Turner argues that Adolf Hitler's rise to power is most evidently illustrated by examining the last thirty days before his appointment to chancellor of Germany in January 1933. Prior to reading Hitler's Thirty Days to Power I had been under the impression that Hitler had a much more active role in securing his position as chancellor of Germany before ascending to Fuhrer. Turner by taking the microscopic approach of only analyzing these thirty days clearly demonstrated that this was not the case. According to the author, Hitler's rise to power was the result of luck, the egos of other political figures, as well as the belief that he could be used simply as a pawn to gain favor of his dwindling amount of supporters. Had any one of these differentiate Hitler would not have been successful in securing the position as chancellor. Turner substantiates his claims through a variety of resources ranging from personal memoirs and newspaper articles from the period to journal publications of modern historians. The information he presented was mostly-well known to the scholarly world, however, the manner in which it manifested was innovative. By using a magnifying glass-like method to examine the month leading up to Hitler's establishment in power rather than the all encompassing approach, Turner gives the generally educated reader, such as me, a better insight to the schematics of Hitler's rise.

Furthermore, the individuals of the text come to life through an intense focus on what propelled them to reach conclusions that allowed Hitler power. The personalities of people like Franz von Papen and Paul von Hindenburg are revealed through these decisions. Turner does not simple state the events that occurred, but rather allowed his reader to envision internal turmoil that was suffered by these individuals in coming to their resolutions. An example of this would be the German President Paul von Hindenburg. Originally he vowed that Hitler would never gain the position of chancellorship. However, numerous overtures made by Papen, a good friend and former chancellor under Hindenburg, combined with the encouragement by his son Otto the President was convinced to allow Hitler the position he so coveted. Turner illustrates throughout the book the difficultly Hindenburg faced in reaching this conclusion. The narration permits the book a novel-like reading often reserved for fiction rather than history. Many other texts compel the audience to feel as if they had read solely the outcome of the events leading up to January 1933 instead of getting a vivid understanding of its cause. Hitler's Thirty Days to Power answers the problem of how Hitler came to power in a compelling and easy read. The narrative and the individuals engage the audience regardless of any negative or positive connotations surrounding them.

The only major flaw that I see with Hitler's Thirty Days to Power is the last chapter of the text. This chapter, "Determinacy, Contingency, and Responsibility," attempts mainly to answer two questions: Should anyone, other than Hitler, be held accountable for the atrocities of his reign because of their involvement in his rise to power and what would have happened had Hitler's reign not existed? The author answers the first charge with the assertion that "although impersonal forces may make events possible, people make events happen." Unforeseeable events might have occurred, but it is individuals like Papen and Hindenburg who are ultimately responsible for Hitler's reign regardless of their original intent. Although others like Hindenburg's son Otto might played a lesser role they still had a significant part therefore they are also to blame. I agree with these assertions, however, I they led me to disagree with Turner's assessment of the public. Turner sees the German public only at fault because of their lack of understand of the importance of their ability to replace their government figures. After WWI, Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated the throne at the demand and revolt by the general public. At this moment the power the people held was not failed to be recognized. I have a difficult time believing that less than twenty years later this power had all but been forgotten. Instead after reading Turner's text I have come to the conclusion that much like Hindenburg and Papen, the German public underestimated Hitler. Turner asserts that responsibility for Hitler's reign rests on those like Hindenburg and Papen for their underestimation of Hitler, than the general German public should also share the blame.

In addition, Turner's answering the question of what would have happened had Hitler not come to power seems unreasonable. The author suggests that had Hitler not come to power a military coup would have overtaken the government and the atrocities of WWII would have been avoided. It is difficult to make assumptions of what might had happened if Hindenburg or other resisted Hitler's rise to power. No one can say for certain the fate of the government at the end of the Weimer Republic had alternate approaches been taken. In addition, it is difficult to say that the atrocities of WWII would have been completely avoided. There had been for some time a growing resentment for both communism and the Jews. Perhaps, these crimes might have been on a lesser scale in which all of Europe was not involved. However, these atrocities regardless of their extent seemed destined to be committed because of the complacency of the German republic (refer to the book "The Butcher's Tale").

