Expansion Books

An excellent counterweight to the usual deification of Jefferson but factually incorrect when she says (p.72) "DNA testing in 1998 proved that Jefferson had indeed fathered at least one of Heming's children."

The testing proved only that "a" Jefferson did so as the authors of the study have labored to make clear. There are other more likely candidates.

I enjoyed "Seduced by the West," though it's a quick read that is more of a lengthy magazine article than really a book.

The books focuses on various efforts to explore and claim the American West including, but not limited to, Lewis & Clark.

The most interesting aspect of the book is the description of various characters, e.g., General James Wilkinson. Wilkinson was supposed to be representing US interests in the ill-defined Louisiana Territories, but he was also apparently being paid by the Spanish. The Spanish, intriguingly, didn't recognize the Louisiana Purchase as their deal to turn Louisiana over to the French had a codicil that it wasn't to be sold to someone else.

I would have preferred the book if it had been more specifically focused on a character like Wilkinson and therefore would have been less of a historical review.

But, within the context of what "Seduced by the West" is, it's an enjoyable read.

This is not as good a work as it had the potential of being. At 199 pages it is short, made shorter still by small pages with large type.

Bouncing from topic to topic, it is an uncoordinated effort. It appears to have been rushed. There are so many ibids and multiple referrals to the same source material in the bibliography that you begin to wonder just how much work went into the research behind it. I was sorry I purchased it.

Everything you could want to know about the problems and controversies affecting Alexander will be found in this book. A gem of a book, a must for anyone interested in Greek history.

This volume contains some interesting articles. Some submissions (Brunt pages 45-51; Narain pages 161-167) are truly rewarding and interesting. But others (Worthington pages 303-316) are just a waste of paper and ink. In general, the editor of this compilation of academic articles seems to lack empathy with the Ancient world to truly understand what he is dealing with. So the whole collection is unbalanced - in quality, perspective, scientific approach. Only readers who are already very familiar with academic studies about Alexander should be able to make a sharp distinction between the worthwile articles and the rubbish.

What annoys me is that of all the published articles, no single one is has a proper date. There is a long article by J.F.C. Fuller, who died in 1966. Fuller was born in 1878 (!), took up interest in Alexander in 1917 (!) and wrote his major works about Alexander around 1957. But Fuller's article in Worthington's reader is published without any proper dating, confusing readers to expect that it might be especially written for Worthington's 2003 edition of "A Reader". That can't be true. Mister Fuller would have been 125 years old!

So Worthington's edition - to me - seems like a hoax.

That doesn't mean that 'some' of the articles aren't truly worthwile. That's why there are still 2 stars in my rating. But in general: I fear that books like this tend to downgrade the overall reputation of a scientist / editor in the long run.

I was very much looking forward to this Heckel/Yardley effort, but the actual book turned out to be something other than I was expecting. Unfortunately, although I suspect it will be extremely popular with undergraduates eager to find a source of citations for their term papers (and too lazy to do their own research), I'd have to say that it fell considerably short of my expectations.

The good news is that the HeckelYardley team includes quite a number of passages from hitherto difficult-to-find English versions of the Metz Epitome, the Itinerary of Alexander, the Heidelberg Epitome, and the Book of the Death of Alexander, all in new translations by the redoubtable Yardley. In addition they provide quotes from other sources, as well as from the five classic biographies, including those from Athanaeus, Cicero and so on. The bad news, from my perspective, begins with the fact that Heckel has chosen to include only representative quotes on each of his chosen topics and has omitted to add a list of the other source citations on those topics, which I think would have considerably increased the value of this book to scholars. Instead, he has clearly aimed this work at students.

It is difficult to blame Heckel and Yardley for this decision, in view of the incredible amount of work they put into their 1997 Clarendon collaboration Justin: Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, Vol. I, Books 11-12: Alexander the Great, only to find that it sold very few copies other than to libraries, in large part because the first printing was priced beyond the reach of any but dedicated scholars. With Sources in Translation's attractive price and broader appeal, they should finally see some decent income from their efforts - and that's a good thing, because, as a team, they have made some major contributions to modern Alexander scholarship and can be expected to make more in the near future.

