|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 13, 2010 8:51:29 GMT -5
Just wrapping up "The War that Made America" by Fred Anderson. This is a scaled-down (265 pp) version of his larger work on the French & Indian War (aka the Seven Years War), "Crucible of War." I had read virtually nothing on this conflict, which Churchill called the first worldwide war and Anderson's book was a real eye-opener. He is an excellent and entertaining writer who takes the reader through all the major points in the conflict, punctuating his narrative with clear descriptions of the major figures involved. Folly, heroism, irony, miscues and missed signals are all here in abundance. What I liked most was his treatment of the various Native American groups that were intimately involved every step of the way and had a great impact on the outcome. This is the first book I've read that treats the Indians the same as the other players in the story, highlights their own historic conflicts and relationships, and thus overturns centuries of one-dimensional, highly inaccurate images of the tribes, particularly the Iroquois. Their own empire building and maintenance are crucial to the story, as well as the importance both France and England placed on alliances with them.
If you haven't read much on this war, or have somehow missed this one, I'd highly recommend it. On a note closer to home here, I was very pleased to see the names of Zaboly and Toddish in the bibliographic notes.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 13, 2010 15:25:54 GMT -5
Just wrapping up "The War that Made America" by Fred Anderson. This is a scaled-down (265 pp) version of his larger work on the French & Indian War (aka the Seven Years War), "Crucible of War." I had read virtually nothing on this conflict, which Churchill called the first worldwide war and Anderson's book was a real eye-opener. He is an excellent and entertaining writer who takes the reader through all the major points in the conflict, punctuating his narrative with clear descriptions of the major figures involved. Folly, heroism, irony, miscues and missed signals are all here in abundance. What I liked most was his treatment of the various Native American groups that were intimately involved every step of the way and had a great impact on the outcome. This is the first book I've read that treats the Indians the same as the other players in the story, highlights their own historic conflicts and relationships, and thus overturns centuries of one-dimensional, highly inaccurate images of the tribes, particularly the Iroquois. Their own empire building and maintenance are crucial to the story, as well as the importance both France and England placed on alliances with them. If you haven't read much on this war, or have somehow missed this one, I'd highly recommend it. On a note closer to home here, I was very pleased to see the names of Zaboly and Toddish in the bibliographic notes. Allen I have many issues with Anderson, especially regarding his very limited knowledge of Major Robert Rogers and his Rangers, but his books do provide a good overview of the Seven Years' War in North America. One of the prioblems with such "general" overviews of history is that the author hasn't really devoted the necessary time that's required to make any authoritative judgments about more specific, detail-oriented subjects. So let the reader be aware that in some cases he is illl-informed, although in terms of the overall progress of things, he prettty much follows Parkman's well-trodden trails.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 13, 2010 17:21:07 GMT -5
Thanks Gary; interesting. Indeed, he barely mentions Rogers.
How about his longer work ("Crucible of War")?
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 14, 2010 16:17:44 GMT -5
Thanks Gary; interesting. Indeed, he barely mentions Rogers. How about his longer work ("Crucible of War")? Allen, CRUCIBLE is the one I have the biggest beef with. It may be a fine overall history of the Seven Years' War in North America and the Caribbean, but when it comes to Robert Rogers the man needs an education.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 14, 2010 16:45:01 GMT -5
I don't know that much about Rogers, Gary, but I have had exactly the same feeling most of the time when I read references to Crockett in books about that period. They almost invariably regurgitate the same, tired, inaccurate generalizations that have been recycled for decades.
By the way, don't know if you know or have met Courtney Tucker, an old friend and former co-worker of mine, who has lived in Syracuse for ages. He has done a lot of volunteering at sites and archeological digs associated with Rogers, especially Fort Edward. He's quite a student of that era.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 14, 2010 17:23:54 GMT -5
I don't know that much about Rogers, Gary, but I have had exactly the same feeling most of the time when I read references to Crockett in books about that period. They almost invariably regurgitate the same, tired, inaccurate generalizations that have been recycled for decades. By the way, don't know if you know or have met Courtney Tucker, an old friend and former co-worker of mine, who has lived in Syracuse for ages. He has done a lot of volunteering at sites and archeological digs associated with Rogers, especially Fort Edward. He's quite a student of that era. Sweeping, all-encompassing generalizations often make for great color in a history book, and that's why many historians resort to them. Rather than allow that the analysis of a certain historical personage is difficult, often impossible, to make, some writers will fall into the cheap and easy trap of generalizing, and often that generalization will follow the most sensational interpretation. Not familiar with Courtney Tucker, though I do know a number of people who have dug at Rogers' Island.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 15, 2010 12:21:22 GMT -5
I liked Crucible, but I was looking for a good broad overview. My biggest complaint is that is wasn't broad enough. I would have liked more info on the fighting in Germany, India, etc. I'm still looking for a good overview of what indeed was the first real world war.