Overall Henry Ashby Tuner's Hitler's Thirty Days to Power was an excellent text. It provided a microscopic look into the last thirty days before Hitler obtained chancellorship which eventually led to his dictatorship. This approach was helpful in understanding how Hitler's rise to power. It allowed his audience to witness the key figures involved and their reasoning for being a part of the scheme. In addition, the reader also is provided with the sense that there were several opportunities to prevent Hitler's reign yet they were pushed aside. Furthermore, Turner showed the audience that although Hitler took advantage of the conflict between several key figures in government, it is these individuals like Papen and Hindenburg that are responsible for Hitler. They underestimated Hitler and their large egos led them to believe that they could ultimately control him. Turner's text is valuable to not only the study of history but also as a study for the future. The book teaches the world's governments that we should not underestimate those seeking or holding power. Most importantly, when an individual claims or even more brazenly writes a book on their political goals, like Hitler did with [...], perhaps we should see these claims or writings as absolute truths. Goals which people like Hitler intend to reach.

This well written book is a case study of how luck, personalities, and even simple spite can have major effects. At the end of 1932, the Nazi party seemed to be on the threshold of decline. Its fraction of the electorate was slipping, its finances were in disarray, and there was considerable dissent from both rank and file and leaders of the party. Many were dissatisfied with Hitler's strategy of pursuing supremacy through electoral politics. Some sectors of the party wanted to pursue revolutionary violence, others, like the influential organizer Gregor Strasser, thought that Hitler was throwing away great opportunities by insisting on the Chancellorship instead of accepting important cabinet posts in right wing coalition governments. At the end of January, 1933, Hitler was ensconced as Chancellor, some of his loyal lieutenants, like Goring, occupied crucial cabinet posts, and Hitler was able to initiate the 'back door' revolution that resulted in the Nazi domination of Germany.
Hitler obtained the Chancellorship, in part, because of his obdurate refusal to accept anything less as the price of participation in a governing coalition, a product of his messianic self-confidence. Turner shows well that Hitler was handed the Chancellorship as a result of a series of backstairs plotting involving former Chancellor Papen and members of President Hindenberg's circle, notably his son Oskar. Hitler was greatly underestimated by these individuals, and was underestimated just as greatly by the then Chancellor, General von Schleicher. Hitler does deserve credit for his persistence and his ability to hold his party together but as Turner shows very well, he was phenomenally fortunate and was gifted the Chancellorship because of court politics motivated to a great extent by spite and petty jealousy.
Turner concludes with a nice and concise discussion of a counterfactual alternative to Hitler's ascent to power. As Turner points out, when democracy failed in the inter-war period, and it did so frequently, the usual result was an authoritarian state dominated by traditional conservatives and the military. Fascist movements were present in some of these countries and were incorporated into these regimes as traditional conservatives sought to draw on the popular support mobilized by fascist movements, but in Hungary, Romania, and Spain, the more traditional right/military remained in control. With more capable right wing leadership in Germany, this would have been the probable outcome. The result would have been an authoritarian but not totalitarian state, one that was anti-Semitic but not genocidal. The German state would certainly have rearmed and Turner suggests that the most likely outcome would have been a more limited war with Poland. His speculations are reasonable.

This is a well-written and extensive explanation on the behind the scenes machinations, impelled by personal foibles and vendettas, that led to Hitler's being awarded the Chancellorship of Germany despite his party's never achieving a majority in or at the polls.

The book sets to rest many myths about how German industrialists finagled Hitler's ascension to power and exposes the inner workings and interactions of the multiple parties, politicians, and political hacks that actually, and often inadvertently, coalesced to create the power vacuum which Hitler filled. The book also explains why the Nazis were so interested in obtaining control of Prussia and its security forces. (The reason is that although there were 19 separate federal political entities in the Weimar Republic, by far the strongest political entity was Prussia, which contained 60% of both the total population and land in the country. In addition, the federal government's security forces were almost non-existent but Prussia had a force of some 50,000 men [half the size of the 100,000 man German army] that came under the control of whoever became the Ministry of the Interior in Prussia [who turned out to be Hermann Goering when Hitler gained power]. Not only that but Goering, as Ministry of the Interior of Prussia, then had the authority to deputize tens of thousands of Nazis as auxiliary police to carry out Hitler's goals.)

Perhaps the only real drawback to the book is that the introductory material on the Weimar Republic and its political processes is incomplete, making the transition to the core of the book a bit harsh.

Most people who have some knowledge of the climb to power of the Nazis think Hitler enjoyed an unbroken rise from the Beer Hall Putsch to the Chancellorship.

