Victor David Hanson has published an excellent review of Robert E. Lee: A Life by Allen C. Guelzo. After the destruction of so many statues by the Woke Left, this seems to be a balanced scholarly examination of Lee who was considered as an icon for many in the South, the military and Civil War Historians.

I have always been skeptical of the leadership of Lee, as he was slow to learn the destructive fire power of state-of-the-art military hardware. General Longstreet understood the brutality of the weapons of the time before Lee as was proven by his reluctance to commit General Pickett to the suicidal charge at Gettysburg. Somehow, Lee failed to understand that the war had turned into a war of men against machines and that the South was doomed if Lee practiced a type of warfare that belonged to the previous century (this mistake would be repeated fifty years later by both the French and Germans during the opening phases of World War I). Amazingly enough, he failed to realize that even if the charge were successful, he had no reserves to consolidate any gains while his opponent who outnumbered him, could quickly move in reinforcements to swamp the tattered remains of his divisions.

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.

Imagine that it is about 1850 in the United States and the British, who have the finest army in the world, invade the U.S. through the East Coast. The citizens of the area who have not been threatened by any enemies since the war of 1812 are more interested in trade and welcome the invaders who promise more states rights and low taxes. Additionally, the great slave holder families of the South provide monetary and physical support to the British invaders. Meanwhile, in the West, the small U.S. army faces an uprising of all the Indian tribes but this time they are united and number two hundred thousand. Additionally, the Mexican army joins the Indians and begin a campaign of pillage and murder across the southwest U.S. Only small groups of soldiers remain faithful to the central government, but they form the basis for a national renewal that eventually drives the British out and pushes back and punishes the Indian and Mexican forces. Large parts of the nation are desolated with farms destroyed and hundreds of towns and villages burned to the ground. Now switch this scenario to the Polish Commonwealth in the mid-eighteenth century.

Instead of the British invading, you have the Swedish army, the finest in Europe and victors during the terrible Thirty Years War. Instead of the Indians, you have the Cossacks, and the Mexicans are really the Tartars who are invited in by the Cossacks. Tens of thousands are killed as Ukrainian peasants join the Cossacks, attack the Poles, and slaughter the Jews who are seen as oppressive minions of the Polish overlords (in fact, until the Holocaust of 1939-45, this time was remembered in Jewish history as the greatest Jewish tragedy since Biblical times). Meanwhile, the Tartars capture a hundred thousand Ukrainian peasants and march them off to the Crimea where they were sold as slaves in the vast slave markets. To make matters worse, the most powerful Lithuanian prince helps the Swedes while the Russians stand on the border, ready to invade when the Poles are finally defeated.

When I was a little boy, my Grandmother will tell me stories of when she was a young woman in Warsaw Poland; how the young girls would flirt with the Russian soldiers who occupied the city, how she hesitated to go out at night as the Cossacks made it a habit to ride down the street, striking anyone with their nagaikas unless they were really drunk in which case they used their swords on anyone in their way, etc.  One thing she especially remembered, was that a chapter of Sienkiewicz’s epic novel, With Fire and Sword was serialized in the Warsaw newspapers and there was always a rush to purchase a copy; it was the Netflix of its day.

Sienkiewicz would win the Nobel Prize for literature in 1905 for his novel which took place in seventeenth century Poland, when Poland was the largest country in Europe. Sweeping across the steppes, it is an adventure story centered on the Cossack revolt which was led by Bohdan Hmyelnitzki (also spelled Khmelnytsky). The Cossacks aligned themselves with the Tartars and Great Khan of the Crimea and the revolt which lasted off and on for several years, was only one of numerous wars fought in what is today the Ukraine, Byelorussia, and what was prior to World War II, eastern Poland. It was the bloodiest of the revolts and was responsible for the largest number of Jewish deaths until the Holocaust. The Cossacks encouraged the native Ukrainian population to join the revolt and Poles and Jews alike were hunted down and killed in their tens of thousands. While the Ukrainians were used as cannon fodder by the Cossacks, who looked down on the Ukrainians, the Tartars were given free rein to capture as many Ukrainians as possible who were then forced to walk to the slave markets in the Crimea and beyond.

Having previously read Goldsworthy’s biography of Augustus Caesar this biography is in my opinion, much better; perhaps it is because Julius Caesar led a much more active life being involved directly in years of military campaigns, writing massive volumes of poetry, literature and laws as opposed to Augustus Caesar who was not as robust (physically) and had the invaluable help of Marcus Agrippa for decades to share the burdens of rule.

Severus is sometimes called the last of the “Good Emperors” for his ability to bring stability and success to the mid-Roman empire (he was emperor A.D. 193-211).  Born in Tripolitania in North Africa (no, he was not black), he was of that stock from which sprang Carthage and Hannibal.  He has also been called a typical cosmopolitan Roman bureaucrat, the destroyer of the existing social order and (by Gibbon), the principal author of Rome’s decline.  Take your pick.  But he did represent the ability of the empire to pull on its subjects to infuse new blood and energy into its body from time to time and this kept the empire from fading away for an extra hundred years.

