It used to be that you could look to the future and see a never-ending landscape of progress for humanity. Medical care will be better, technology will make our lives better, famine and warfare will gradually disappear as increased wealth will eliminate the need for people to struggle. This history is about the building of the nation we know as France, a nation facing fundamental questions and challenges. As I was reading this history, I was struck by an almost mirror image of the building of France and the decline of modern-day France.
The area we know as France in the late tenth century was a patchwork of little more than warlords, robber barons and petty “nobility,” each vying for advantage over each other. Alliances were made and broken, religious persecution was widespread, and government was a concept that could only be viewed as an idea. It was a time, as Hobbs would say, when life was, “solitary, poor nasty, brutish and short.” Yes, there was the concept of the Holy Roman Empire, but true government in most of Europe was a dream for philosophers.
Out of this time however, through a series of wars and marriages, one family, the Capetians, became the most powerful monarch in Europe for nearly three-hundred and fifty years. From an area centered around Paris but dwarfed by more powerful lords in Burgundy, Aquitaine and several others, the Capetians managed to not only survive but came to master those other lords and create a more centralized, feudal state. It was no easy task as with each success came not only more power and responsibility, but also more demands. The Pope wants a crusade, a powerful baron has ambitions of his own, the cost of a state requires enormous amounts of money on a consistent basis, and more. Those demands must be met but there was no blueprint on how to manage those demands and thus there were times when the growing Capetian kingdom was close to failure time and time again. Yet the men and powerful women who headed the growing kingdom managed to keep forging ahead.
This book brings together a number of figures from the past that helps to give us an image of the times. Edward I of England, also known as “Longshanks” and the “Hammer of the Scots” (think of the movie “Brave Heart”), Eleanor of Aquitaine (the movie “The Lion in Winter”) and others. They all lived, fought, created, and ruled during a common time of political and economic consolidation. Yet despite such a prolonged period of power and the ability to deal with the challenges of time, the Capetians fell from power. They were not defeated by a stronger military challenger, but rather by the great weakness of a dynastic power; they died out. While there were still individuals who could lay claim to the Capetian throne, the one direct descendent of a Capetian king was fathered by a Valois which was the next dynasty to claim the throne.
The period involved in this history is not exactly a topic for everyday conversation, so the numerous and overlapping names may be a bit confusing for the average reader. But the book is well written, full of interesting historical tidbits and humor. Not exactly a “I can’t put it down” but a history that will bring you back simply to see how it all ends up.

George Kennan (not to be confused with George F. Kennan, remembered for his famous “Long Telegram”) was a journalist and explorer. He wrote a number of books, including Tent Life in Siberia where he wrote about living with a number of Siberian tribes such as the Koraks, Yakoots, Gakouts and others. It was this experience that opened the door for him to return to Czarist Russia to author a book about the exile system in Siberia.

He initially was positive about the exile system as he felt it was a positive way to bring settlers to Siberia who would be able to repay society for their various crimes. Because he authored several positive articles on that system, he was granted almost unlimited access to the camps and officials despite the skepticism of various Czarist officials. 

Daniel Beer’s book, The House of the Dead: Siberian Exile Under the Czars reviewed here on 4/21/2023) wrote of an earlier version of the system and although he did not have firsthand experience, it outlines a terrible blot on the face of Czarism. Kennan’s book goes further as he spent months travelling across Siberia, visiting way stations, camps, and work sites as well as speaking to many Czarist officials himself.

Kennan very quickly changes his mind about the system as he immediately comes across suspicious officials who only put up with him due to his letters of introduction and directives signed by high officials from the capital. He describes the towns and villages of Siberia, mostly small, dirty, and rudimentary with only a thin veil of civilization and little culture. The European Russian inhabitants attempt to build some sort of livable community life, but they are the end of an exceptionally long and thin line, far from the capital and of no significant importance to the national concerns.

In visiting the actual camps themselves, he does find some dedicated officials (normally having served a shorter time in the system) as the system is simply overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of prisoners. There are more prisoners than camp buildings so the weaker prisoners sleep outside which is not that bad during the milder months as the interiors of the camp buildings are dark, poorly ventilated, and filthy due to the lack of proper sanitation. He writes that at times he is choaking from the stench of the buildings. Some officials show him stacks of letters they sent to their superiors asking for additional funds to construct new facilities, for more manpower to manage the prisoners, all to no avail. Most letters are never even acknowledged.