While true in the main, author Henry Turner in "Thirty Days, January 1933" describes how Hitler's party was waning in Germany and widely believed to have peaked with the last most recent elections in 1932. A good case can be made that it was ready to fall dramatically in terms of popular support and strength in the Reichstag if another election had been called to again try and form a workable governing coalition in Germany at the end of 1932. The Nazi Party's finances were in disarray. They had been seen as a protest vote by significant numbers in the July 1932 election and things had not gotten better under their expanding influence. In the November 1932 election, they lost 32 seats. Local Nazi organizations were in disarray, dispirited and some in rebellion over Hitler's refusal to participate in the government in any role except that of Chancellor. Dues were not coming in and the party could not have afforded another national election. In addition, there was a split at the top of the Nazi Party between Hitler and the administrative head, Gregor Starssor.

Germany was chaotic. No elected chancellor could govern with a majority in the Reichstag. The government was placed in the hands of a presidentially appointed chancellor (Kurt Schleicher) by President Hindenburg. The author compellingly chronicles the thirty day period in which Hitler and the Nazi's political fortunes were saved by: 1. the ineptness of Chancellor Schleicher; 2. the scheming of recent Chancellor Franz von Pappen; and, 3. The age and weakness of national figure President Paul von Hindenburg. Aiding the Nazi's also was Hitler's single-minded pursuit of the top spot of chancellor as well as a fortuitous minor state election which the Nazi's went all out for and were able to spin as an electoral comeback.

The bottom line is that an incredible line-up of weak politicians and unbelievable luck paved the way for Hitler to be named Chancellor by Hindenburg at the end of January, 1933. It is tragic to comprehend how Hitler could have been prevented; arguably should have been prevented by the operation of any kind of normal political environment. That he was able to ride incredible good luck and the stupid machinations of a handful of top politicians who thought they could control Hitler and bend him to their purposes is an interesting story.

This book is likely to appeal students of the Nazi period and will probably not interest the general reader. It literally focuses on the thirty day period with only a general overview of the growth of the Nazi Party in the 1920's and early 30's and a brief "what happened to the players after" section (most murdered by the Nazi state). Still, if you are interested in the subject, this book is pretty good.

Kaufman. Jonathan. "A Hole in the Heart of the World: The Jewish Experience in Eastern Europe After World War II", Penguin, 1997.

Returning Home

Amos Lassen

With Holocaust Memorial Day almost here my thoughts turn to that horrible period in the history of my people. At this time of year, almost every year, I find myself wondering "What If"? If Hitler had been accepted to art school would things have been any different for the Jews of Europe? What would have happened if the Jews had been able to fight back? Where are they now? What of the ones who hid and stayed? These are tough questions. Joseph Kaufman concentrates on five families of Jews in Eastern Europe who survived the Holocaust. Among them are a West German cantor and survivor of the concentration camps who crossed to Berlin after the war to be a minister to the Jews who were still there, A prominent Berlin communist Jewish family, a Hungarian rabbi who was dismissed by the leaders of the Communist party, young people from Prague, Warsaw and Budapest who discover their Jewish roots after the war, and a Polish Catholic woman who helped care for the Jews.
Kaufman magically weaves these stories together and gives the reader a touching look at the lives of people who were either impacted or touched by the madness of the Third Reich.
Most of us probably think that after the war there would be few Jews in eastern Europe but we learn that is not true. There has been something of s rebirth of Jewish culture and Kaufman accounts for the Jews who are there and shows how they survived fascism and communism and survived. It is even possible to identify with these people as Kaufman tells us their stories. Some of these courageous people have returned to their motherlands and there are not many left to tell the story. The book keeps interest high and the triumph of these men and women show that the Jewish experience made and kept them whole.

This is a beautifully touching book that takes a glimpse into the lives of people impacted by and living through Europe during the war and the following decades. It covers the lives of many people in Germany, Hungary, etc. in a way that makes you truly appreciate the impact to people's lives and sense of identity. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in this period of time.

about how a few people experienced life after the Holocaust in Eastern Europe. Probably the most interesting things I learned were (1) that the decline of the Jewish population in Eastern Europe didn't just all happen during the Holocuast -- instead it kept declining even after 1945 as the Communists made Jews' life more and more miserable, and (2) how vibrant some Jewish communities still are - for example, I had no idea that there were still 100,000 Jews in Hungary. Short, easy to read, not too deep, in short beach reading.

