Benson BobrickRessenyes

I am glad I read this book, because i am now able to place Thomas more accurately throughout The War in his many different positions, ranks and battles. What I did not enjoy is the constant rationalizing, apologizing, and backtracking that Bobrick employs to defend Thomas in his conflicts with Grant and Sherman politically. I can see some truth in Bobrick's contentions and Sherman certainly has gone down a few pegs in my estimation, but the arguments and the outcomes become predictable and frankly, a little boring.

I lingered over the beginning of the book, but after I got into the flow of the historical narrative, it went pretty quickly. Anyone who is interested in history and language may enjoy this.
I had a rudimentary knowledge of Henry VIII and William Tyndale, but this book expanded greatly on my knowledge of them and their context. Also, there were so many other key players of whom I knew virtually nothing other than their names (or at least, had forgotten since high school).

I think the thing that impressed itself on me the most is the changeability of people... literally less than a year passed between Tyndale's execution as a heretic and the formal approval by the king of Tyndale's Bible translation. This is CRAZY! When entities are convinced they're right (unless they change their minds, and then they're also right) and the only fixed compass point is the will of the powerful at any given moment, sanctioned, as they tell themselves, by God, no wonder justice is easily miscarried.

There are lots of comparisons between translations, and on a lighter note, I will end with Tyndale's rendering of Genesis 3:4: "Then said the serpent unto the woman, 'Tush, ye shall not die.'"

How very British

I confess that I am a bit biased against this book. What was off-putting was an excessive amount of quotations from Elizabethan sources, including segments of Ivan's life where he was not interacting with English observers (e.g. his death). The sense I get is of an author who has limited specialization in English historical sources (it looks like a lot of the Elizabethan quotes come from an edited volume published in the 19th century), and wrote a book about the famous Russian tyrant relying on those and other translated sources. What results is a mostly confusing "just-the-facts" parade of schemers and religious nut jobs inflicting misery on Ivan, each other, and especially the people of Russia and Central Asia. I think I'd rather read a biography by a specialist who could examine primary sources in Russian.

The life and times of Ivan IV of Russia. A painful childhood within a family of weak genetic stock produces a monster…a very intelligent monster, but a monster just the same. This book is as much about the history of Russia as it is about Ivan and I found this more interesting than Ivan's personal story. Here we learn about the original isolation of the Russ and their attempts to be taken seriously as a nation while Sweden & Denmark & Poland & Lithuania each strive to dominate Northern Europe. Even Elizabeth’s England is drawn into the conflict in an effort to secure the lucrative fur trade with Russia. The last section of the book, describing Ivan’s war with Poland was extremely captivating—from England through Scandinavia and onto Turkey and China, Ivan the Terrible’s last war came close to becoming the first world war. It’s not that the story is riveting, but it comes quite close at times.

The Olympics first started as a tournament for the honor of the Greek gods. Soon, the ancient Greeks started adding more events, such as the marathon as we know today. But back then, the marathon was 24.85 miles long, not 26.2 miles. When the Byzantine Empire took over Greece, the emperor dismantled the religion of the Greeks, halting the Games for centuries. But about 2 millennia later, in 1896, the first modern Games took place in Athens, Greece. Over time, the Games grew less and more popular over the years. In 1924, the first Winter Games were held at Chamonix, France, and then the Summer and Winter Games alternated every four years. And then every 2 years, starting after World War II.
I wouldn't really recommend this book to a lot of people, but it's still informative. I mean informative about the history of the Games. It doesn't just tell what the Games were like or what events they had. But the feeling that the Games were very popular and had many spectators watching. When the Games were popular, they attracted many spectators and known celebrities. That was the feeling of the Olympic Games. Thanks for reading!

Memo to Benson Bobrick: The American Civil War was not a war between Ulysses S. Grant and George H. Thomas. It was a war between the Union and the Confederacy.

You could be forgiven for not knowing that, should you read this book without knowing more about the Civil War. It is far too much of a smear campaign against Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. Bobrick constantly accuses those two generals of deliberately sabotaging Thomas to improve their reputations.

To be sure, there is near-universal agreement that Thomas was one of the great generals of the war. His victory at Mill Springs was one of the first great Union successes of the war. He very possibly saved the Union with his brilliant defense at Chickamauga. His victory at Nashville was the most decisive Union win of the war, and it ended the last Southern hopes. Thomas was certainly a better tactical fighter than Grant or Sherman, and probably the best such general the Union had. Many -- I'm one of them -- think him the best Union general of the war. The only general on either side who can make a serious claim to be greater is Robert E. Lee.

But Grant, for all his tactical ineptitude, did win the war. Sherman, for all his flightiness and mistakes, did supply the second pillar of Grant's great two-pronged offensive. It's clearly true that Grant under-valued Thomas, and it perhaps made Grant's task harder. But it wasn't as if Grant was setting out simply to make Thomas look bad!