A massive biography which covers the first half of Wellington’s life. Not being the first son, he was relegated to joining the military (under British custom, the first son inherited the title, the second went to the military and the third son entered the Church of England).

As was common at the time, Wellington had an unhappy childhood and like many men of that time, he made his mark and fortune in India. His military victories and diplomatic skill in India allowed him to assume command in the Peninsula during the Napoleonic wars where he reorganized the army of Portugal and created the famous defensive lines which the French under a number of Napoleon’s generals refused to attack. In a series of brilliant maneuvers, he out generaled every force sent against him as he slowly pushed the French out of the entire peninsula. That does not mean that he had an easy time as Napoleon poured men and material into the fight, but his real struggle was with various politicians and powers in London who were jealous of his successes and who kept Wellington’s forces on a strict leash.

Unlike other Wellington biographies, Muir provides excellent insight into Wellington’s excellent political skills not only in India, but also in Europe where he moved with ease. He was recognized as skillful, even tempered, and able to bring various factions together after the defeat of Napoleon.

He was a man of his age but also a man of a different age. Unlike most commanders of that time, he took great care for his men, ensuring that they had adequate food and logistical support. He may have been arrogant and superior in his manner to his men, but unlike Napoleon, he was careful with their lives and tried to avoid the typical frontal attacks which so wasted his opponent’s armies.

This is a long read, incredibly detailed, but for a serious scholar, an excellent biography on a complex individual.

In January 1901. Queen Victoria died at the age of 81 after being Queen for 64 years.  Her reign experienced the revolutions of 1848, the formation of the Second French Empire, Crimea War, and the unification of Germany.  A small woman, she hid herself from the public and to a certain extent, politics for decades after the death of her husband, Prince Albert.  The unintended result was a diminution of power of the Crown as strong Prime Ministers stepped into the role she abdicated. 

When she died, most citizens knew no other monarch and although her health had been slipping, many of her closest advisors were unaware of the seriousness of her illness.  This meant that her death came as a shock to the nation and the private secretaries, etc. scrambled to find the proper procedure for her internment. Fortunately, Captain (later Sir) Frederick Ponsonby took charge, often stepping on bureaucratic toes to make the arrangements.  Fate seemed to work against a smooth ceremony as the funeral cortege was too long for the route march, the casket almost fell off the caisson, the casket (there were several, each within the others), was so heavy that the troops carrying it had to be relieved after taking it off the caisson, and finally the traces broke and the caisson with the casket had to be pulled by the troops (in fact it was considered a great honor and a rival troop demanded the honor of pulling everything during the next stage).

The United States suffered shocks to its system by the death of FDR and the assassination of JFK but imagine if either of them had governed for over 60 years.  And, given the level of communications at the time, her death must have come like a bolt from the blue.  It seemed to be taken for granted that her reign would never end.  Her children ruled or were married to rulers of most of the European states which was thought to assure stability for the future but in the end, her death signaled the beginning days of the end for the old world which would be smashed in World War I.

If you are not familiar with this area, this book gives a glimpse into a simpler time, one filled with hope and dreams for a future.  A time when Europe still believed in itself and looked positively to scientific and economic advances which would benefit humanity.     

Many years ago, just out of University my parents and I travelled to Spain.  We took a side trip to Morocco and joined a group which was sheparded around by a local Muslim guide, complete with robe and soft slippers that curled upward at the toes.  As we progressed, the guide pointed out mosques, libraries, beautiful plazas, etc. always noting that when they were built during the tenth or eleventh century, Europe was in a Dark Age.  After several such episodes, my father, always the diplomat raised his hand and asked the guide if the Muslims had done anything in the last thousand years.  There was much laughter and the guide stopped making references to Europe’s Dark Age.

