Expansion Books

Faiths and Avatars, Powers and Pantheons, and Demihuman Deities make up for one of the BEST Forgotten Realms accessories (they are in trilogy form) ever made. The Trilogy sheds light on exactly what the title says: Gods-and there sure is lots of them! The books, which are very well written and very well presented, also focus on other areas such as each church's distinct culture, tradition, and history. As a result, they will win you over for sure!

Eric Boyd does a FANTASTIC job of presenting the different pantheons, ranging from background history, to rank descriptions, to their respective magic, thus allowing for the creation of important people and characters, to adventure hooks and encounter tables, to magical items and artifacts, to new spells and treasures. This accessory has it all and more!
Each god has his own supplementary text information, clerics' and worshippers' alignments, Specialty Priest class and their alignments, church symbols, specific spells, special abilities, dress garb, even information relating to actual temples.

For other FR references/adventures, I STRONGLY recommend: the Old Empires accessory on Chessenta, Mulhorand, and Unther, Dreams of Red Wizards on Thay, Dwarves Deep, Draconomicon, the Jungles of Chult and Moonsea accessories, the Shadowdale, Tantras, and Waterdeep adventures, the Ruins of Myth Drannor (Elven pantheon) and the Ruins of Zhentil Keep Box Sets for Bane vs Cyric material (they are Second Edition AD&D, out of print and it will take a bit of searching, but it's well worth it). For updated editions of events in the Realms, see the Third Edition Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, which even though is quite expensive, is still very useful to all FR fans.

Moreover, for those interested in the gods, the Forgotten Realms novels to read are: The Avatar Trilogy- Shadowdale, Tantras, and Waterdeep, the Prince of Lies, and Crucible: the Trial of Cyric the Mad. In addition, the Ring of Winter is relevant to the Chultan pantheon and specifically to Ubtao, as it is the only novel set in the Jungles of Chult.

Faiths and Avatars, Powers and Pantheons, and Demihuman Deities along with the Forgotten Realms Adventures accessory, and the three Forgotten Realms Campaign Settings (one for each edition) are a "must!" They all compliment each other.
Whether you are playing in the Forgotten Realms or in the Planes, this trilogy of books will be of tremendous help in collecting all the information you'll ever need.

This book and its second sequel, Demihuman Deities, should be on every player's shelf. Powers & Pantheons (the book directly following this) was a big let down.

F&A is still a very worthwhile buy, even if you've converted to 3rd. Most of the material is story based (rather than mechanics based.) It's worth it for information on Moander, Bhaal, and some other deities who `died.' Some of the deities were shortchanged in the newer FR hardcover. F&A has complete write-ups and pictures for these gods as well.

Definitely an excellent guide to every major religion in the Realms. There do happen to be a few missing, but it's neither here nor there when you take in all of the information for use in your Forgotten Realms campaign. From specialty priests and their specifics to god-specific spells, you've got enough information to answer any strange question your players throw at you, or at least enough information to squeek your way out of it. This is a must-have item for anybody who uses religion as a role-playing tool in their campaign.

In my humble opinion, this should be bought if you are planning to play a campaign in the Forgotten Realms setting. This book has it all. It explains the history of religion in the realms, it explains the expectations of the clerics in each religion. The granted powers of the clerics are very powerful, but can be adjusted for any campaign. It explains the allies and foes of each religion, the restrictions, the minimum requirements, and day to day duties. It would take me more than a 1000 words to give the book the justice it deserves.

One of the best accessories for the Forgotten Realms setting. If you have clerics as PC or NPC in your campaign, you shouldn't wait any more to get this one. Has every god of the FR with lot or informations about pantheon, church and above all the specialist priests for all gods. Don't wait! You are missing something really incredible! Hope you enjoy it as much as me and my players did!

I usually don't read a lot of historical fiction, but this book was recommended as being quality, and they were right.

The characters are well written and believable, if a bit to "tragic" in the ancient literature sense. I was pleased to see Xenaphon as a character, as I have always been fascinated with the man. I also liked seeing a main character with enough flaws to make him seem believable without being gimped.

The story itself is well written and interesting conjuring images of other stories such as The March Of 10,000 and the movie 300.

I am not a big fan of magic making it's way into my historical fiction, but the way it was used didn't detract to much and was held to the ancient traditions, which worked.

The best part of this story is the history. Gemmell clearly knows his stuff and it shows. Historical fiction focusing on ancient times can be a bit fud, as there are less sources allowing the author to feel more ability to dramatize the history. Gemmell doesn't fall into this trap and the book feels very "real" for me.

This and Dark Prince are both some very good reading for any fan of historical fiction. Gemmell really did his homework on Sparta and the Greeks for these couple of books. Reading them both was a great plessure for me. Parmenian is a great lead character and Gemmell finds plenty of other likable characters to further the story. The battles are great as can be expected from Gemmel. Really historical fiction as it ought to be written.

I absolutely love David Gemmell, but this book was definitely not on par with some of his others. The writing was still crisp and clean, the action excellent, the characters interesting, entertaining, and three-dimensional, but the storyline fell short. I will always recommend any of David Gemmell's writing, but I would recommend some of his others first before the Lion of Macedon.

Parmenion is part Macedonian and part Spartan. Growing up in Sparta, he is never accepted by the other youth. Hate builds in his heart for Sparta and is fully realized after he defeats one of Sparta's best warriors. From then on his mission is to destroy the world's best fighting force. Sparta has never been defeated in battle when they have an equal or greater number of warriors.

Tamis is a seeress that has seen the future and found that there is only one man who can defend the world from the evil that is descending upon it. She ostracizes Parmenion from everything that he loves so he can become the deadliest warrior and general in the world and combat the evil coming.

David Gemmell continues with his excellent writing, but this story has been played out many times. He wrote a book in his Drenai tales that is similar to the Lion of Macedon (The King Beyond the Gate). I still recommend this book to those who love reading about ancient Greece and avid fantasy readers. Enjoy!

