Rating: 
Summary: Duel of Eagles
Review: Giving this garbadge one star is being generous.It is silly, and a complete waste of time and money-revisionism at its worst! It dishonors the memory of the great men who fought and died at the Alamo. Just another book by a liberal who hates America
Rating: 
Summary: Finally, an honest look at Texas' sacred cow
Review: I find Jeff Long's retelling of the Alamo fable refreshingly (if brutally) honest and well documented. He debunks alot of of the myths that surround the Battle of the Alamo. He is particarly good at providing an extensive background to the conflict. Growing up in Texas, and studying the state's History in the 4th and 7th grade, it was never too clear what the reasons behind the war were. All I was told is that a group of brave men stood fast against unsurmountable tyranny and sacrified their lives for the ultimate price of freedom. But to say that the Texas revolution was a war for independence is oversimplifying the issue... it is like saying the Civil War was just a war to end slavery. Now, some folks are fine with these simple definitions... and if you are the type of person that likes their history in neat little anecdotes and who wants their heroes to wear white and their villains to wear black, then this might not be the book for you. Reading through it the first time, I was sure that just as it opened my eyes it was going to get others very angry. Over the years, discussing this books with others that have read it has revealed this to be true.
There are many out there that feel this is book is biased and inflammatory. This could be true if Mr. Long was simply stating an opinion. But, the book is extremely well researched, and all his sources are listed for the world to see. If you don't think he is being fair in his assessment of the conflict, then look up the sources... he is not hiding anything. If it is biased, it certainly is not more so than the history books we were given to read at school. In fact, those books carried more of an agenda, and Mr. Longs account is far more accurate and even-handed.
Some legends are hard to die, and I am sure that regardless of how many books like this one are written some people will continue believing that Crockett died in a blaze of glory with his coonskin hat still on his head, and that Travis and Bowie were freedom loving martyrs that had no human fault. I applaud Mr. Longs for providing a well-researched alternative to this view, and for giving us an extensive background on the events and ideologies that lead to the conflict and the consequences that followed. If you are a real history buff that is interested in facts and who likes to get the larger picture, this book is definitely recommended. If not... then I suggest just sticking to John Wayne's 1960 melodrama for familiarity. It's available on DVD on this website as well, I'm sure.
Rating:
Summary: Finally, an honest look at Texas' sacred cow
Review: I find Jeff Long's retelling of the Alamo fable refreshingly (if brutally) honest and well documented. He debunks alot of of the myths that surround the Battle of the Alamo. He is particarly good at providing an extensive background to the conflict. Growing up in Texas, and studying the state's History in the 4th and 7th grade, it was never too clear what the reasons behind the war were. All I was told is that a group of brave men stood fast against unsurmountable tyranny and sacrified their lives for the ultimate price of freedom. But to say that the Texas revolution was a war for independence is oversimplifying the issue... it is like saying the Civil War was just a war to end slavery. Now, some folks are fine with these simple definitions... and if you are the type of person that likes their history in neat little anecdotes and who wants their heroes to wear white and their villains to wear black, then this might not be the book for you. Reading through it the first time, I was sure that just as it opened my eyes it was going to get others very angry. Over the years, discussing this books with others that have read it has revealed this to be true.
There are many out there that feel this is book is biased and inflammatory. This could be true if Mr. Long was simply stating an opinion. But, the book is extremely well researched, and all his sources are listed for the world to see. If you don't think he is being fair in his assessment of the conflict, then look up the sources... he is not hiding anything. If it is biased, it certainly is not more so than the history books we were given to read at school. In fact, those books carried more of an agenda, and Mr. Longs account is far more accurate and even-handed.
Some legends are hard to die, and I am sure that regardless of how many books like this one are written some people will continue believing that Crockett died in a blaze of glory with his coonskin hat still on his head, and that Travis and Bowie were freedom loving martyrs that had no human fault. I applaud Mr. Longs for providing a well-researched alternative to this view, and for giving us an extensive background on the events and ideologies that lead to the conflict and the consequences that followed. If you are a real history buff that is interested in facts and who likes to get the larger picture, this book is definitely recommended. If not... then I suggest just sticking to John Wayne's 1960 melodrama for familiarity. It's available on DVD on this website as well, I'm sure.
Rating:
Summary: Nothing ever changes
Review: It seems that americans have been heroicly saving the world in the name of freedom and liberty since the beginning of their glorious history. They just wanted to liberate the mexican peasants from tyranie just like they are liberating the iraquis today.
God bless the U.S.A indeed.