Like many people, including the author, I thought the Jewish population was close to nonexistant in Eastern Europe following WW II. After the fall of the Wall in 1989, the author discovered that was not totally true, and does a wonderful job of writing about the experiences of 5 Jewish families in Eastern Europe during the Cold War. It was an eye opener for me. While I knew that the Communist regimes hadn't exactly strongly supported Judism, I didn't realize they had launched such strong anti-Semite campaigns (or pogroms). Very easy read and it teaches you quite a bit about post-War Eastern Europe.

Jonathan is first a journalist. He gives you a penetrating view of what it was like to be in Europe under communism as told by people that lived it. He makes you identify with these people and feel their stories. This is no simplistic story of good and evil. This is the story of real and complex people dealing in their different ways with an impossible situation. Some rebelled, some hid, and some joined the enemy. The only common thread is that they were all alive to tell Jonathan their stories when the Berlin Wall fell. Fortunately Jonathan was there at this unique point in time to listen to their stories and tell them to us.

Rivages have become the best-selling guides of their kind in both Europe and America. Originating in Paris, they set the standard for excellence with their fabulous color photographs, superb maps and candid descriptions of the most remarkable hotels of Europe. Each book also contains a restaurant guide to the country and a color atlas pinpointing the location of every hotel and inn. More than 500 establishments are profiled in this guide.

I'm not usually a guidebook fan, preferring instead to do tons of my own research from a variety of sources. Sometimes my friends ask if I'll plan their vacations for them, because I come across some of the most unusual and memorable places to stay that they've never heard of. This book had such special, wonderful information (and photos!) of so many charming and unusual places in Italy; it truly was a gem of a book. I stayed at several of the places recommended, and they were even better in person than in the book.

"This series has long been respected as one of the best of its kind. Each book contains detailed color maps and a listing of accommodations by area. They include color photographs, the address and phone number, a star rating, amenities, price, and a brief paragraph describing the property. Newly revised and updated, these excellent guides to accommodations in Europe are highly recommended for all libraries." Library Journal

I have used the book on three road-trips to Italy and it never failed to be very helpful. I have stayed in about ten of the hotels mentioned in it and they were, with the exception of one, very close to the description given in the book. I think it is the best travel-related guide I know.

I used this book in conjunction with information I discovered on websites, travel magazines and books. The places definately had character and charm. More upscale type places (probably not for the backpacking type)and extended lodging options available.
Places listed here were difficult to find in the typical Frommer and Fodor travel books. E-mail, website address, #'s all available in the book. Trusted my instincts and booked several places from this guide and all were EXCEPTIONAL. Would use again

Adrian Goldsworthy's book In The Name of Rome would be an outstanding addition to the library of anyone interested in ancient Roman military history. Goldsworthy is in my opinion, and based largely on the reading of this excellent book, not only extremely knowledgeable about the subject, he writes compellingly and engagingly and communicates not only his interest and knowledge but also his enthusiasm for the subject. I loved this book.

Goldsworthy breaks his book down into essentially self-contained biographies, or comparative biographies, of several major Roman generals and sometimes statesmen. He covers their lives, their campaigns in great detail, their careers in politics and what they accomplished or meant to accomplish. Some of the endings are triumphant, some tragic, some bittersweet. Subjects include Fabius and Marcellus, Scipio Africanus, Aemilius Paulus, Scipio Aemilianus, Marius, Sertorius, Pompey, Caesar, Germanicus, Corbulo, Titus, Trajan, Julian and Belisarius.

As can be seen, the book concentrates more heavily on generals during the Republic and the very early empire; he does explain how the politics of the empire caused individual generals to fade in importance vs the image of the emperors themselves. Not every stage of the Republic's growth is covered, nor every campaign of every general, and yet there is a strong and well conceived thread which goes throughout this book.

Besides the fantastic characters of the personalities themselves - and often, those of their enemies - Goldsworthy excels in describing the campaigns and the battles fought, the tactics on the field, and the qualities of leadership displayed and exercised. He contrasts the various styles with one another, and with the times in which they were used, and how these changed. The organization of the armies, how they were employed in brute force or in subterfuge, the importance of the various elements - all of it is well presented.

Finally, the book includes a chronology from the founding of Rome through the various major events in the wars and lives described in the book, through the death of Belisarius; and there is a useful glossary of Roman military terms that is very useful in the reading of the book.

If you have an interest in the Roman art of war, this book should be on your shopping list.

Mr. Goldworthy's book, like his others remains both readable and informative. As the previous reviewers have stated, Goldworthy has taken Roman history to levels previously unattainable in a common history.