I had put off reading this along with Dark Prince and the Troy series. Even though I was a huge fan of David Gemmell, I never really liked historical fiction. When I heard of his passing, I was sad that I would have no new fiction of his to read ever again, so I went out and picked up the Troy novels, Dark Prince and this one. I am delighted that this is a classic Gemmell tale with a liberal dash of historical names. Though he is historically accurate as far as the end results, how he arrives is entirely his own doing. The story centers around a half Spartan/half Macedonian named Parmenion who grows to be the greatest general of the known world. The story covers the fall of Sparta as the main power of Greece, as well as the rise of Thebes. It ends with the birth of Alexander the Great. It is a very good story with typical Gemmell battles, grand heroes, and the ever present magic of the source. This story is a winner.

Gemmell's ambitious book takes an intimate look at a name that is associated with Alexander the Great, but not much else is known about him.
He is Parmenion, called the Death of Nations.
This is a very underrated book within David Gemmell's ever-increasing back catalouge. As guessed, it is situated in ancient Greece, several decades before the emergence of the great conqueror Alexander the Great.
We get to meet the main character, Parmenion, when he is just a young boy. He is a half-Spartan who is victimised, bullied, and despised by the Spartans. The Spartans are a warrior race who value military skills above all others. Their prejudice towards outsiders is just as legendary as their prowess on the battlefield.
Will Parmenion be able to rise above this, will he become bitter and twisted, will there be any joy in the life of this sorrowful, but brilliant boy? These are the kind of questions you will ask yourself as you read through the novel. I couldn't put it down! In the best of Greek tradition, the story is essentially a tragedy. Just when you thik good things will happen for our character, they will be just as quickly snatched away.
I think anybody who had a rough childhood would really relate to Parmenion. David Gemmell gives him life through the pages without descending into maudlin sentimentality. The reader can appreciate the motives for his actions, you are swept into his world and will cheer his triumphs against the odds, and you may shed a tear or two when things just don't work out for him.
I loved this book. Read it if you enjoyed the new Troy novel, or the films Alexander or Troy. Or just read it if you want to read about a boy rising past the abuse of his peers to become one of the greatest generals yet known.

I read this after reading "A Terrible Glory" and was amazed that so much Native American testimony of the battle is available, even if it is fragmentary, contradictory, and often given decades after the events they describe. Some of the Native veterans of this battle were still alive in the 1940s and 50s and still offering views of what happened. Of the thousands of people in that village that was attacked by Custer, it seems a shame that only 40 or so seem to have ever had their memories recorded by historians or military or civilian interviewers. Why were so many of the others neglected? This is a compelling account of the battle and, along with the archaeological record and Army records up to the time that Reno's unit split from Custer's, is basically all that is available. Unless something else turns up.

Michno's work is excellent, with the exception of his failure to include the reports of the Crow scouts. The main question that plagued me (and historians) is: Did Custer or any main body approach or cross the LBH? Michno partly answers the question: By focusing on the stories of the four to eight defenders at the river, Michno proves an Army force went to the river and was repulsed. He also provides strong analysis that it was not Custer, nor were there two deaths at the river. The best book on the incident by far.

Author Greg Michno put a valiant effort into reconciling the multitude of Native American testimonies that surround the Little Big Horn battle. I personally wish he would have quoted their exact testimony, THEN provided his interpretation of their statements. It would have saved me time in looking up their actual statements in my collection. Obviously, there is much dispute over what a particular warrior was trying to say and in most cases, Mr. Michno's views are as valid and thoughtful as most. I did find some of his "Discussions" contradictory however. For example, when discussing the "Henryville" archeological finds, Mr. Michno states that these shots could not have been fired at the soldiers on Calhoun Hill. In support, he states that the Native Americans did not shoot it out with the soldiers at close range, preferring instead to snipe from long range. Thus, this position "had to be" occupied later in the battle. He also states in that discussion that the warriors did not close for hand-to-hand combat. This is contradicted by his interpretations that 1)they did charge in this battle,overrunning the soldier positions 2) that in the earlier stages of the battle they primarily used bows and arrows (very short range weapons, especially when firing uphill), 3) in order to reach positions to charge they had to close to very short range, & 4) that tests proved that the effective range of the Henry and Winchester rifles was only about 100 yds, with hits dropping off dramatically at greater ranges.

Overall, however, his book provides food for thought and helps fill a niche that has been too often overlooked.

researched and written by an author who makes his point by badmouthing and criticizing all other authors. His points are well taken, however; this has been written by a person who has never witnessed, or experienced the fog of war. Much of his less than honorable mentions of other ideas would have had more bearing if he took that into account. Still, much of it is enjoyable, although hard to follow with his jumping around, discounting one indians theory while using another to make his point.

This book is excellent for those who are interested in a detailed history of the battle at Little Big Horn - "Custer's Last Stand" from the indian's point of view. The author painstakingly breaks the battle into 10 minute intervals from start to finish based on interviews with the various tribe members. His goal is not to "De-Bunk" all that we have read and studied about the battle but to give a well balanced narrative based on those who did survive it. It is well worth the time and effort of the reader.

Account of weights and measures in America, with particular attention to the relationship between the land, the people, and the system of surveying the land. How we measure, market, and possess our geographical space has impacted our politics and our people immensely, Linklater argues.

He also traces the history of the metric system, and its creation and growth at the same time that the US and England were pursuing their own (and finally failed) attempts at new decimal-based weights and measures.

This is a phenominal read for any thinking person with a general knowledge of American History and an interest in technology, politics, and science. It is the story of the measurement of the continental US - starting with the application of the instruments and techniques of Europe to the mountains, forests, swamps and plains of the American Repubic - and of the development of American technology and standards to meet the needs - and the story of this land measurement overlaying and contending with the existing land measurement systems of the other colonizers. It is a story of personal heroism of the explorers and surveryors in marking out a continent and transforming the wilderness into cities and farms, the story of greed and claim jumping, the story of how the law learned to cope with all of the issues. Seldom is a book interesting both as to science and technology and history and people at the same time, but this work is fascinating on every page. I've never seen anything like it other than Boorstein's The Discoverers.