But, for serious students of Alexander, part of the problem with this book is exactly that it is aimed at those who are less so. Heckel's explanatory snippets are brief, and thus highly-compressed, and therefor necessarily something short of comprehensive. His footnotes are sparing and early on I found a cross-reference in the introduction that pointed to a passage from the Metz that does not actually appear to have made it into the published book - which I take as evidence of poor proofreading on the part of Heckel's editors.

In sum, this is not the book I wish Heckel and Yardley had produced - one which would have collected only passages from sources other than the five mainstay biographies - and I don't think the book they did do is as useful to serious students of Alexander as that one would have been. At the same time, I think this book will be warmly welcomed by the undergraduate community - and I would be surprised if university-level classical history instructors are not inundated by term papers about Alexander (all of which will both be based on this book and parrot Heckel's explanations), from now until the end of time.

I have read extensively on Alexander the Great,as I lived 25 years of my life in the City that he created Alexandria Egypt.This book is a collection of ,Arrian,Justin, Curtius Rufus,Plutarch,Dioduros Siculus,Aelian,Metz Epitome,Strabo the great Geopgrapher. and many more.What makes this book different is how different writers have written about the same subjects about Alexander's life.They differ in many ways,and interpreted in many ways his life.The book also has excerpts of Alexander's original speaches to his Macedonian and Persian army.
In this book there are names of the cities that Alexander founded,excerpts of his will,his final days, his final plans, and what was done about his final decisions.
Although the book is intense it is very readable.
If you really read this book you will see that Alexander indeed wanted to globalize the world.In doing so he had to conquer to be able to do it.Although I think that he was too anxious in doing it, he did bring many races together.Had he lived longer who knows whether he would have been able to conquer the Romans.
Many Roman Ceasars tried to copy him, from his hairstyle to his military genius.However we shall never know.Beeing an Italian and having read extensively and studied Roman History I am sure it would have been something to try and conquer Alexander, or he conquering the Romans.
I enjoyed the book because it made me think more into depth in his strategies of war,and he as a person.

This book's photographs are gorgeous--though there's not enough of them--of snow covered mesas, sacred datura, Bryce Canyon (which isn't really on the Colorado at all), streambeds, waterfalls, canyon walls, cactus, clouds, and shadows.
The introduction is by conservationist David Brower, and is a little pretentious, but most of the text is straight from explorer John Wesley Powell's own account of his trips in the late-1800s, and the photos do a great job of making that text seem especially readable.
There are A TON of books about the Colorado River and the Colorado Plateau...and this...this is another one of them. It's a good one though, and worth considering--whether you're obsessed with reading every single book on the subject, or whether you'd just like one nice one to leave out on your coffee table.

As prior reviews state, the text is well-selected from Powell's journal, and the photographs are superb. But how can the author publish the journal of an explorer without a map keyed to the dates of journal entries? The photographs are superb, but again, not keyed to a map, or even associated with the text. The identifying data for each photo is listed in the front of the book, but is not given on, or near the photograph. A potentially superb book, but, because of these defects and faults, one that is maddening to read.

In contrast to Forsyth's History of the Peoples of Siberia, this semi-popular book emphasizes the Russians. It is a better read, has more human-interest material and has a better account of the Amur region, but has less infromation.
In the first 30 pages we learn that by 1200 the Chinese had been cultivating maize for thousands of years, that 'Budapest' flourished during the middle ages, that Tamurlane was a Mongol and that Tokhtamysh was the nephew of the 'khan of Kazakhstan'. Later we are told that the moment the 'discovery' of the mariner's compass 'made it possible to sail beyond the sight of land', Europeans began dreaming of a sea route to China. He also thinks that the English were on the California coast in 1715. I have never seen so many obvious mistakes in a book from an acedemic publisher. One hopes that he is more accurate in the areas he has researched directly.