A restless man, he traveled across the empire and early on, name one of his sons and trained him to succeed him.  Unfortunately, that son, later know as Caracalla also known by historians as “the enemy of mankind”.  But Severus coming after Commodus and Pertinax brought a period of peace, often by simply scaring the corrupt Senate and the power of his personality.

This book is a bit heavy for the casual reader interested in this period and unless you are familiar with the period, may not be a good read.  Yet there are excellent passages, and the author feels free to criticize other historians, arguing that they have misrepresented or misunderstood various facts.

There are a couple of interesting side notes about Severus.  As he lay on his death bed, his sons asked him what they should do; his words in this book were “Do not disagree between yourselves, give money to the soldiers and despise everyone else”, although other translations quote him in a more “earthy” manner. 

Another tidbit I have often thought that F. Scott Fitzgerald plagiarized when he had his main character in The Great Gatsby say: “I have been everywhere and seen everything, god oh god am I sophisticated”.  Although this author disputes the accuracy of Severus’ quote, I remember reading it when I was in my early 20’s and feeling a bit depressed, for he said, “I have been everywhere and seen everything and it is not really much”.  If a Roman emperor could say that what hope was there for me!  But Birley says the quote (again, disputed) was that “I have been everything and what has it profited me”.

In the year 1683, a vast Ottoman army is laying siege to Vienna, the heart of the Hapsburg Empire. The Ottoman army was subsidized in part by the king of France, who although Catholic, opposes the also Catholic Hapsburg Emperor. Then, from the wooded heights, the famous Polish winged hussars smash into the Ottoman army and from another direction troops from Franconia, northern Italy, Bavaria, and Saxony break the Ottoman flank. Vienna was saved and from that day forward the Ottoman Empire begins to degenerate and weaken until at the end of World War I it finally falls.

There was a seried called “Wolf Hall” on PBS which painted a vavorable impression of this man who has been painted as the arch-enemy of a saintly Thomas More.  I have read two bios of Thomas More and have come to see him as an early totalitarian; he dogmatic, given to wearing horse hair shirts, and given to burning heretics while enjoying the company and debates with Erasmus. In “A Man for All Seasons”, Cromwell was painted as the money grubbing, sneaky servant of the King, so I looked forward to this book. If the movies favorable to More could be so slanted, what is the truth about Cromwell?

      Borman paints Cromwell as a complex, self-made man in an age where such talents and drive, coming from a “common man” were seen as a danger to the established order, represented by the old noble families in Europe.  Yes, he was corrupt but not outside the accepted bounds of his time.  Yet he was generous to the poor and helped even the families who fell from favor (often with his help) of an egotistical, paranoid and shallow king.

      A fighter who succeed despite the prejudices of his day, he was a faithful servant of the king as the king only realized after Cromwell’s fall from power. 

      A well written book, the hardest part reading some of the passages written in Old English (if you read quickly Old English is not that difficult, it is merely that the words are often spelled according to the writer; it is before standardized English was adopted).  One comes away with a respect for the man who survived in a harsh political atmosphere; his faults were exaggerated by history and his enemies.  A worthwhile read.

Born in the late 18^th century, Francois Eugene Vidocq began life poor and uneducated and spent many years in various types of petty crime.  He shunned violence and spent years as a pickpocket, army deserter, grifter and convict.  His numerous escapes from all sorts of prisons, attempted to lead a “straight” life but was always sucked back into the criminal life, sometimes by his own weakness, sometimes by circumstance. His fame among the underworld was turned to his advantage as he become first a police informer, responsible for the capture of dozens of his former associates, then as head of detectives.  Forming his own person group, he worked both sides of the street, moving against the worse criminals while hiring himself out to the growing middle class and upper classes as local businessmen and others attempted to gain advantage over rivals.

Balzac, Dumas and Victor Hugo freely borrowed from his memoirs to create many of their most famous characters, including Valjean in Les Miserables’ while Conan Doyle used Vidocq’s techniques to create the enemies of Holmes.  Other authors who used his exploits included Melville, Poe and Dickens.

An interesting look at the underworld of France at the time; a time of anarchy, corruption, brutality and a society in which class and circumstance cemented one into a life cycle that had little opportunity for self-improvement.

It has been said that Henry Ford was a genius who expanded the horizons of the average American.  In “Slaughterhouse”, Dr. Pacyga tells the story of the Chicago stock yard and the world that it made.  In fact, the stock yards of Chicago did much more than industrialize the slaughter of cattle, sheep and hogs, they were responsible for increasing the diet of Americans and Europeans by providing meat products in a timely, cost effective manner.  They also were instrumental in the invention and improvements in rail transportation including refrigerated cars, smoother rides, etc.