Linklater's book is a very easy read but is obviously done, not by a historian, but a journalist interested in history. Many historical inaccuracies appear in the book that would not have appeared if there had been anyone checking for accuracy. Linklater states that there were three original signers of the Declaration of Independence (there were 5), a major mistake that should have been caught. Another is the fact that he doesn't know one Native Indian tribe from the other and misquotes his sources, when he bothers to note them. Writing a book on both history and science requires that the individual writing such a book should at least have someone double checking his or her accuracy. There is no or little documentation of where he gets his sources. His sources are mentioned by page number at the end of the book and you have to guess which quote or information is being referenced. No end notes or footnotes exist. As a historian, I have no idea whether or not the scientific end of this book is just as flawed or not, but does make it slightly suspect.

However, Linklater gives an excellent representation of the times, the people involved and the places in surveying and laying out the Trans-Appalachian West. His character portraits are interesting to read, giving people like Washington, Jefferson, and less known persons such as Masseneh Cutler and Ferdinand Hassler a human look to the reader. The writing is in narrative format and not difficult. In fact, it's probably the only book that will actually have the non-scientific reader understanding what all the various confusing measurements mean! Linklater is a good author, he just needs to have someone go over his facts a bit more strenously and get a better format for his research and his book.

In his book Measuring America, Andro Linklater does a very good job at surveying the history of land surveys in Europe and the United States and the reason why the length 22 yards is so darn important. Starting in England with the end of feudalism and the beginning of private land ownership, Linklater eventually crosses the Atlantic and focuses on surveying and private land ownership in the expanding United States of America. The author shows that the Gunter's chain, a 22 yard surveying instrument, is the only constant measure through hundreds of years of Western Civilization and has left its mark all across America as the basis of our public land surveys. I know this all too well - the high school where I teach sits on a 40 acre square [well, there is the little piece across the street added later for the farm, but the original campus is 40 acres] or 440 yards by 440 yards [20 chains by 20 chains]. This area is also a ¼ of a ¼ of a section in the US public land survey and is squared off with sides running exactly north-south and east-west. It makes it easier to teach about maps and directions, but imposing squares on an undulating landscape has always seemed against our better knowledge of ecological principles. I think my biggest gain from reading Measuring America was learning of a reason to feel better about all the squares - Linklater makes the case that the squares are more democratic. I wish Linklater had tied all his important points together more tightly and hence the 4 star rating. Measuring America is quite an education and well worth the read.

The new United States ran up a huge debt during the War for Independence. In the days before income taxes, the government turned to selling off federal lands to pay it down. But until lands were surveyed, they couldn't be sold. The need for funds was urgent, so surveys had to be completed quickly. The expedient solution was to use grids based on the 66-foot Gunter's Chain, ignoring natural features such as mountains and rivers. Today, the layouts of Cleveland, Chicago, Salt Lake City and Portland, Oregon--in fact most cities west of the Ohio River--owe the orientation and spacing of their street grids to an army of surveyors dragging their standardized chains behind them. The social impacts of this process are unexpected: Rampant land speculation and manipulation for one; Social isolation of Midwestern farming families for another.

Along the way, we learn about the struggle to resolve confusion over measures: In 18th-Century England, bushels could be of eight different sizes, each filled in either of two ways--heaped up or struck off level. Standardization was needed, but the opportunity to decimalize was missed, leaving the United States as the only non-metric country today. The default surveyors' standard used was the chain--because of tradition, not by conscious choice. Our 640-acre sections and our quarter-acre suburban lots are all based on this 400-year-old measure.

This wonderfully detailed book is about much more than measurement. It explains the novel idea that property can be bought and sold--a concept that came to Europe much later. It demonstrates how much of the vitality of the young United States came from opportunities provided to its citizens through acquiring land.

Informative, interesting, very readable and highly recommended.

I come from Paris, Illinois and grew up with the mistique of Lincoln. He was a circuit Lawyer who tried cases in the Paris Court House. My parents owned a piano that matched one in the Lincoln White House. I heard a review of the book on NPR and was intrigued. Now is a great time to become more familiar with Lincoln. Our president-elect Obama makes reference to events and speeches recounted from Lincoln's Springfield days. It reads like a novel and paints wonderful vinettes of life in the 1830s thru 1860s.

I enjoyed the author's inclusion of information from letters to Mary's confidents and the interests that the Lincoln's share - theater, poetry and literature of the day. The book reads like a drama not unlike some of our more recent first couples of the land. The ambition shared, the personal failings of character they each had. Finally, the strength of character that made A. Lincoln such a remarkable President.

Epstein's biography of President and Mrs. Lincoln's marriage is relentlessly depressing. Is it an accurate reflection of their living relationship? Perhaps, but it is hard to see in this account the genius who belonged to the ages.

In Epstein's view, Lincoln's fault was an occasional distance that removed him spiritually and psychologically from a scene even when he was bodily there; Mary Lincoln's faults, were, well, everything else. No doubt she is a tragic figure in history, but painting her as relentlessly jealous, grasping, domineering, bitter, shrewish, over-ambitious, corrupt, and violent has the perhaps-intended effect of adding new arguments in favor of Lincoln's qualifications for sainthood. I was left feeling pity for her, and wonderment that he maintained his calm in the face of such a harridan. . . .

. . . And I was also left feeling that Epstein has stacked his argument. Surely no man, saintly as we know Lincoln was, would have voluntarily persevered so nobly of his wife really was as Epstein paints her. A marriage requires an attraction of eye, mind, and soul between two people that Epstein is never able to find.

Part of the problem with this book, is hinted at in Ken Burn's back-cover praise for the book: "Will we ever tire of trying to understand this man?" The primary sources, and prime facts, have already been mined and memorized so thoroughly that there is nothing new left by which we can get a handle on Lincoln, so Epstein's effort is bound to appear strained. And because there is little primary documentation that sheds light on the Lincolns' marriage, Epstein has to speculate and extrapolate too often. Epstein is finally left to argue at times that paucity of documentation is proof of distance, which may be true, especially during the White House years when some of Mary's absences and silences seem oddly timed--but may also be the result of historical accident (lost documentation) or intentional forgetfulness (selective destruction of documentation to maintain privacy).