My story about my father’s comment strikes at the very heart of the problem around Islam today; massive hurt feelings that a once proud and conquering force is today among the most backward in the world.  Many Muslims in the Middle East resent the failures of their leaders and governments since Islam was turned back in 1683 at the gates of Vienna.  A society which, when the first printing press was introduced into Ottoman territories in 1450 banned it as a tool of the devil, simply failed to move with the world as created by the Europeans.  Piece by piece, the Islamic world was picked apart and subjugated by the West and the feeling of anger and frustration grew until it was believed by even some of the educated that radicalism and terrorism was the only answer.  Instead of looking forward, the radicals looked backwards trying to lead the Muslim world bravely backward into the 8th century.

Ed Husain, a former radical Islamist who has rejected extremism and is now a noted fellow at several excellent Western think tanks.  He has an excellent understanding not only of Islamic history, but also a solid foundation in the beliefs of the various factions that exist within Islam today.  He carefully outlines the Sunni-Shi’a schism, what is Sharia, who is a Sufi, the foundations of Wahhabism as well as in depth discussions on the various views on women, sex, education, Jews, etc.  Overall, you can feel him objective about the factions within Islam and this book is an excellent primer on Islam.

As a former radical, he knows and understands the rationale of the radicals in their view of where Islam has gone wrong and what they believe justifies their actions.  His discussion on the difference between the Quran and supposed comments and guidelines from Mohammed is very interesting.  As Muslims believe that the Quran is sacred as created by Mohammed, they are a perfect way to live life.  The supposed saying and guidelines from Mohammed are open to interpretation; were they in fact made by Mohammed or by others many years after his life.  Are these saying supported by the Quran or in violation of the Quran?  According to Husain, such injunctions as the veiling of women, not allowing women to be highly educated, and the rules by the likes of ISIS come from these supposed comments and have no basis in the Quran.  Due however, to the low level of education of many Imams, arguments against the likes of ISIS are weak or not capable of convincing Muslims to move away from such practices.

The author loves Islam, but he also has a rather distorted history of Islam.  According to his view, the warriors of Islam spared women and children as they swept across the land, but if they did, it was only to save them for the slave market.  Or, he mentions that the natives of India converted to Islam because they loved Islamic poetry and not because literally tens of millions were slaughtered by various Islamic rulers.  Yet, aside from these examples of glossing over of history (there are others), the book remains an excellent one that Westerners would do well to read.  Unlike other books on Islam, he does offer concrete suggestions on what can be done to reverse the trend towards radicalism and to move Islam forward in the real world.  He pushes hard for the Islamic world to accept Israel and to see what can be done with education, unity and hard work.  Would the Islamic world be willing to learn from Israel?  Can the Arab countries put aside their tribalism and move against (especially in Saudi Arabia) against Wahhabism?  Would the West be willing to create a Marshall Plan for the Islamic world in conjunction with the oil rich Arab world who would contribute to the development of lands outside of their own?  If not, then the path away from radicalism will be longer and harder than necessary.

We seem to be living in a time when a goodly portion of humanity, the white portion, should be, according to many on the Left, walking around with ashes on our heads while we practice self-flagellation for the sins which our race has done to most of humanity. This is especially true of the ignorant and those who seek to make a name-and money, from this narrative. Unfortunately for them, there are those who question if these ignorant and self-righteous have any idea about what they are talking about. One such person is Nigel Biggar, the Regius Professor Emeritus of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford. His excellent book, Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning looks openly and honestly at the charges of those who claim that colonialism, specifically that practiced by the British Empire have a grounding in fact. He looks at various questions such as, what was the driving force behind the Empire? Was it greed? Was the Empire basically racist? Was the Empire violent in that it imposed terrible conditions on its colonial subjects?

Although not a professional historian-he holds a BA in Modern History from Oxford while his Ph.Ds. are in Christian Theology and Ethics in Christian Theology and Ethics from the University of Chicago, his knowledge and research is excellent and he brings a balanced view of history as he includes the ethical component which in this case adds more depth to the book.

He initially raises the question of the concept of colonialism in that colonialism is as old as humanity. The empires of the Assyrians over four thousand years ago practiced colonialism. They were followed by the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Persians. The Athenians, Romans, Muslims, Asantes, etc. all were colonial powers. Some brought value with their overlordship, some only brought suffering, so how and where did the British Empire stand in relationship to all those who had gone before them? How did they stand against their contemporaries, such as the French, Russians, Dutch, Moguls, etc.? The problem and challenge are to not only read those who attack colonialism, but to look at their research to see if their writings are based on facts.