I think Crucible might still be the best overview of the Seven Years War (vs French and Indian War) in the Western Hemisphere. Though, I won't argue Gary's point that it over generalizes specifics - that seems to always be the weakness in these overviews.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 15, 2010 16:45:13 GMT -5
My first real historical look into the whole French and Indian War/Seven Years War was a little book that I bought at a Council on America's Military Past conference called "America's First World War" by Tim Todish....have read the others as well...especially now that I am back into F&I country...
|
|
|
Post by Seguin on Nov 15, 2010 18:52:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Nov 15, 2010 20:33:27 GMT -5
Is this the documentary that has been playing on PBS recently? I think it's pretty good, but I don't like the cartoon illustrations that were mixed with other media. They're not very kind to Robert Rogers.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 16, 2010 11:18:23 GMT -5
In fact I was a little late realizing this, but, YES, it is a companion to the book; based on the book. I just watched it again the other night after finishing the book and thought they did a good job of covering the major points and adding a bit of drama.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 16, 2010 11:22:42 GMT -5
I liked Crucible, but I was looking for a good broad overview. My biggest complaint is that is wasn't broad enough. I would have liked more info on the fighting in Germany, India, etc. I'm still looking for a good overview of what indeed was the first real world war. I think Crucible might still be the best overview of the Seven Years War (vs French and Indian War) in the Western Hemisphere. Though, I won't argue Gary's point that it over generalizes specifics - that seems to always be the weakness in these overviews. I think that is true in general about overviews. You can only cover so much when the scope is that broad. On the other hand, "War That Made America" is clearly about the North American theater (if I can call it that), made obvious by the title itself. This seems to have been a project that grew out of "Crucible" and, given that focus, covers the European part of the war only as a backdrop to events in America and to provide some context. For a beginner, like me, it was very enlightening and I especially like the way he treated the various Indian groups. Rarely have I seen books that show them to be not much different than Europeans and far more savvy than usually portrayed. I was particularly glad he covered the inter-tribal rivalries and politics, and practices of the Six Nations toward other tribes.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 16, 2010 16:59:19 GMT -5
I liked Crucible, but I was looking for a good broad overview. My biggest complaint is that is wasn't broad enough. I would have liked more info on the fighting in Germany, India, etc. I'm still looking for a good overview of what indeed was the first real world war. I think Crucible might still be the best overview of the Seven Years War (vs French and Indian War) in the Western Hemisphere. Though, I won't argue Gary's point that it over generalizes specifics - that seems to always be the weakness in these overviews. I think that is true in general about overviews. You can only cover so much when the scope is that broad. On the other hand, "War That Made America" is clearly about the North American theater (if I can call it that), made obvious by the title itself. This seems to have been a project that grew out of "Crucible" and, given that focus, covers the European part of the war only as a backdrop to events in America and to provide some context. For a beginner, like me, it was very enlightening and I especially like the way he treated the various Indian groups. Rarely have I seen books that show them to be not much different than Europeans and far more savvy than usually portrayed. I was particularly glad he covered the inter-tribal rivalries and politics, and practices of the Six Nations toward other tribes. For a book dealing ONLY with the French and Indian War in North America, I would still recommend Francis Parkman's lengthy but very engaging 1884 work, MONTCALM AND WOLFE. It remains my favorite of all those I've read (and Lord knows they've been many), and is unbeatable for its descriptive prose (unlike Anderson's dry approach). In terms of military history, it contains far more specifics and details than Anderson's does on most of the North American battles and skirmishes, and he is a lot fairer in his judgment of the major players (e.g., Parkman researched many more Robert Rogers-related documents than Anderson ever did, and as a result he offers a vastly more objective, better-informed opinion of the man and certainly of his actual contributions to the war). However, it must be said that Parkman's depictions of Native Americans reflect much of the bigotry of his time, when Indian wars were still very recent memories.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 16, 2010 22:19:20 GMT -5
Funny enough, Gary, we just discussed the Anderson book at tonight's meeting of our local history book club. At least one other person raised the issue you did about Rogers and showed us another book called Montcalm & Wolfe, I believe, but it was a paperback and not (IIRC) the one by Parkman. Most of us did point out the very different perspective Anderson gives regarding the position and policies of the tribes and, superficial differences aside, casts them as equal players with their European counterparts, and as civilizations that behaved very much the way the others did. We saw some of this in our discussions of "1491" and "Mayflower," which covers the King Phillip War. I think most of us got a good intro to the F&I War out of this and, as with many books, encouraged us to read more on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by Seguin on Nov 17, 2010 0:16:51 GMT -5
In fact I was a little late realizing this, but, YES, it is a companion to the book; based on the book. I just watched it again the other night after finishing the book and thought they did a good job of covering the major points and adding a bit of drama. Thanks, Allen! I thought it might be a companion to the book but I was´nt sure. I liked the series too. It was pretty interesting to watch for a French-Indian War beginner like me.
|
|