Epstein's account does provide the valuable service of reminding us that Lincoln, so often portrayed as the larger-than-life lone hero, was in fact husband first, then father, then President, before attaining historical canonization. These reminders are most necessary and most interesting at times of the greatest danger in Lincoln's brief Presidential career--the 1861 train ride into Washington under threat of assassination, and the 1864 stand on the Washington, DC ramparts under threat of gunfire, for example.

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) was a poor Kentuckian who rose to national stature becoming elected our 16th President of the United States in 1861. Most lists of the best presidents place him at the top. His wife Mary Todd Lincoln (1818-1882) was the daughter of the socially prominent Todd family of Lexington, Ky. Their marriage was difficult, tragic and worthy of the skills of a great biographer.Epstein succeeds in his portrayal of their troubled life together in nineteenth century frontier America and in the halls of power in Washington DC during the dark days of the Civil War.
Abraham Lincoln married Mary in 1842. They were living in Springfield, Illinois where the state capital had recently been relocated from Vadelia.
Abraham had raised himself by the bootstraps., He began life as a poor lad growing up with very little schooling on the Kentucky and Indiana frontier. After migrating to Illinois he tried his hands at many jobs before become a circuit riding lawyer. Mary was a wealthy woman from Lexington who spoke French, was well educated and grew up a few miles from the home of Kentucky's famous Whig Senator Henry Clay. Mutual friends brought the two together drawn by passion, Whig politics and wit.
After a stormy courtship which led to a time of separation the two were wed in 1842. Lincoln was tall while Mary was short. Mary had a vicious temper, tart tongue and was moody. Lincoln and she became the parents of four sons. Robert the eldest was a Harvard graduate and became president of a railroad company. Eddie died in 1850 while Willie died in 1852 as a result of cholera while living in the White House. Tad died in 1871. Mary and Abraham were permissive parents; Mary never got over the tragic loss of her sons and two of her brothers fighting for the Confederacy during the Civil War. The two were often apart for weeks as Lincoln tried cases across Illinois and served a term as a congressmen in Washington during the Polk administration. =Mary and the boys tried life in Washington but grew homesick for Kentucky and Illinois leaving the lonely Lincoln to fulfill his term as a one term congressman who opposed the Mexican War.
Lincoln won the White House as a Republican in the election of 1860 facing the problems of civil war. Northerners falsely accused Mary of being a Southern spy! Mary was much scorned by elite Washington society as being a crude Westerner. She spent lavishly on redecorating the White House earning a good deal of justifiable criticism from the public and her own frugal husband. Mary was jealous of other younger and more beautiful women in wartime Washington.
Abraham Lincoln was a melancholy man who kept his thoughts to himself. He was intellectually miles ahead of the moody Mary. The two kept relatively separate lives during the dark days of the Civil War. They did love one another and neither had extramarital affairs. President Lincoln knew how to handle Mary in her time of mental afflictions even though he sometimes suffered her wrath. She was known as a hellcat and many found it difficult to work with her. Others such as Senator Charles Sumner considered her a friend. Mary had a good heart often visiting wounded soldiers and helping friends. She was not an easy person to know or like.
Tragedy came to the couple when Lincoln was assassinated at Ford's Theatre on April 15, 1865. Mary was devasted never really recovering her mental stability following the death of Abraham, her children and the tragedies of the Civil War.
Hundreds of books have been written about both Lincolns but this is the best popular and readable history of their marital life. Epstein has done his homework.Epstein makes his two complex subjects come alive for the reader. The book is over 500 pages of small print which is detailed but never dull. An excellent book by an excellent biographer. Highly recommended!

I have not finished this book yet but will soldier on through to the end. I have read so many books about Abraham Lincoln and also about Mary Todd Lincoln and have found them much more readable. I feel the author has tried to drag out the narrative to fill a 500 page book. The lives of A. and M.T. Lincoln are so compelling and the book should be as well. P

The "portrait" of this famous couple's relationship is not an accurate portrayal, rather it is a whitewashing of Mary Lincoln's destructive role in it. While there can be no doubt that it began with great cherishing on both sides, Mary's narcissistic, violent and venal character twisted their love into something so meaningless that little survived it but tolerant loyalty on his part and hysteria on hers.

As the author admits, it is no longer fashionable to paint Lincoln as a saint and the movement to rehabilitate Mary has gained momentum of late, especially as evidenced by Epstein's own "Portrait." In truth, Mary represented a civil war within the Lincolns' personal lives and was the worst possible mate for this complex man.

Nonetheless, Epstein would have you believe that Mary gave Lincoln self-confidence, was his intellectual equal, provided a nourishing home life and partnered him in his ambitions. She had long ago determined to marry a "president" and by damn, she'd make her man one even if he was too gutless to do it himself. And thus you have Epstein's version of Mary the dynamo and Lincoln her bright but vacillating vessel.

The objective evidence of their lives (i.e., less advocacy-prone studies than Epstein's), indicate that the substantive merit was on Lincoln's part and Mary was at first helpful, then incidental and finally detrimental to his success. Long before they reached the White House, Mary had become an albatross; unstable and frightening.

At first she was an amazing catch for this gangly lad - pretty and vivacious, well-connected, educated and flatteringly adoring. But the flaws in her personality surfaced within months of their marriage when he, abstracted at breakfast one morning, failed to take note of her chatter and she threw a cup of scalding coffee in his face, witnessed with horror by several residents of their boarding house. Other incidents of hitting, screaming, and slapping followed - including one when she smashed his face with a piece of firewood and another when she attacked him with a kitchen knife. And these were pre-presidential public displays - God knows what happened when no one was present to report it.

And how does Epstein report such violence? "So she struck her husband from time to time..." Not a big deal. It was beyond her control. And Lincoln "sulked and brooded and grieved over it if he could not laugh it off." Like most domestic abusers, Mary was contrite, but repeated the addictive behavior. And thank God for servants because she could beat them with impunity and regularly did so.

