Some actual historical perspective
587756
This book is most informative. I am more Consevative than Libertarian. This gives us some real perspective as opposed to the usual sophomoric "history" written about the very complicated reasons for the War Between The States!
3850139
Interesting insight to a changing era in world history
935572
Interesting read..but a bit of a slanted view of history. Perhaps not so much off the mark. I enjoyed reading this offering.
2912080
I enjoyed the book as far as the personal first hand accounts are concerned, all of which were placed in chronological framework rather than a topical rendition of the fighting.  In that regard, Priest jumps around describing what took place in various sectors of the field at any given time.  That perspective is probably more meaningful for serious students of the battle as opposed to the uninitiated who might find it somewhat difficult to follow.  The most glaring criticisms I found were in the maps.  They were excellently done but mislabeled at times.  For example, in one of them, Hazlett's battery is noted as being Battery E when the text refers to it as Battery D (p. 153).  In another depicting the positions of the 105th PA and 57th Pa at the Sherfy Farm, the two regiments are reversed (p. 297).  One map has the Pennsylvania Reserves north of the Millerstown Road to stop Confederate general Wofford's attack.  Most sources believe that Wheaton of the 6th corps was involved in that sector. (p. 415).  Another has the 1st Minnesota engaged with Lang's Florida Brigade instead of Wilcox's Alabamians. (p. 429).  A caption in a photo of Captain Walter Morrill refers to him as being a member of Co. G of the 20th Maine rather than Co. B.  Some folks may also have some dispute with the chronology of events as Priest depicts them as well as circumstances surrounding some events, for example the manner in which Hazlett met his death after being notified that General Stephen Weed was shot.  Some of these events can viewed from different perspectives, depending on which witness one decides to accept.  At times, Priest may accept the "minority" view which deviates from the traditional one; so the more experienced reader might find this dissonance disturbing enough to go back and re-check the sources in more familiar works.  I do think Priest's technique here with the use of personal first hand accounts almost exclusively in telling the story which itself is done  solely from the soldier's perspective is a novel approach not normally seen in military accounts.  For that reason, I found it an enjoyable read.
1347576
Overall, a nice book showing the alternative perspective that Mohawk people may have regarding Kateri. Much of the book puts her life into historical context. The only issue that I have with the author's style is that there are times when he presumes things that may not be valid. However, much has been presumed about the Mohawk, so I guess it stands to reason.
1328909
I'm not sure I read the same book as others who have posted reviews here - this was hardly a great read, or an important historical record of the meeting in Reykjavik. It was rather a semi-personal perspective of the Reykjavik summit, along with an interpretation of Iran-Contra, and a rambling discussion of minute events in the USSR after the Reagan/Gorbachev meeting. I finished the book, tedious as it was, because I kept hoping for something of value given the reviews here, and in the conservative media - but with the exception of a few chapters the value simply wasn't there.

There was a decent wrap-up in one of the last few chapters, summarizing the discussions at Reyjavik and evaluating the lasting effects on the world stage.  However, even that chapter devolved into what to me seemed to be a thoroughly catty telling of the events of the times, and the people who helped to shape those events. And I guess that was my real problem with this very ordinary book. Mr. Adelman took a remarkable period of world history, and turned it into snarky comments about this leader, that leader, this administration expert or that newsman (or woman). At one point Mr. Adelman confesses to feeling a tingle on the back of his neck when Reagan entered the room. I honestly hope to never hear that turn of phrase again - whether it is on a neck, or up a leg.

I will admit to being a strong admirer of Ronald Reagan. I do consider him to have been one of the truly great presidents our country has been blessed with in our history. Adelman purports to admire Reagan also, but his compliments all come with a backhanded remark or two that make me wonder how much respect he really had for President Reagan. This treatment was given to most of the people discussed in the book and reflects more, I think, on Adelman's perspective than on the individuals he is judging.

Much of this book, rather than being first hand knowledge, is pulled from newspapers, television reports, historical documents, and recently released notes from other attendees. Adelman plainly states that he wasn't in the room with Reagan and Gorbachev. So, rather than getting a first hand insight into events, the author is giving us selected bits and pieces from other sources, with a few personal notes thrown in here and there. Throughout this book Adelman describes moments where he claims Reagan was asking plaintively, making wrong statements, telling stories instead of working on issues, seeming to be out of touch, and Adelman foes so far as suggesting that perhaps the Alzheimer's disease was already impacting his behavior. He was similarly judgmental about many of the attendees, both russian and american. While I don't believe anyone is perfect, I'm not sure how necessary it is in what is purported to be a historical book, to focus on flaws, that might exist, or might simply have been the interpretation of a lower level functionary who, although a participant in some of the negotiations, was not privy to the entire scope of the event.

Ultimately, I never saw anything in this book to indicate that the forty-eight hours were actually the precipitating days that actually ended the cold war. Perhaps that is part of the problem with the whole narrative - the forty-eight hours Mr. Adelman participated in was only a small part of a much larger picture - and Adelman was focused on the narrow view, not the larger picture which undoubtedly held the focus of Reagan and Gorbachev, and their close confidants.

As a final comment - at the end of this book (discussing the days following the death of Ronald Reagan) Mr. Adelman writes: "I sat for several television interviews and told tales about President Reagan, Reykjavik, and favorite moments with him. But I never felt that I did him justice." Mr. Adleman - you still haven't.
4221149
It`s always interesting to "see" history through the eyes of those who were there. More often than not, myths are proven wrong, and you get a new/different  perspective of the past. Sometimes  for better, sometimes for worse, but that is the wonder of reading "first hand" accounts. They make you think.
2214038
Mahan wrote to his contemporary heads of state as Machiavelli wrote to the Medici's.  Passages bemoaning the state of the American navy in the late 19th century are sprinkled throughout this text.  U.S. policy in the following years and his remembrance in Annapolis, aside from famed anecdotal readers and devotees, attest to his being heard.