Far too much of this book consists of unfair charges against Grant and Sherman. This isn't just off-putting, it wastes space that otherwise could be devoted to Thomas's achievements. And it distorts the picture. Too, the book probably devotes too much time and space to the Civil War, ignoring the rest of Thomas's life. Also -- although this may not be Bobrick's fault -- all the maps are placed too far forward in the text, making it difficult to refer to them.

George H. Thomas, pillar of the Union, the greatest general of the Northern side, deserves a good modern biography. Sadly, this isn't it.½

This is a first-rate narrative of an unjustly forgotten, or at least overlooked Union General. The author pulls no punches in criticizing Gen Thomas's cohorts, especially Sherman and Grant in their (successful) attempts at impugning Thomas. His reputation likely also suffered by his early death, still in uniform. At the very least the existence of Gen Thomas proves that Confederate generals could have chosen national over parochial interests in the great test of their age, and been successful Northern leaders instead of traitorous 'Secesh'.

If you can't trust a book about the Bible, what can you trust?

Sadly, the number of errors in this book was so high that I couldn't even finish it. I say "sadly" because this is a very interesting, vividly written book on an interesting topic. If you like historical novels -- I don't; give me history any day -- you might enjoy it. But don't believe any of it. Not in detail, anyway.

The problems start early. I first noticed it on page 13, where it says "Each part [that is, the three parts of Jewish scripture, Law, Prophets, and Writings] arose as a separate collection of sacred texts, with the Law in use as Scripture by 400 B.C.; the Prophets, by 200 B.C.; and the Writings by about 130 B.C." Just how wrong you will find this statement depends on your religious stance -- most liberal scholars would say that books such as Ecclesiastes and Esther weren't even written until after 130 B.C.E., while a fundamentalist would date them earlier -- but all would allow that some books of the Writings were not universally accepted as canonical until well after that date.

The discussion of the Septuagint and of the canon on page 14 is so brief as to be extremely misleading, but it could perhaps be accepted, except that it omits the Letter to the Hebrews from the New Testament! (It refers to thirteen letters of Paul, but either Hebrews is a separate letter or there are fourteen letters of Paul). It also refers to the Apocalypse as by John, giving the impression that it's the same John as the person man who wrote the Gospel -- but scholars have been pointing out for more than a thousand years that the same person cannot have written those two books (a fact that is obvious to anyone with even a little Greek).

On page 21, it says that Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the "town council" of Jerusalem. We are told that Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin, and Mark 15:43, etc. refer to the Sanhedrin as the "council" -- but not a "town council," as if you could call up Joseph of Arimathea and complain about your neighbour not mowing his grass! The Sanhedrin was a religious council.

On page 84, we read about progress in understanding "Greek, Hebrew, and other languages, such as Aramaic and and Chaldee." Just one problem: Chaldee isn't a language. It's a name used by older scholars to refer to Aramaic, since Aramaic was the language used by the Chaldeans when they occupied Babylon, and there are a few sections of the Hebrew Bible written in Aramaic. One could refer to a dialect of Aramaic called Chaldean, just as there is Talmudic Aramaic and Syriac Aramaic and Palestinian Aramaic, but it's not a separate language.

Finally, on pp. 300-301 there is a list of dates in the history of the English Bible. This leaves out some very important dates, such as the publication of Erasmus's Greek New Testament in 1516 (important because this is what Tyndale translated into English) and the later editions of Stephanus and Beza (from which the King James Bible was translated), but those are merely omissions. The last date is "1881-85 Revised Standard Version."

Guess what. I have a Revised Standard Version here. With a copyright page. The first edition of the New Testament was published 1946, the Old Testament in 1952, and a revised New Testament in 1971. This has now been largely supplemented by the New Revised Standard Version. The 1881 date refers to the (English) Revised Version. It is not the same thing!

I'm sure I've either convinced you by now or you've stopped reading, so I won't go on. Most people aren't bothered by small mistakes to the extent that I am. If not, you may read this book with enjoyment, and you may even learn from it. But keep in mind: what you learn may well prove to be alternative facts.

No wonder his dynasty died out; that's what happens when you beat your heir to death.

Starts well BUT towards the end it sounds like an ad for all things Muslin. I did not think the author held a neutral stand with regards to who did the most for the world.½

Great read - Highly recommended Could have used more maps.

This is my favorite book about the American Revolution in general. Jam-packed full of information, Bobrick also manages to slip in fascinating and often very funny anecdotes as well. Anyone interested in an overall look at the Revolution should pick up this book.