A rather thorough history of the Russian annexation and subjugation of Siberia and its peoples. The number of people who died in this conquest is unbelievable partcularly considering the somewhat sparse population. The toll rivals the European conquest of the Americas. However, Lincoln spares the reader from considerable graphic detail. If the subject matter were not so grim, the book would be almost enjoyable due to Lincoln's easy style. Worth reading.

Contact Points provides an excellent collection of essays from top ethno historians including James Axtell, Jane Merritt, Claudio Saunt, and many more. There topics cover a wide range of years and areas all over the eastern seaboard and out into Missouri and the Great Lakes. The general idea of the book is to examine the "frontier" that has been defined in a variety of ways throughout this scholarship. In this case the frontier is defined as a nebulous area where two or more cultures come together. The original frontier thesis proposed by Frederick Jackson turner is in need of revision and this book seeks to offer an explanation. While no one book provides the answer this one does show a reasonable account for defining that frontier. There are strong and weak essays in this book and some don't follow the theme of the frontier as closely as they could but overall it is an excellent survey. This combines many of the top minds on various tribes and explores how the Native Americans and euroamerican interacted in the colonial and postcolonial world.

Some of the topics included
A look at the Delaware, Iroquois and Moravian interactions at Shamokin
A look at the Delaware interactions with the Proprietors and Quakers in Bethlehem.
The changing role of women in Creek society
The role race played in interactions between slaves, whites and Indians
How memory is affected by the events of the colonial era

and many more.

Frederick Jackson Turner's frontier thesis, now over a century old, continues to spark debate on the concept of frontier to America, particularly in Early America. The editors of this compilation point out that the contributors to the volume are challenging Turner's view as too narrow in scope; instead, desiring to expand what constitutes "frontier," based on numerous issues such as conflict, race and environment. The essayists in this volume attempt to expand the, "...fundamentally flawed [thesis] in its ethnocentrism, triumphalism, gender bias, and linearity," that Turner presented in his paper. "Revisionist" history, by the editors own admission, seeking to expand the concept of "frontier" by exploring what the term meant to different groups.

The very first question raised came on the very first page of the essay when the editors of this work discuss the use of the term "frontier." They argue that the term "frontier" became significant only after the American Revolution. Prior to the revolution, "backcountry" was used most often and that the concepts changed in the change in terminology. This made me wonder, is it true that the concept changed at this point, or it is merely a change of terminology while the concept is largely the same for both terms?

Another point that I questioned is found a few pages later. The editors wrote, "Elites extended their control into border areas by relying on the labor of lower-status whites to occupy, defend, and clear the land." I believe, goes against the greater part of the historiography written about frontier settlers. As Edmund Morgan pointed out in The Birth of the Republic: 1763-89 (3rd Ed.), the colonists were always distrustful of government intervention, which is one of the root causes of the American Revolution. Gary Nash, in his latest work, The Unknown Revolution, gave numerous illustrations on how those on the frontier resisted government interference, in a myriad of different forms, for a myriad of different reasons. Thus, I find myself wondering if the elites so in control on the frontier or if, as is the general trend, those on the frontier wanted to be left alone and fought against intervention by elites.

Onto the actual essays. The essayists contained within tackle the concept of "frontier" from different perspectives, including cultural and social history, political and diplomatic history, linguistic theory, and women's history. All of the essayists tackle primary source extensively to get to the root nature of perceptions and relationships between Native Americans and Colonists. Some essays are better than others. James H. Merrell's essay, "Shamokin, "the very seat of the Prince of Darkness": Unsettling the Early American Frontier, stands out as one of the better essays, with William B. Hart, "Black `Go-Betweens' and the Mutability of `Race' Status, and Identity on New York's Pre-Revolutionary Frontier" being the weakest of the volume. Why?

