Rating: 
Summary: I was born 200 years too late
Review: and if I was born in 1759, would I have joined the Royal Navy? Probably, yes. I loved the book. Nathan Miller's excellent research is inspiring. He covers the period from
the American Revolution to the War of 1812 in a fast, concise, manner. I learned things about John Paul Jones that weren't mentioned in JOHN PAUL JONES, FIGHTING
SAILOR. Any Hornblower and Aubrey-Maturin fans here?
Thomas Lord Cochrane was the inspiration for both Hornblower and Jack Aubrey. Sir Edward Pellew, a captain in the Royal Navy during the Wars of the French Revolution, and the Napoleonic Wars, is mentioned in the Hornblower
books. It mentions the Barbary Pirates too and the George
Washington Incident.
Rating:
Summary: I was born 200 years too late
Review: and if I was born in 1759, would I have joined the Royal Navy? Probably, yes. I loved the book. Nathan Miller's excellent research is inspiring. He covers the period from
the American Revolution to the War of 1812 in a fast, concise, manner. I learned things about John Paul Jones that weren't mentioned in JOHN PAUL JONES, FIGHTING
SAILOR. Any Hornblower and Aubrey-Maturin fans here?
Thomas Lord Cochrane was the inspiration for both Hornblower and Jack Aubrey. Sir Edward Pellew, a captain in the Royal Navy during the Wars of the French Revolution, and the Napoleonic Wars, is mentioned in the Hornblower
books. It mentions the Barbary Pirates too and the George
Washington Incident.
Rating:
Summary: Guts, Glory and Real History
Review: Broadsides is perfect for history buffs and for fans of Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey/Maturin novels, which are set in the same period. This is popular history in the Barbara Tuchman (Guns of August) manner: thoroughly researched by an expert who also has a fine sense of narrative drama (even the occasional footnotes are enjoyable): It's fun to read. It's <thrilling> to read. The Age of Fighting Sail is conventionally put at about 160 years; author Miller has confined himself to the last quarter or so, and with good reason. The shorter time span narrows his focus and lets him richly detail on a period that needs detailed coverage. After all, at this time Britain was frequently in conflict with the US, then Bonaparte, then all of the countries that deserted the British cause to join Boney--or later deserted Boney to join Britain. Only details can reduce the confusion. Here's an example of the value of detail: Most Americans learn in basic history class that Washington and Cornwallis somehow found themselves at Yorktown together, where Cornwallis just threw in the towel and--bang!--just like that the American Revolution ended. Miller shows that Cornwallis, hunting for glory, exhausted him army in a series of useless victories, fought too far inland for the Royal Navy to support or supply him, and then had to run to Yorktown in hope of being evacuated by the British fleet. But the French fleet got there first (by pure luck) and the Royal Navy's failure to trounce it was a perfect example of hidebound, backward tactics that took no risks but gained no glory. The over-cautious British admiral had protected his career and reputation but, as another historian put it, "He had merely lost Amnerica." As the American Revolution ends and the French begins, Miller shows British seapower on the cusp of change, at last moving away from risk-averse tactics under the urging of a generation of more daring commanders: Pellew, Howe, Collingwood, Jervis and the immortal, incomparable Nelson. Many of their battles were as exciting in fact as they are in the movies. There's excellent material on the faltering beginnings of the American navy too, which (for example) Thomas Jefferson was mightily in favor of until, as president, he decided he didn't want to pay for it. The cast of characters is superb: the British fighters mentioned above and scheming Boney, of course, but also the usual crew of addlepates and blockheads in the Admiralty; Captain Bligh (not the sadist he's been painted as); hilariously inept French and Spanish admirals; even worse British generals (except for the miraculous Arthur Wellesley--later the Duke of Wellington); and the odd, cross-grained collection of self-interested citizen-patriots of the American Revolution. Nathan is especially good at distinguishing between naval combat and seapower; with brisk, incisive strokes he shows how all those blockades and sinking ships affected alliances and strategy. O'Brian fans will especially appreciate this because it will enable them to re-read the entire Aubrey/Maturin series with greater grasp of the period and the issues.--Bill Marsano
Rating: 
Summary: Good history, mediocre writing
Review: I had to labor through this book, rather than devour it. Still and all, I gained quite a bit of history. It was worth the effort.