The leaders covered are pretty exhaustative. Few are a surprise and all are covered in a manner that most readers will find enlightening. Some personal favorites are here such Fabius/Marcellus and Scipio Africanus of Punic War fame, Germanicus/Corbulo mid Principate and Trajan of later Empire. He also touches on numerous other leaders but explains why he does not delve into depth (Suetonius Paulinus for example) What Goldworthy emphasises is that the leader was important but Roman doctorine/troops was critical. When he highlights the differences between the periods of Roman history, this becomes more appartent.

Given the historical paucity of sources for the later Empire/Eastern Empire, he does a fair job of showing that though weakened, the Roman way of war still remained deadly. He also does a good job of highlighting Julian (the Apostate to us Christians) and his unworthiness of being called great rather than simply competent.

Overall both a great read and one that remains true to the standards ste by the author in previous books. I truly enjoyed reading this.

Roman-era expert Adrian Goldsworthy has written an outstanding history of seven centuries of Roman generalship with his latest volume, In the Name of Rome: The Men Who Won the Roman Empire. This is Goldsworthy's first volume that is focused primarily on individuals, rather than organizational studies of the Roman Army, but he handles the material deftly and brings these characters into sharp focus as individuals, rather than as mere ciphers. Goldsworthy also attempts to divine general lessons about the nature of the Roman command style from the behavior of these generals, many of whom are not well-known to modern readers.

Each chapter in this volume details the career of one or two generals in a given period and the chapters are arranged sequentially, covering the period from the Second Punic War to the 6th Century A.D. Generally, Goldsworthy covers each of these Roman commanders in 25-30 pages as well as providing background material about contemporary conflicts and leaders. It is particularly impressive that Goldsworthy has been able to construct such a rich narrative on these generals, given the fragmentary and incomplete nature of the historical record. The chapters on Sertorius and Corbulo were particularly enlightening. Readers may also note that Goldsworthy's discussion of the Emperor Julian's generalship is far less complementary - although probably more accurate - than some modern accounts that attempt to rank him alongside Julius Caesar.

Goldsworthy disputes the oft-held opinion that Roman generals were military amateurs and instead depicts them as professional public figures who alternated between military, civic and political roles. One of the chief attributes of Roman leaders that Goldsworthy cites is Virtus, the steadfast ability to endure setbacks and to endure until final victory was achieved. Although Roman armies were often defeated, they were rarely demoralized and they usually recovered quickly. While only a few Roman generals were truly gifted soldiers - Scipio Africanus and Julius Caesar being exceptions - most learned how to employ the operational art and tactics that served Rome so well for centuries (unlike modern military leaders, who must constantly update their professional knowledge due to changes in technology and doctrine).

As Goldsworthy notes, Roman generals did not typically participate in close combat, as Greek generals did. Rather, the role of a Roman general on the battlefield was to "serve as a witness to his troops' acts of bravery" and to dispense rewards. Goldsworthy's theory is essentially that Roman troops were primarily motivated by the anticipation of rewards. It is a good theory and certainly one that tracks well with what we know about other armies in history, such as Napoleon's Grande Armee. Goldsworthy also discusses changes in the Roman Army over these centuries, including a greater degree of professionalism and the fact that soldiers became more loyal to their commanders (the one who rewarded them, anyway) than the state. Goldsworthy's hypothesis appears solid and the narrative supports it well. Although readers familiar with Caesar's commentaries, Tacitus and other Roman histories will find few new details here, the skill and clarity with which Goldsworthy weaves together all these accounts into a coherent narrative is truly commendable.

This looked a little daunting but Adrian Goldsworth held my intellectual hand and walked me through 700 years of Roman history as seen from the viewpoint of the fightin' generals. Goldsworth demands a bit of rigor from his readers but the payoffs are fun and worthwhile. Join Africanus as he lays waste to Carthage, Caesar in France and Germany, and everbody else in Spain. Weapons and discipline are explained patiently. (When you get tired of crucifying enemies the regular way, try some new positions where the folks looking out at your camp can see what you have in store for them unless they surrender) He helps you understand how the process of war changed with the political drama constantly unfolding back in Rome. And finally helps you come to grips with why commanders ultimately came to feel that Rome was irrelevant. This is a meaty book for the serious ancient history fan. Thanks Adrian !

While it of course has a very interesting subject matter, it still is an extraordinarily easy book to read. It is no thin composition and yet I accidently finished it in three days. While I'm a fledging of sorts on the subject this book is easily the best written military history book I've ever read.