While the thesis is self-evident in the title, this book is a worthwhile read to those interested in history and the history of empires.  Mahan offers his perspective, contrary to economic or geographic or religious theories, on the forces that affected - one might claim *determined* - the modern geopolitical reality.
239137
It is a bit slow to read with the local wording but a reasonable history of the period.  Known events are reviewed  and the view of the people from the time are given.  If the reader wants to follow the events on a map it can be done.
3956964
Very interesting from a different perspective..
1458629
A little dated but a great read from a historical perspective!
3520573
It was OK. It did provide some perspective on a citizen's view of the Civil War.
812536
More of an historical view than anything of use operationally. If you're into history, then you'll like it.
772933
CAJE is an interesting perspective on an important time in American history. Its a bottom up look that cuts to the daily reality, eschewing the the lofty rhetoric from the top that lead us to that place. While CAJE is a fictional character, I recognize at least one of the tales as an actual event. I suspect there is more truth to be found in these pages. All in all, an enjoyable read.
2379871
This was a good follow-on to Professor Harl's "Origins of Great Ancient Civilizations," and gives a good orientation to the first half of recorded history.  I agree, however, with both Leonidas' plea (on the company's web site) for more details on culture (I would add language as well), and with Osage's rebuttal, especially his example of the totalitarian socialism in Ur III.  This was a timely reminder that man was not in fact born free, and that chains have been a part of human history from the beginning.  For me the most striking insight was how highy-developed the great power system was.  While Greece and Rome founded our civilization, they did so in competition with a civilization that was as old then as ours is now, which Americans would do well to remember when meddling in the Middle East.

  My one mundane complaint (besides agreeing that Professor Dise once or twice needed a re-take) is that the essential maps, apparently shown in the video, are not available in the audio supplementary materials.
1490415
This is a detailed look at the role the Scots have played in the developement of the modern world in the 18th and 19th Centuries from the highlands of their own country to the distant corners of the New World and Asia.

The title's statement about how they 'Created Our World & Everything In It' led me to figure that this book would be strongly biased, but I bought it anyway and found that it is not; the author was deliberately exaggerating and presents a relatively balanced view of Scottish history.  There are few strong anti-English sentiments in this book, and none of the 'Braveheart'-style stereotype that this period in Scottish history (the Jacobite Rebellions) is prone to attracting.  More than anything it is about the Scottish Enlightenment,  the cultural centers that arose at Edinburgh and especially Glasglow following the '45, and the individual Scots that strongly influenced modern politics, finances, religion, and philosophy.

Overall, I liked this book (though it was a tad bit dry) and found it much more fair and balanced than most other titles on this topic.
3648649
Summary:
One might think every aspect of the American Revolution had already been covered, However, Holger Hoock, A German born Professor of British history presents an insightful, if sometimes gruesome, look at the use of violence by the various parties involved. He attempts, successfully, to produce a balanced view of what happened during what was, in many respects, a civil war with both sides having plenty of which they should not be proud. Overall, this book is well worth the read and gives some better perspective to what actually happened during the Revolution.
More:
What is clear is how successful the Patriots were in managing the public relations war with appeals to humanitarian standards not always followed by either side.  "(T)he Revolutionaries used innovation forensic and polemical strategies to turn ruined towns, plundered farms, and the violated bodies of women into moral assets for the Revolutionary cause" and created an "effective narrative of victimhood" (p 398).  This narrative begun before the war, continues long afterwards and Hoock provides a short history of how it develops and changes through into the 20th century.
Although covering the better-known excesses of the British and Loyalist actors, what is new is looking at how the Patriots behaved.  He considers in some detail the actions of the so-called committees of safety, particularly around tarring and feathering and looting of property.  The question of looting became a real issue during the war itself for Washington as it also challenged American citizens identity, rooted as it was in the sanctity of property (p 134) and Hoock does explain Washingtons attempts to control his own troops behavior.
Rightly, there is a quite bit about prisoners of war.  The British treatment, or rather mistreatment, of POWs is described in some detail but even here Hoock tries to give a balanced view, reflecting the real issues of dealing with large numbers of prisoners with a 3000-mile supply chain.
The author also considers in some detail the impact on black slaves and freemen. The British rather cynically encouraged slaves to escape from Patriot owners while protecting Loyalist owners but, in the end, did evacuate thousands as promised.  However, this policy did exacerbate and further entrench the underlying racism of much of the new republic.
The story of the impact on Native Americans is equally sad, particularly in the case of the campaign against the Iroquois Confederacy. Another author used the term Janus face: (W)hen facing east, European American patriots declared themselves as anti-imperialists dedicated to the defense of Independence and Liberty.  But, when they faced west they  assumed the role of imperialists(p 292).  According to a Seneca chief the very name of Washington could still strike terror a decade later and he was known as Town-destroyer.
Sometimes, I found the detail of the brutality wearing and disruptive to the overall narrative and I think more about what happened to the black slaves and freemen who remained after the war was needed.  Most irritating were the illustrations beginning each chapter, usually a map taken from the time.  Although they would have been interesting they were shrunk to sometimes 10% of the original and were virtually illegible even with a magnifying glass.  These reservations aside this book is a good addition to the history of the American Revolution.