One such example is a famous quote which is attributed to Cecil Rhodes, when he is reported to have said, “I prefer land to the n—ers..the natives are like children. They are just emerging from barbarism…one should kill as many n—ers as possible.”  A terrible statement, often quoted by eminent historians as an example of the mindset of the British Empire. There is a problem however, for there is no evidence that Rhodes ever made that statement. Much of the statement was written by a former Rhodes scholar who is a director of a major Pan-African university in Johannesburg while more of it was “made up from three different elements drawn from three different sources” including a novel. Hardly scholastic proof. In fact, Rhodes supported the franchise in the Cape Colony that gave blacks the vote on the same term as whites, he funded a black newspaper, and his scholarship was color-blind from the first. Such minor details escape those who use Rhodes as an example of the British mindset.

His book is chapter after chapter of not whitewash, but a review of the times, norms, attitudes, and actions of both the British and the people’s they ruled. He discusses the abuses of colonialism as well as the benefits which provided the locals to better their lives and futures. The Empire stopped abuses such as the burning of widows, instituted a legal system where for the first time, the poorest of the poor could confront those who had previously exercised power as they wished. More rail mileage was built in India than existed in Great Britain with the result that freedom of movement, increased trade and food was more readily available than before their arrival.

And yes, there were abuses. Most abuses came at the local level, by the soldiers, local traders, etc. rather than from the governors, magistrates, and administrators. He quotes the proclamation of governors and provides details on their actual achievements. Those governors who exercised a great deal of freedom in their area seldom abused the great power they had and there are instances quoted when the locals feared a return to the old days where power was used arbitrarily when the governors were withdrawn. There was racism in many instances, especially in India after the Sepoy Rebellion when old loyalties and trusts were torn apart.

Because the author has a background in ethics, he broaches the question of compensation, one which is heard as a drumbeat. On one hand, were the natives justly compensated for their goods and land? Did they suffer to a greater or lesser extent from racism? How many locals were killed when they demanded independence or during times of famine? On the other hand, what was the value of immunization against disease which saved millions of lives? What was the value of freedom from slavery as practiced by local rulers? What was the value of instituting an educational system and the values of that system which allowed the locals to be able to step into power once independence was achieved?

This book may not convince the rabid anti-colonialist that the British empire experience had any positive worth. The author did however achieve one of his goals in that any reader who approaches the subject with even an inkling of an open mind will realize that the pros and cons, the costs vs. benefits, of colonialism as practiced by the British require a serious weighing on the scales of if not justice, at least intellect.

Covering the period between 1450-1620, Hale brings into play all the forces around which everyday life evolved in Europe.  He traces the slow development of the roads, art, economics, religion, how the old warrior class took on new leadership roles and the slow gradual realization of national identities.  The concept of national identities could not have been achieved without the constant warfare of the age so while the time was often bloody for a small percentage of the overall population, the development of industries necessary for the wars themselves create economic opportunities and the build up of wider areas of cross trade.

Aside from the usual topics one would expect in a book like this, he also spends time looking at the daily lives of ordinary people and how they lived.   How did they dress, where did they shop, how were rules of civility created and enforced? What and how did a common language develop in any geographical area and how did that common language unite the people in becoming what we know as France or Germany, etc.  How were the average people able to live during the upheavals in Christianity which were driven not only by religious differences, but also by the various local rulers who saw the time as an opportunity to enrich themselves by pillaging monasteries, churches, etc. 

The book is not an especially easy read; not because it is not well written, for it is, but the amount of information available is extraordinary.  This is due not only to the usual method of using a wide brush, but also because he delves into the ordinary and discusses how movements, ideas, etc. could impact the people of Europe down to the poorest peasant.  It falls into the category of books that if one were ever asked to read one book on a subject, would the one recommended. 

Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brede et de Montesquieu was from the middle of the 18th century through the founding of the United States, widely considered to be the preeminent political thinker of his time. His categorization of what constitutes a tyranny, an empire and a republic influenced our Founding Fathers in their debates and in the writing of the Federalist Papers. He was the principal architect of the theory of separation of powers and his main work, The Spirit of Law (1748) was well received throughout Europe and the thirteen colonies.