Rating: 
Summary: This book ROCKS! like the discovery channel in depth times 5
Review: I love this book. Quick read and a bit dry with assumptions that Americans know the relevant names scattered within the book. Many interesting facts and detailed layout of the battles that shaped the caribbean and the americas.
Rating:
Summary: This book ROCKS! like the discovery channel in depth times 5
Review: I love this book. Quick read and a bit dry with assumptions that Americans know the relevant names scattered within the book. Many interesting facts and detailed layout of the battles that shaped the caribbean and the americas.
Rating:
Summary: A good book, with some weird flaws
Review: Nathan Miller is one of those authors who is immediately believable as an historian due to the detail and care with which he writes his books. At the same time, his books are emminently readable because he cuts through to the heart of the matter and has a concise, exciting style. This book is a nice addition to my naval library, and I anticipate referring to it often.The writing style is definitely the highlight of the book, although there are other items to recommend it. First is the inclusion of a number of lesser-known naval battles that are often omitted. Everyone does Trafalgar and the Nile, but few general histories include the U.S.'s war with Tripoli or pre-Nelsonian battles in the Napoleonic Wars (because most were inconclusive). Because of the short time frame of the book - a mere 40 years - these lesser-known actions are covered. At the same time, this book does not read as a catalogue of battles, but a smooth narrative in which these battles naturally occur. Additionally, there is enough detail about the background story (land battles, politics, etc.) that each battle is firmly placed in context. Finally, the personalities of the men (and even some women) that did the fighting comes through, not just the admirals but occasionally the ordinary crewmembers as well. Unfortunately, there are some problems with the book, starting with the time frame. The first few chapters, detailing the Continental Navy and the American Revolution, are not good. They seem tacked on (possibly to sell more books in the U.S.?), and do not have the same flow as subsequent chapters. It should have started later (perhaps the French revolution?), or a lot earlier (although then it would be a different book). Secondly, Miller has a grating habit of rooting for one side - either the U.S. or Britain, as the case may be. Since history is written by the victor, there is a natural pro-British bias in the details of Napoleonic naval battles, for example, but Miller's style gives the appearance that he's rooting for the British at the same time. An example: "The British and French ships had the same number of cannon, but fortunately the British had better training." This is only "fortunate" if you were on the British ship! This kind of insidious cheerleading is especially bad at the beginning of the book, in the aforementioned "tacked-on" chapters, where the pro-U.S. bias is very irritating. Therefore, I recommend this book as a detailed and very readable account of the Napoleonic (and conincident) Wars, as long as you can get through the less well-written early chapters.
Rating:
Summary: A good book, with some weird flaws
Review: Nathan Miller is one of those authors who is immediately believable as an historian due to the detail and care with which he writes his books. At the same time, his books are emminently readable because he cuts through to the heart of the matter and has a concise, exciting style. This book is a nice addition to my naval library, and I anticipate referring to it often. The writing style is definitely the highlight of the book, although there are other items to recommend it. First is the inclusion of a number of lesser-known naval battles that are often omitted. Everyone does Trafalgar and the Nile, but few general histories include the U.S.'s war with Tripoli or pre-Nelsonian battles in the Napoleonic Wars (because most were inconclusive). Because of the short time frame of the book - a mere 40 years - these lesser-known actions are covered. At the same time, this book does not read as a catalogue of battles, but a smooth narrative in which these battles naturally occur. Additionally, there is enough detail about the background story (land battles, politics, etc.) that each battle is firmly placed in context. Finally, the personalities of the men (and even some women) that did the fighting comes through, not just the admirals but occasionally the ordinary crewmembers as well. Unfortunately, there are some problems with the book, starting with the time frame. The first few chapters, detailing the Continental Navy and the American Revolution, are not good. They seem tacked on (possibly to sell more books in the U.S.?), and do not have the same flow as subsequent chapters. It should have started later (perhaps the French revolution?), or a lot earlier (although then it would be a different book). Secondly, Miller has a grating habit of rooting for one side - either the U.S. or Britain, as the case may be. Since history is written by the victor, there is a natural pro-British bias in the details of Napoleonic naval battles, for example, but Miller's style gives the appearance that he's rooting for the British at the same time. An example: "The British and French ships had the same number of cannon, but fortunately the British had better training." This is only "fortunate" if you were on the British ship! This kind of insidious cheerleading is especially bad at the beginning of the book, in the aforementioned "tacked-on" chapters, where the pro-U.S. bias is very irritating. Therefore, I recommend this book as a detailed and very readable account of the Napoleonic (and conincident) Wars, as long as you can get through the less well-written early chapters.