Mary's violence was so notable that the Springfield sheriff reported that Lincoln would sometimes pick up one of the boys and walk away until Mary "returned to her senses". Epstein writes about this domestic horror like it was just a normal backyard tiff instead of Lincoln trying to escape his wife's violent rages and protecting his children from possible harm. Epstein hustles this ugliness offstage in preference to imaginary scenes of fireside bliss where the two of them read poetry and Shakespeare and Lincoln even reworked his political speeches until the astute Mary was satisfied.

What astonished this reader more than Epstein's scenes of fictional harmony in Springfield was his deliberate refusal to acknowledge Mary's latent and later, patently manifest, mental illness. She suffered bouts of "moodiness", yes he admits that, but bi-polar? Epstein never mentions it, even in view of today's understanding of Mary's severe mental illness. (See Robert Lincoln's "Insanity File", in which her son discloses during conservatorship proceeding Mary's post-assassination paranoia, obsessive/compulsiveness and bizarre hallucinations: iron pins coming out of her eyes, an Indian ghost who peeled back her skull and removed her brains, then replaced them, and endless purchasing of hundreds of articles of unused clothing and curtains.)

The minutiae of the Lincolns' political journey to the White House is exhaustively documented, as is the marital breakdown the couple sustained once they had achieved their presidential dream.

Lincoln did the best he could for the good of the union and suffered for it profoundly. Mary, meanwhile, indulged in expensive shopping junkets, embezzled government funds, took instantly to influence peddling for her family and friends, tampered with the White House payroll, and engaged in actual treason. She was seen by all who interacted with her as overbearing, strange and demonic, even evil.

But it wasn't Mary's fault! It was the lack of time with her husband, her natural innocence and lack of a moral compass! It was Willie's sad death and the pressure and frustration of the job of having to look pretty and entertain all those people. No one understood the headaches and work, the having so much money to spend, and her desperation in trying to hide it once it got out of hand. Mary's sojourn as First Lady is a nightmare to read, but really, urges Epstein, don't blame her.

Epstein manages to equate Lincoln's failure to share military/state secrets with his duplicitous wife to a justifiable quid pro quo refusal on her part to come clean on her secret spending and unsavory relationships. And while Lincoln worked in a coma of exhaustion, Mary's sole objective was to keep him from knowing how serious her underhanded deeds had become. And of course to keep spending, spending, spending.

Lincoln's assassination was both a shock and relief to Mary, a horrible thing to say even now. But Mary's self interest had clearly grown beyond her. Narcissistic, mad and self indulgent as she was, Lincoln had been the only person who gave her latitude, compassion and tolerance, and it is no wonder that she lost her small scrap of sanity when he died. Lincoln had reigned in, even controlled to some degree, Mary's most unmanageable and disturbed personality manifestations, and his death triggered a complete implosion that lasted until her death seventeen later.

Anyone who parses the endless Lincoln studies knows well that, however great his genius, Lincoln was tortured by his own neurotic, insecure and depressive nature. But he was not psychotic. Mary was, destructively so.

"The Lincolns: A Portrait of a Marriage" is a long read and a well-researched one, but too partisan for a healthy portrayal of Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln and the reality of their internal dynamics. Worse, it minimizes the damage Mary's madness and greed had upon a truly great man and a nation in shock at itself.

Five stars for research but one for conspicuous bias = two stars.

I almost picked a shorter book about Jackson rather than try to tackle this three volume set, but judging by the first volume there is no question I made the right choice!

This is one of the best biographies I've ever read; not only is the subject compelling, but it is superbly written and the balance of information (like the selection of anecdotes and quotes) is perfect. It even includes a timeline and family trees (why don't more authors do this?). Also, Remini isn't afraid to offer analysis as he goes; it makes the book more interesting and I think it ultimately makes it more objective because you understand his biases.

My only quibble, and this is very minor, is the author (or publisher's) decision to blank out the swear words. Jackson swore to great effect, and this quasi-censorship diminishes that effect a little.

Andrew Jackson is one of the more complicated figures in American history. On the one hand, his significance to the development of the United States as a nation is large. On the other hand, he was often a very unpleasant person.

This first volume in Robert Remini's biography follows Jackson's life from his childhood through his governorship of Florida. Along the way, we learn of Jackson's brief roles in both houses of Congress and his period as a judge; it is later, however, when he joined the military (becoming a general through politics rather than merit), that Jackson rose to nationwide prominence, especially his overwhelming humiliation of the British in the Battle of New Orleans and his later dealings with Indians and the Spanish which led eventually to the U.S. acquiring Florida.

His military victories made him one of the most popular people in American history, but Remini pulls no punches with Jackson's flaws, including his often brutal and bullying nature and his tendency to violence. The ambiguous circumstances involving how he married his wife Rachel would lead to nasty talk during his presidential campaigns and his killing of a man in a duel (was it murder?) wouldn't help either.

Having been previously exposed to Remini's writing through his brilliant biographies of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, I knew this book would be a pleasure to read, and it was. Remini has written the definitive biography of Jackson, very detailed but always objective and always entertaining. If you want to learn of this era and of one its pivotal figures, this is the book to read (plus the other two in the series).