Well, Merrell points out all the differing cultures that could meet up in a given locale and shows how the clash of those many cultures could affect the perspective of those living in that region. It could be, to say the least, a very disconcerting experience. In Hart's essay, I find myself in slight disagreement with the author on the statement, "Grant's inability to find `genuine Indians' at Johnson Hall indicates that she perceived the world in racial terms." (94) I find myself in slight disagreement because I wonder if she did not perceive the world in cultural terms. She went to see "genuine Indians," who, she imagined, would be dressed up in traditional native garb. She found them dressed much like her host, Sir William Johnson. It is my belief that she wanted to see the culture, not the race of the Indians. As the race of the Indians could not disappear because of the color of their skin, their clothing could change. In Grant's mind - the clothing was the identity of the natives, thus the reason Grant was disappointed.

Cayton's own essay within the book is one where he is imposing his own modern political viewspoints onto the Treaty of Grenville and the early leaders of America. From his wording, he makes the government of our early nation seem sinister and aristocratic, almost seemingly to operate without the consent of the governend, so red flags in his essay resound.

So, the three star rating does represent the overall presentations contained within the book. Some are good, others, weak. However, you should get a great deal out of this book if you have a basis understanding into Early American history.

This latest set introduces some more veteran versions of our favorite characters, while introducing some new faces to minis.

The faction that seems to benefit most from Legacy is the Galactic Alliance. Kyle Katarn is just a beast, especially if you include Spirit Luke. Cade Skywalker from the Legacy comic makes a very strong mark on this game.

This is not the best set to start with, but is a very good set to tide us over until the Knights of the Old Republic set that comes out in August.

High quality minies from the Legacy series comics, as well as the Legacy of the Force series of books from DelRey books. Most characters have been created to some degree of acuracy. Some characters from other story arcs have been included, which doesn't make the most amount of sense, considering the fact that they do not show up in either the books or the comics. It would have been nice to see characters from the Dark Nest trilogy, seeing as how mostt of those characters return in the Legacy of the Force series to reprise their rolls.

I find it disapointing that there are no large or huge size minies included like a Krayte Dragon, or a chiss Claw craft... It would have also been nice to see a "ships of Legacy" pack too fill in what's still missing from the RPG saga edition books.

There are a few beautiful minies, but at the end of the day you are left unfofilled.

Few polar historians or academics are aware of the late Robert J. Morrison's 1987 exposure of Stalin's North Pole scam of the 1930's, in "Russia's Shortcut to Fame: 50-Year Hoax Exposed." Morrison researched from previously classified US Army documents and photographic evidence that the so-called record setting flights originated from remote islands of the Alaskan panhandle to Vancouver, WA and San Jacinto, CA, not from Moscow as Stalin wanted the world to believe. Also Levanevsky was not lost in the Arctic, but was a victim of Stalin's great paranoid 1937 purge

Since I'm the author of this book, please disregard the five-star review, which I've assigned pro forma. This is meant to be a note about Ted Heckathorn's customer review of _Red Arctic_.

Mr. Heckathorn criticizes my book mainly on the grounds that I fail to take into account Robert Harrison's "proof" that the USSR's three transpolar flights of 1937 (along with other Soviet air expeditions) were faked. I would argue in return that to ignore Harrison's "findings" is not a fault, but rather responsible scholarship.

Readers should be aware that Harrison's book (a vanity publication that was, for some time, unable to find a press at all, then was taken up by a publisher that specializes mostly in thriller fiction) is a classic example of conspiracy-theory fringe literature. At least on the Internet, its principal endorsement comes from a British neo-fascist group (www.heretical.co.uk), most of whose web space is taken up with paranoid ravings about "Hebrew millionaires" and "Jewish communists." This is not to say that Harrison (or Heckathorn) shares any of these views; it is simply to show that Harrison's writings hardly occupy a place in the scholarly mainstream.

Harrison's arguments are based on speculative readings of grainy, poor-quality Soviet photos, equally grainy, poor-quality photos taken by the U.S. Army, and theories and assessments contained in U.S. intelligence reports. Harrison fails to take into account that the Soviet media (much like Western news services, then and today) routinely printed stock photos of pilots and aircraft, so images in newspapers and books did not always match the times and places mentioned in captions or headlines. This creates inconsistences, out of which Harrison spins theories more elaborate than they need to be. Moreover, the U.S. Army was hardly the most objective observer of Soviet aviation, and, for that matter, it was not always the most accurate. Also, writing in the 1980s, Harrison had no access to government and Communist Party documents in Russian archives, a plethora of which shows that these flights did in fact take place (and since these documents were never intended for public consumption, Soviet or foreign, it is safe to assume that they were not faked).