This work is considered a minor work, but I would like to suggest that no politician be allowed to take office until they have read and passed a test based on what he writes in this gem of a book.

Rome, like any organism or organization, had a period of growth followed by a decline. What were the causes of its growth? That is often asked as is, what caused its decline? Historians and others will argue those points for as long as Rome is remembered and everyone who attempts to answer those questions will be both correct and wrong. There were numerous causes but that in the end, as with other empires, the entire system simply imploded from lack of will, moral degeneracy and outside pressures that were simply more than could be managed given the resources available. Over time, the ideals and energy which helped the successful growth were lost and there were not enough good and strong men and women to hold the center together.

 Rome started as a small community, cut off from the sea, surrounded by numerous enemies, many of them larger. It had little natural wealth, barely any art and the citizens realized that the only way to enrich themselves was through pillage. Montesquieu believed that Rome’s power came from several factors, among them a constant drive for war, an unwillingness to accept defeat, an equal sharing of the plunder and a government which only allowed recognition and advancement through military success. Because Rome was always at war and because they adopted the best military practices of their individual neighbors, they simply excelled at war. They easily adopted the best skills of their military foes, such as cavalry, the Spanish short sword, etc. and use each in a way that helped to insure their victories. They developed a mindset which directed all activities of the State to be in the successful furtherance of war. Defeat was simply unacceptable and as was demonstrated during the war against Hannibal, no matter how often Roe’s field armies were defeated, they simply kept going after their nemesis until they achieved final victory. Such a mindset is not possible today as the technology of war simply makes war too expensive both in treasure and lives. So, what can we learn from the Romans? We can learn from them the reasons for their decline.

Elting, a noted historian and lecturer at West Point has put it all together in this 700+ page book.  He starts with a discussion of the decline of the French Army after King Louis XV and its destruction during the French Revolution.  He then proceeds to discuss every aspect of the Army, from the equipment, feeding, transportation, etc. of each branch of the Army, from the infantry to artillery, etc. 

An outstanding one volume history which ends with the new regime of King Louis XVIII, his mistrust of the Imperial army, his lack of skilled advisors, etc., and of course, the Hundred Days of Napoleon.  I would recommend that if you are going to read this book, that you keep handy “Napoleon’s Marshals” which was edited by David Chandler. This book discusses (each Marshal is covered by a different historian) the records of all of Napoleon’s Marshals (25 French, one Polish) including their skills, greed, loyalty (or lack thereof), etc. 

Another wonderful reference book to settle or at least provide fodder for any discussion of the subject (Napoleon’s campaigns, his personal skills, etc.).  The two books total about 1200 pages so don’t think you will finish them in a sitting, but they are well worth the effort.  If nothing else, as with so much of history, you learn a great deal about human nature and management.

Covering the period between 1450-1620, Hale brings into play all the forces around which everyday life evolved in Europe.  He traces the slow development of the roads, art, economics, religion, how the old warrior class took on new leadership roles and the slow gradual realization of national identities.  The concept of national identities could not have been achieved without the constant warfare of the age so while the time was often bloody for a small percentage of the overall population, the development of industries necessary for the wars themselves create economic opportunities and the build up of wider areas of cross trade.

Aside from the usual topics one would expect in a book like this, he also spends time looking at the daily lives of ordinary people and how they lived.   How did they dress, where did they shop, how were rules of civility created and enforced? What and how did a common language develop in any geographical area and how did that common language unite the people in becoming what we know as France or Germany, etc.  How were the average people able to live during the upheavals in Christianity which were driven not only by religious differences, but also by the various local rulers who saw the time as an opportunity to enrich themselves by pillaging monasteries, churches, etc. 

The book is not an especially easy read; not because it is not well written, for it is, but the amount of information available is extraordinary.  This is due not only to the usual method of using a wide brush, but also because he delves into the ordinary and discusses how movements, ideas, etc. could impact the people of Europe down to the poorest peasant.  It falls into the category of books that if one were ever asked to read one book on a subject, would the one recommended.