This book would be a great addition to a social studies classroom when discussing the American Revolution. It is an overview of the American Revolution beginning with the unrest in the colonies. The book includes photographs and historical documents that would be helpful for students conducting research on specific aspects of the American Revolution. The book is broken into short sections, sometimes only a page, which summarize each battle and important event. I especially liked the short pages of information on the loyalists and the American patriots. The information helped students understand these two groups better than the social studies textbook. Each section also includes a "Quick Facts" box that gives interesting information and historical quotes on the topic of the section. The addition of a glossary at the back of the book was useful for students who were researching information and may not have known what an emissary or a siege was for example. The book is very appealing in its layout and illustrations/photographs.

Excellent book on the history of translating the Scriptures into English

This Russian ruler always freaked me out, probably because of the Eisenstein epic movie. He didn't receive the moniker of 'Terrible' by being a nice next-door neighbour, but I think the author does an excellent job of expanding the overall personality of Ivan. After all, the Russian Empire really started with him, as he started consolidating all the different geographic pieces. He was a true Renaissance prince and ranks up there with Louix XI and Henry VII.

The Russian character comes through strongly also, which is refreshing. Overall, the tome is well-written and a good read when a terrible gale is a-blowin'.


Book Season = Winter

The author makes a strong but not entirely convincing case that the Battle of Nashville was THE decisive battle of the Civil War and that General George H. Thomas, the Union commander, was the greatest of all Union generals. Bobrick also has some compelling criticisms of Grant and Sherman. Accessbile and abundantly illustrated.

An informative, engaging overview of the Olympic Games from their beginning in ancient Greece through the "Nazi Olympics" of 1936 in Berlin.

Excellent book! Gives an indepth view of the making of the King James Translation. How, who, when, where and why... it is all here. The detail is wonderful. I recommend this to someonw who is really interested in the topic and wants to know not only what happened, but why it happened and who were all the playes; the impact on history and why there is no other translation quite like the King James.

All Christians should read this book. It gives a better understanding of the bible and how it was meant to be used and why it is still important 400 years later!

This book is a historical facts book on the Revolutionary War. It covers all of the events that took place during and around the time of this War.

I am in agreement with the other two reviews at this time. For me there was much added information on Thomas that I was interested in and happy to read. That Thomas was underrated and under appreciated is a case well worth pursuit, but this book was in need of more supporting information as it was a soft oversell on Thomas. The intent to blame Grant and Sherman as the source of most of the problems Thomas had actually detracts from his case for Thomas. The next step is a more balanced book evaluating his worth.

I was disappointed that there wasn't much new infromation in the book. Most of the details are taken from past published books. His defense of Thomas as the best Union General is admirable, however he could have exemplified how Thomas built an affective fighting force from the hand me downs that Sherman passed off to him. The accusations that both Sherman and Grant were jealous of Thomas' successes and worked towards down playing his accomplishments should have been better proven. .½

It's hard to sweep away decades of thinking to try to get a fresh perspective of history. With little to go on aside from the slanted writings of people, re-writing events to reflect well on themselves, one has little to fall back on except official records and documents, which can be slow and contradictory. General George Thomas is one historical figure long overdue for a fresh look, and not just because of his record in battle. His character, his decision to fight with the Union even after his state seceded, and the experiences of his formative years are all aspects of his life and legacy that I hunger for, and I thank Benson Bobrick for provoking that hunger. While I do agree that the book is a little overly energetic at promoting General Thomas, my own understanding of Sherman, Grant and the whole sorry political state of Union military history makes Bobrick's case for him. I did not expect this book to be a definitive "last word" on General Thomas - or Grant and Sherman, for that matter, so I was not so disappointed as some in the tone of the book. I felt the book was well-written and did credit to what I understand to be General Thomas' character. It satisfied my curiosity, piqued my interest to learn still more, and left me wishing the book was longer; and I reckon that is as good a testimony of the book's value as any.

While not as nuanced as Nicolson’s God’s Secretaries, Bobrick casts a wider net over the Englishmen who deigned to translate the Latin Bible—Wycliffe, Tyndale, et al. He includes more materials from contemporary writers and shows how each successive generation added a new layer onto the Bible, ending with the King James Version. Complete with appendices containing a side-by-side comparison of the translations, this was a very well-put-together volume.½

An older but excellent book on the life of Ivan the terrible. Peter the Great and later tsars did terrible things too but Ivan got the label. It is well deserved. The difficulty with Ivan IV is that actual records are sparse. A serious academic history which sticks to the facts is Ivan the Terrible by S. F Platonov (see my review). The main point of contention with Ivan is whether or not he was seriously mentally disturbed or just bad. Histories of him tend to see the pathology but as Platonov points out, he retained his intellectual powers till near to the end of his life. So it is a puzzle.
If you like historical fiction you will probably enjoy this book though it is not a novel.

Great and joyful rendition of the Revolution. You really get a great appreciation for Washington.½