Finally, Harrison's conclusions, especially when applied to the third polar flight of 1937--Levanevsky's fatal disappearance--flies in the face of all logic. If the Stalinist regime went to such great lengths to deceive the world about its polar triumphs, in order to impress the international community with its technological prowess and human bravery, why on earth would it follow two stunning successes with a hideously embarrassing failure? If Stalin had wanted to purge Levanevsky (as Harrison and Heckathorn assert), he could have done so easily without a needlessly intricate plan that necessitated tarnishing the USSR's earlier exploits in the Arctic (faked _or_ genuine).

Admittedly, no archival record ever reflects the past with absolute precision or completeness. And Stalin was certainly ethically and practically capable of any deception imaginable. But Stalin did not deceive without rational purpose. And the archival record is more trustworthy than dubious guesswork based on possible inconsistencies spotted in photographs of less than stellar quality. At most, Harrison has raised the rather truistic point that not everything about Soviet propaganda exploits was as it seemed. But, with respect to matters of substance, he has neither proven nor disproven anything, circumstantially or conclusively.

There's a couple of related I don't rank this as five stars, or quite at four stars. That's because it doesn't cover enough trails, which would of course change the title, and some of the coverage doesn't warrant separate

Above all, there's nothing in here on the Old Spanish Trail, which in turn leaves the book open to charges of Anglo-centrism. (Coverage of Indian relations on all trails that are in the book is light.)

Very little is said about the Santa Fe Trail's extension to Chihuahua City -- in essence, of the Anglos beginning to use the Camino Real. In fact, nothing is said about the Camino Real. (Of course, you would then have to retitle the book "Seven Western Trails," since that's a north-south trail.)

And, does the first transcontinental telegraph deserve a whole chapter in and unto itself, either apart from the Pony Express or apart from further Western telegraphy?

This book is a good to very good introduction for the areas of Western pioneer travel history, but Mr. Peters could have done more to expand Anglo America's viewpoint on the development of the west.

This book really helped me when I was doing a report in 5th grde on the pioneer trails. It can help you too. It was extrodinary

No other historian has identified so important a piece of NYC's history on which so little is known, and written so lucidly about it. This is not just enjoyable history. You cannot understand New York City today without reading Derrick's book.

The greatest city of the modern era had its pivotal moment early in the 20th century with the decision in 1913 to double the size of its subway system: the largest public-works expenditure in the Western Hemisphere to that date. This decision, a dozen years and more in the making and led by Manhattan Borough President George McAneny, was propelled by the inability to resolve the problems of disease, crime, prosititution, overpopulation and poverty that overwhelmed Manhattan's Lower East Side, spilling into more affluent neighborhoods throughout the city. Getting employees out of impoverishment and to their jobs was now an impediment to development and modernization. The vision that turned farm lands into an urban center was a leap into the unknown and Derrick meticulously details this exciting chapter in NYC's history, a chapter that when fully understood, reveals how issues get resolved and great accomplishments propelled. In comparison, the highway system of the Robert Moses era was but an anxilary event.

Peter Derrick's book covers the "Dual Contracts" era of subway construction in New York, when numerous lines were built between 1910 and 1931 by the IRT and the BRT /BMT. Derrick focuses on the interactions between executives of the then-existing subway companies and municipal politicians. Only a few paragraphs cover the "Independent" subway system, which was built after 1931.

Endnotes, bibliography, etc., comprise 155 pages of this book, or nearly a third of its pages. There are eight maps and 24 period photographs. There is nothing in this book about station design, track layouts, operating procedures, or rolling stock. In fact, the book ends when construction began. It was a worthy endeavor of historical research to document the political deal-making of this period, but some readers may be disappointed that the author's interest was solely in the back-room political gamesmanship that preceded construction