This meticulously researched and wonderfully written book is the first volume in a three-part biography of Jackson that will undoubtedly set the standard for years to come.
Part of what makes Remini's work so useful is that he does not rely solely on American sources but has also dug deep into the Archivo General de Indies in Seville, Spain in order to try to see Jackson from the viewpoint of the Spanish colonial government. It was this research that led Remini to his main thesis in this book which is that Jackson, thru his military exploits against the Indians of the southern United States (notably the Creek, Choctaw, Cherokee, Seminole and Chickasaw tribes) and against the Spanish in Florida did as much or more than any other individual to extend U.S. territory into much of Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and all of Florida. One of the more interesting revelations of the book for me was the mutual admiration and the shared goals at this point in their lives between Jackson and Monroe's Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams.
In fact, Remini makes a good argument that Jackson's military exploits in that region were is what enabled Adams to deal so successfully with the Spanish in negotiating the Trans-Continental Treaty of 1819. This treaty formalized the recognition of the European powers of the territory added to the U.S. by Jefferson in the Louisiana Purchase. Up until then the purchase was widely recognized as illegal.
So why don't I give this book a higher rating? I think that Remini falls prey to a common tendency of American historians who take on the task of writing the lives of our great men. As a reading public, we do not seem to want to acknowledge the dark side of our leaders or our history. As a result, it is difficult to write biographies that do not border on hagiography. Remini for the most part avoids this failing. He is clear about Jackson's violent (murderous, really) temper, his tendency to bully others until they gave in and his paternalism. This is not a man I would have wanted to know.
Where Remini does not quite live up to his own standards is in regards to Jackson's (to my mind) overt racism. Jackson regarded the presence of the Indians anywhere in territory that was being settled by Americans as unacceptable unless the Indians were willing to give up their tribal territories, accept a farming plot and become good little American citizens. Remini tries to convince his readers that Jackson the paternalist hated only the tribes not the individual Indians and that therefore Jackson and his policies were not racist (see the discussion on p. 337). I leave it up to the reader of this review whether this defense is adequate. I think that the last fifty years has amply proved that a racist can befriend individual members of the hated group as long as that individual keeps their place. I think that this is actually a rather common type of racism and Jackson exemplifies to a plentitude. To be fair to both Remini and Jackson he had a life long history of defending the underdog if they applied to him for protection.
Of course, this makes Jackson a paragon of the southern culture of the time but we also need to be honest about our own history. Jackson was a racist, he initiated Indian policies that were, at the least, marginally genocidal (the Indians called Jackson, Sharp Knife) and he was still one of our greatest men, one who had an enormous influence on our historical destiny. Remini, the good honest scholar that he is, gives us enough material and detail so that we get enough of the story so that we can sort out our own vision of the truth.

In the first of three volumes, Remini carries Jackson from birth to the tragic loss of much of his family in the Revolution, through his early years in politics, his duels, and the Battle of New Orleans, up to his term as first American Governor of the territory of Florida, acquired by his own military victories.

Remini admires Jackson, and argues persuasively for his huge historic importance - not just President Jackson, but the younger Jackson of this book, responsible for acquiring a large chunk of what ultimately became the Southeast USA in several Indian wars and treaty negotiations, the campaigns of the War of 1812, and his subsequent attacks on the Spanish colony of Florida. Many historians have condemned Jackson for siezing Florida without the explicit approval of the Monroe administration; Remini is convincing in his argument that Monroe must have known and encouraged Jackson's actions, although he was careful not to say so directly, since Spain and the US were not at war.

Remini doesn't by any means try to whitewash Jackson. The man shown in these pages is impressive but often distinctly unpleasant. Remini quite directly calls him a 'bully', and the story of his feuds and duels shows a man who is ruthless and foolishly ill-tempered. The ugliest part of the Jackson story is his treatment of the native tribes; Remini offers some half-hearted apologias for Jackson's ruthless treatment even of those natives who fought with him in his campaigns, but tells the facts frankly enough that most readers will come to a harsher conclusion.

Remini shows that Jackson's famous victory in the Battle of New Orleans was a closer thing than is generally supposed. Jackson carelessly left a crucial avenue open to the British, and a more determined general would have marched on the city and probably taken it before Jackson had his defenses properly prepared. As it was, the British foolishly gave Jackson sufficient time to settle in and fortify his line, only then attacking it with disastrous results. Although this battle is often viewed as an afterthought (the Treaty of Ghent, ending the war, was actually signed a few days before the battle was fought), Remini also shows that a British victory would have had real, and catastrophic, consequences for the US.

Along with the colorful and often complex story of Jackson's life and activities, Remini fills in the story with good explanations of the conditions of the period. In particular, he gives a good explanation of the values and traits of westerners, and East-West conflicts, at an early time in the country's history when the Pacific was barely dreamed of and the 'Far West' meant the Mississippi.

Remini's writing is excellent, and the biography is detailed and exhaustively researched without being pedantic or boring.

One might argue that the hallmark of great men is that they fundamentally and permanently alter the world they inherited - its beliefs, its practices, its conception of itself. Andrew Jackson is one of those extremely rare individuals.

In this first of three volumes, which he subtitles "The Course of American Empire," Remini highlights the central role that Jackson played in opening up the early American frontier in the first decades of the 19th century. Long before the expression "Manifest Destiny" ignited the expansionist and nationalist passions of Americans in the 1840s, Andrew Jackson fought single-handedly - and occasionally circumvented direct military orders, the Constitution, local judges, and officially recognized international treaties - to advance American territorial expansion along the southern border and promote the removal of the Spanish, British and myriad tribes of native Americans.

Other salient events that Remini chronicles in this volume include Jackson's humble roots and tragic childhood during the American Revolution in the Carolinas; his move westward to the Tennessee territory to start life anew as a lawyer; the "facts" behind Jackson's much-disputed relationship with his wife, Rachel; his entry into local politics and emergence as a militia leader; his military exploits against the Creeks, the British at the Battle of New Orleans and the Seminoles; and, of course, the many duels, fist-fights and other outlandish events of his early life that he somehow managed to survive.

Much of Volume I reads like a "wild west" novel, but Remini is careful to accentuate how Jackson's natural rough hewn character, along with his experience on the frontier, melded to shape a political philosophy that ultimately altered the course of American government. There is little direct reference to the principles that would become known as Jacksonian Democracy in this volume - an undying faith in the virtue and wisdom of the people, the inviolability of the Union, the pernicious effects of deficit spending and "soft" currency, etc. - but it is easy to understand how and why Jackson cherished those ideals after reading the story of his early life.

Finally, it must be noted that Remini assiduously avoids holding Jackson's conduct in relation to slavery and the Indians to modern standards. In all fairness, that is understandable and not especially offensive. However, Remini does neither himself nor Jackson any service by going out of his way to stress how relatively humane (in Remini's mind) the president was to his human chattel and explaining that he really had the Indians best interests at heart when he forced them from their land to the barren plains of modern day Oklahoma. In this volume and the others, Remini offers some strongly worded criticism of Jackson's political, military and social performance, but his many heinous crimes against humanity are treated with kid gloves throughout.

John Wesley Powell wrote one of the finest dedications that's ever been written when, as a very old man, he penned thanks to the men, dead many years, with whom he'd explored the Grand Canyon and the Colorado River. Those moving words alone intimate the power and excitement awaiting this epic adventure.