Rating:
Summary: Good read, more of a narrative of a few famous commanders
Review: The book Broadsides is a non-fiction account of the age of the fighting sail. The current interest in that era, in no small part, due to the success of the Patrick O'Brian series of novels and the revied interest in C. S. Forester's Hornblower series. this work reviews the signficant naval events involving the European powers and the USA during 1775-1815. The author chose those dates as they encompass the American Revolution and the Napoleonic Era. To compress this period into a single volume, Miller uses the technique of focusing on the lives of a few significant commanders, especially Horatio Nelson, and senior British Admirals. This method allows him to interweave interesting details of their lives, the naval theories of that time, and indirectly suggest that personal factors had a very strong effect on their professional conduct. He points out that Admiral Howe may not have pressed home his attack on Long Island because of conflicting feelings about the American rebellion. Likewise other British admirals, Rodney, Graves, and Hood, were influenced by their personal concerns of prize money, personal fame and prestige, and political matters. This is the strength of the work and alone deserves three stars. I wish that more could have been explained about the political nature of the British Admiralty and the political alliances of the time as they pertained to naval affairs. He hints at different factions and reports of governments tettering and tottering, but doesn't really explain why. Also the East India Company and West Indies merchants are portrayed as a very powerful group, capable of bringing litigation against an active fleet commander - but little comment is made about how such private business concerns could be powerful enough to openly challenge the British Admiralty. While there are some details about actual ship board life, navigation, and ship handling, it isn't really a book about the technical aspects. For that you'll have to go elsewhere. It can be a little daunting to novice readers, who may have no notion of how fast a sailing vessel could travel under full sail, how difficult it is turn about a ship-of-the-line, and how much logistics and weather affected naval planning. Finally, the maps are sparse being limited to just a few line diagrams, and no battle or manuever charts! In brief, fun fascinating, often gossipy read about the era through the lives of the celebrated commanders (mostly British, especially Nelson, and a few Americans), not a technical work such as Nelson's Navy by Brian Lavery. Only a few sparse maps! No battle diagrams.
Rating:
Summary: Good read, more of a narrative of a few famous commanders
Review: The book Broadsides is a non-fiction account of the age of the fighting sail. The current interest in that era, in no small part, due to the success of the Patrick O'Brian series of novels and the revied interest in C. S. Forester's Hornblower series. this work reviews the signficant naval events involving the European powers and the USA during 1775-1815. The author chose those dates as they encompass the American Revolution and the Napoleonic Era. To compress this period into a single volume, Miller uses the technique of focusing on the lives of a few significant commanders, especially Horatio Nelson, and senior British Admirals. This method allows him to interweave interesting details of their lives, the naval theories of that time, and indirectly suggest that personal factors had a very strong effect on their professional conduct. He points out that Admiral Howe may not have pressed home his attack on Long Island because of conflicting feelings about the American rebellion. Likewise other British admirals, Rodney, Graves, and Hood, were influenced by their personal concerns of prize money, personal fame and prestige, and political matters. This is the strength of the work and alone deserves three stars. I wish that more could have been explained about the political nature of the British Admiralty and the political alliances of the time as they pertained to naval affairs. He hints at different factions and reports of governments tettering and tottering, but doesn't really explain why. Also the East India Company and West Indies merchants are portrayed as a very powerful group, capable of bringing litigation against an active fleet commander - but little comment is made about how such private business concerns could be powerful enough to openly challenge the British Admiralty. While there are some details about actual ship board life, navigation, and ship handling, it isn't really a book about the technical aspects. For that you'll have to go elsewhere. It can be a little daunting to novice readers, who may have no notion of how fast a sailing vessel could travel under full sail, how difficult it is turn about a ship-of-the-line, and how much logistics and weather affected naval planning. Finally, the maps are sparse being limited to just a few line diagrams, and no battle or manuever charts! In brief, fun fascinating, often gossipy read about the era through the lives of the celebrated commanders (mostly British, especially Nelson, and a few Americans), not a technical work such as Nelson's Navy by Brian Lavery. Only a few sparse maps! No battle diagrams.
|