Powell's writing is so factual that you have to strain at the words to get a real sense for the incredible dangers that Powell and his men faced. One crew member abandoned early on, and three who gave up just before the expedition's end were killed before ever getting out of the wilderness. Their deaths have been blamed on Mormons or native Americans. Starvation, drowning, and accidental death of every variety threatened the crew at every step of their three-month odyssey.

This trip down the primeval, untamed, terrible Colorado River and the first ever exploration of the Grand Canyon, all done by a one-armed Civil War veteran, ranks perhaps as the literary starting point for the opening of the Southwest. The etchings in the book and the grandeur of the scenery described by Powell are extraordinary.

I started reading this book while on vacation in Mexico and was enthralled from the moment I picked the book up.

The writing style is a tiny bit hard to digest in the beginning, but clears up and gives you a very thorough, easy to follow narrative of the Colorado.

The drawings in the book give you an insight into what they sw along the way, and made the book a truly great read.

Although this one-armed Major from the Civil War has a tendency to marginalize the dangers, turmoil, and strenuous labor that was required to forge the uncharted waters of the Grand Canyon in 1869, you definitely "get it". His descriptions are more of a nuts and bolts account, never waxing poetic nor adding philosophical banter. Through trial and error, they learned how to read the geology and how they could predict what may lie ahead by the types and angles of the strata that formed the river's edge. However, knowing what was ahead only added to the tension and they still had to make crucial last minute decisions, sometimes too late. I was totally enthralled with this adventure and couldn't put the book down.

After I've been down the Colorado through the Canyon 3 times and after having read Stantons "Colorado River Controversies", I had to read the original Diary of Powell. This guy, though daring, did not stick fully to the truth in his diaries, but the descriptions are overwhelming and I loved every word. After all, he was still a youngster in those days - a daredevil. We seem to forget this, as we only know the picture of him in his old days. But I like his guide Sumner better.

How can you rate such a classic?

I got this book to read while I was rafting the Grand Canyon. It was well worth it. John Wesley Powell's description of his unbelivable expedition helped me put into words the spectacular scenes that makes up the Grand Canyon. I recommend this book to anyone who is considering traveling down the Colorado River.

Utley provides plenty of color mixed with easy reading and a biographical narrative style.

The biographical style, with each chapter focused on one or two mountain men, brings the personal color and larger-than-life characters of these rugged individualists to the forefront. It keeps the story as history moving forward at the same time, with the irony that these runaways from Eastern U.S. civilization often wound up serving as scouts for the U.S. Army, the vanguard of the very civilization they had earlier fled.

A Life Wild and Perilous is a thorough and scholarly work of the mapping and settlement of the West. However, it is not dedicated exclusively to the mountain men and how they opened the path to the Pacific, which is the stated premise of the book. I recommend this if you are interested in the efforts of fur business and the military in opening the West, but not as a description of the life of the mountain men. At the times, the detail and prose bog down the narrative, but this book is educational nevertheless.

Robert Utley's "A Life Wild and Perilous..." is a wonderful story of just about the most iconoclastic Americans produced by this country of ours.

The Mountain Men were risk takers, rugged individualists, optimists and American patriots rolled into one (although being patriots did not interfere with some of them taking Mexican or British citizenship when it would help them settle in parts of the West that were not ours before the Mexican-American War).

Utley begins right after the Lewis and Clark expedition, when two of those intrepid expedition members returned to the new lands in search of beaver pelts. The story progresses through the fur trading companies, the likes of Jim Bridger, Kit Carson and ends shortly after the time of Charles Fremont. By the time of the Gold Rush, the mountain men had spent their moment, the victims to changing fashions (beaver pelts were in demand for men's hats primarily) and over trapping as well as growing popular interest in settlement and exploitation of the land.

This book is mostly a chapter examination of the doings of the most famous of the mountain men. Their hard life in the open, scrapes and alliances with natives (many had Indian wives and families), habits of trade and merriment and their epic journeys from there to there are explored in well written and at times riveting detail.

Utley has added to an understanding of the American West by bringing back to life the men who established trade routes, guided the first settlers and importantly mapped and explored the great interior lands of the American continent. This is a great and interesting story told well.

I've read several about this time period and this one was very good, easy to read, interesting.

This is a serious work that gives a complete
chronicle of every detail you could ever want
to know about how the mountain men lived
their perilous lives.
Color maps are a very helpful addition too. It
amazes me how so many books like this
actually leave out any pictorial illustration.
I do wish they were reproduced with the state boundaries
superimposed over them to give you a better idea
where the locations are. (Yes of course those states
weren't founded yet, but we are reading this book at
a time after they WERE; it would help immensely to
know what state the Green River runs through, for example....)

Author Utley appears to have a profound love for the
subject about which he reveals no end of knowledge.
It would be a little difficult to recommend this though
to the casual reader, mainly because Utley doesn't attempt to
reach out to a wide audience. He assumes
a predisposition to the subject, making this book
perhaps not an easy introduction to the mountain men.
There is nothing at all wrong with that, but I feel the
need to take off one point (from what would otherwise
be a sure five-star grade) for his focus on concrete detail,
at the expense of placing the subject into a larger context,
to give the broader significance of what the mountain
men did and what it meant for the country as a whole
-- how their accomplishments shaped our attitudes towards
the idea of westward expansion, and changed (if at all) our
symbolic image of ourselves as a people. Maybe
they didn't change our attitudes about ourselves
at all.

Stewart Mandel draws on his many years of covering college football and lays out all of the sport's flaws as well as why it continues to endear so many of us Saturday after Saturday. His chapters on proliferation bowl games and the inact science of the NFL draft are classics. And it's fun reading.

I read Stewart Mandel's stuff in Sports Illustrated. I like his take on college football. When he wrote this book, I knew that I had to have it. I was not disappointed.

He tackles all the weirdness that is college football. He makes as much sense of the BCS as a person can. He writes about rankings. He tells stories about the great programs and even delves a little bit into history.

All college football fans like to this that they are knowledgeable. Few of us are as knowledgeable as Stewart Mandel. After reading his book, I am a little closer.

I am very pleased with the book and the service provided!

Thanks

Forget the Smith and Street, SI or ESPN's preseason primers this is the only reading you'll need to do to understand this season, last season and a whole lot of others season yet to come.

"(NFL) scouts are to football what the third base coach is to baseball - an excuse for a whole bunch of old-timers to stay a part of the fraternity and collect a paycheck to boot." - Stewart Mandel

There are two U.S. sport seasons: Football and No Football. As far as I'm concerned, it's even a finer point than that: College Football and No College Football. BOWLS, POLLS & TATTERED SOULS tells me more than I thought I wanted to know about the collegiate game. But, now that I've read this book by "Sports Illustrated" writer Stewart Mandel, I'm so very glad that I did. It's a completely absorbing volume that I devoured over two days. I wish it was longer.

Mandel examines ten of college pigskin's greatest ongoing controversies, one per chapter:

1. The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) - how we got to this impasse, who supports it and doesn't, and why it's not likely to change dramatically anytime soon.

2. The team ranking system - its evolution, politics, and how it's affected by the BCS.

3. The Heisman Trophy - its history, and why it's become a media exposure contest not necessarily based on playing ability.

4. The hiring and firing of coaches, particularly the latter - the growth of their salaries and the precariousness of their tenures (or "What have you done lately?").

5. Notre Dame - what makes this independent university so damn special that it has BCS equality with the Pac-10, Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC and Big East?

6. The recruiting of top high school players - the stand-alone spectacle it's become, and the impact of the Web.

7. The formation of, and school re-alignments with, conferences - it's all about money, particularly TV revenue $. (Say it ain't so, Joe!)

8. Post season bowls - their history, why there are so many, and the team motivation (or not) to participate.

9. NFL recruiting - the joke that it's become.

10. Scandals - who the perps are and why the NCAA doesn't necessarily have jurisdiction (much less care).

Mandel being an ultimate insider himself, his book should be required reading for all the insider-wannabe fan(atic)s who populate the off-field margins of the sport and who come off their couches in droves to demonstrate vociferously with torches, pitchforks, tar and feathers whenever their favorite teams, coaches, or players are perceived to have been criticized unfairly or gotten a raw deal in the polls or BCS standings. While BP&TS won't make such partisans more reasonable, it will perhaps raise their stridency level and make the collegiate football season even more deliciously confrontational and loud than it already is. I love it!

I myself have followed USC on and off - mostly off - since the late 60s when I numbered among my friends several who graduated from the university and got me interested in the Trojans' game at the time OJ was still a hero and not a bum. I've never been a fan(atic), but rather now follow the extraordinary career of Coach Pete Carroll and his gridiron squads much as one would intellectually admire the craftwork of an expert glass blower or master stonemason. In the doldrum years of such head coaches as Ted Tollner and Paul Hackett, I couldn't be bothered. I'm a Fair Weather Adherent, and proud of it. (Would I switch allegiance to the UCLA Bruins if their new coach proves as succesful as Uncle Pete? Most assuredly not. Who can root for a team whose colors include powder blue for Chrissakes!) But even I found BP&TS enormously satisfying and interesting for the insider knowledge it imparts and will better appreciate the moment at the beginning of the 2008 season when USC charges onto the field to beat the Bandini out of its first opponent, Virginia.

Fight On!

Brand's has a great style with a smart wit and feel for the times as well as anecdotal material that gives great depth to his writing. His use of Ehrenburg is the first I have seen as source material.

Brands tells a familiar story with competence and sometimes skill. But he ignores 20 years of new scholarship on early Texas, choosing instead to tell the myths one more time. Especially troubling is his handling of slavery in early Texas history--he ignores it almost completely. Texas rebeled against Mexico in large part because the Mexicans were determined to stamp out slavery in their northern province. The Texans at the Alamo were not the good guys.

[Edit: I can't believe some of the reviews of this book. Does no one feel that slavery is a big thing to leave out of Texas history?]

Texas was once part of the Mexican empire (once Mexico achieved it's independence from Spain), but this story details how Texas became it's own nation and, eventually, part of the United States.

H.W. Brands has given us a tale worthy of remembering, and one that provides the reader with an exicting picture of this place called Texas. Brands starts with the American "colonization" of Texas, including the major player of Moses Austin (father of Stephen F. Austin).

The revolution, in which the Texans, much like Americans of only a few generations before, try to break free from the country that politically rules them, covers the majority of the book. Brands descirbes, in vivid terms, the people that were critical in achieving Texan independence, such as Bowie, Houston, Travis, and Fannin. Brands devotes a significant amount of the book to Sam Houston (the first President of Texas), and not nearly enough (in my opinion) to the war of independence, especially the seminal battle at San Jacinto.

I found the book to be very interesting, and well worth reading. The story drew many parallels between the actions of the early Americans fighting for their independence against the British and the Texans fighting against the Mexicans. This time, however, rather than the French and Spanish being the saviors of the rebellious, it was the Americans who came to their aid and helped them to achieve their goal.

H.W. Brands does a really great job of combinding fantastic storytelling with historical fact in a way that is both entertaining and will provide the reader with a good grasp of how Texas became both a nation and eventually a state.

What this book does is trace the origins of both the anglo and hispanic populations of Texas beginning with folks like Moses Austin and later Stephen F. Austin, profiles the greats of Texas history such as Sam Houston, William Travis, and Davy Crockett as well as those on the other side of the conflict: Santa Anna and Martin de Cos.

The main argument of this book is that the revolutionary war in Texas was a disorganized shamble that blundered it's way to freedom. Such disasters as the Alamo and Gonzales could have been avoided or were not really necessary in retrospect, but what they provided were key events that a lot of settlers could draw motivation from. The eventual victory at San Jacinto is told from a different standpoint that you won't find in traditional Texas history books.

What Brands is trying to do is both dispel the myths of the Texas revolution while trying to shed a little light on what actually happened. He does so in a very good way while still giving credit where credit was due. All in all, I highly recommend this book. It's a good general overview and is told in such a way as to keep you turning the pages.