Rating: 
Summary: Not that Good
Review: Out of the one hundred and eighty something men fighting at the alamo only six survived, according to this telling. And guess what--one of them was davy crockett. This story is based on a highly suspect (that is to say possibly forged) diary that came out of mexico, coincidentally, just at the height of the davy crockett craze in the usa in the nineteen fifties and was offered for sale. Crockett, according to this version, then tried to lie his way out of the situation. I find the likelihood of one of six survivors just happening to be the most famous person in the battle a wee bit hard to believe. Like expecting us to believe six people survived the Little Big Horn and one of them was custer himself. It just goes against common sense.But Jeff Long doesn't find it hard to believe at all. In fact, he seems to find it important to disbelieve people who should be believed, (like the famous american woman mrs. dickinson, who without doubt lived through the battle). Even stranger, Mr. Long finds it important to believe uncritically any crackpot who comes forward with a story. For example, a mexican lady later claimed to have nursed jim bowie (the other "star" in the battle) during the siege. Mrs. dickinson, who was there and had no reason to lie, stated later this Mexican woman was "a fraud." This doesn't deter jeff long. He totally swallows the story, only saying "she had no reason to lie." No reason to lie? Jim Bowie, inventor of the Bowie knife, was a legend. The woman probably lied for the attention she knew she would receive if people believed it. How hard is that to figure out? But it never occurs to Long, he just writes it right into the story as gospel. He's like that. But it's the story about Crockett that I find particularly ridiculous. Mrs. Dickinson said she saw him lying dead where he had fought, outside the chapel, as she was escorted out by mexican soldiers, crockett's "peculiar cap" by his side. but people like jeff long just jettison her testimony--(after all, she was historically known without doubt to have BEEN THERE). what is her testimony compared to the mysterious diary that didn't surface until the 1950's along with the massive interest in crockett instigated by the disney produced television movie? This is the problem with "revisionist history." They don't want to go on rewriting the same old stories, so they go far afield and accept ridiculous sources so that they will have something new to say. And by the way, I'm not from Texas. I just find Jeff Long to be less than an historian and more of some kind of entertainer or something. If you're looking for the definitive book on the alamo, this definitely isn't it.
Rating:
Summary: This is current Politics, not History
Review: Re-telling history is often done to advance one's current political objectives. All nations have re-written history to justify conquests, cover the 'sins' of its fathers, to instill or (in this case) to re-direct a people's national pride and patriotism. 'Duel of Eagles' patently intends to cast dispersions on the Founders of Texas, and therefore to diminish traditional Texan (and American) pride in white, caucasian, erstwhile heros. According to this strategy, if Texans and Americans are re-educated to the sins of their 'uni-cultural' forbearers, then they might more readily embrace multi-culturalism. To current political strategists, this translates to more votes in support of their favorite political entity. I am not commenting on the wisdom of Long's objective. I am, however, alerting potential readers to his apparent intent. To all knowledgable readers of history, it will be readily obvious anyway. This book is not History, it is modern political polemics. Reader be advised.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent look at the Alamo and the Texas Revolution
Review: This book deals with a very difficult subject--the fight for the Alamo. Shrouded in myth, conflicting accounts, and uncertain details, the battle for the Alamo in March of 1836 (as well as the earlier battle in which the Texians took control of the fort from General Cos) has long been an enormous challenge for historians, since there is no way to tell for sure where fact ends and where legend begins. Accounts of the last stand of Crockett, Bowie, and Travis range from suicide to ignominious surrender to heroic last stands with piles of dead Mexicans at their feet, but no one can know with certainty just how these men came to their ends. Most historians choose one of two routes: either they recount the myth, making the men savage warriors to the end, or they try to dispel the myth by giving Crockett and Co. uneventful ends (such as suicide, surrender, or a quick death without much fighting).
Jeff Long does neither of these. This is a book about the Alamo that ignores the whims of historians and mythmakers alike, and truly attempts to understand the Alamo. More importantly still, the book treats the Alamo not as the apex of the Texas Revolution, but as a single event, one of many, which contributed to the eventual independence of Texas. Bowie is portrayed as a greedy speculator, Crockett as a failed politician hoping to get political fame by fighting in Texas, and Travis as a vain and glory-seeking individual whose view of reality has been skewed by reading too much Walter Scott. Houston and Santa Anna are both opium addicts. And yet, somehow, this book does not destroy the heroic vision of the Alamo and Texas independence, but rather casts it in a more realistic light.
This book treats the entire revolution of Texas, not just the Alamo. Much background on Bowie, Crockett, Travis, Fannin, Houston, Santa Anna, and even many Mexican officers is included. This serves to enrich the account of the Alamo, as well as give a deeper understanding of what the two sides were fighting for. Long presents the revolution as being, for the most part, unjustified, and does not seem to be biased in one direction or the other. What is presented is a good, objective account of the "duel" between the Mexican and Anglo-American eagles.
The obvious benefit of this book is a good look at the Alamo. But the rest, most especially the character sketches of the principal players in the revolution, is also invaluable. The slaughters of the Alamo and the Goliad paint the Mexican army in a bad light, it is true, but the slaughter of Mexicans by Houston's men at San Jacinto (surprisingly) show that the Anglos weren't much better. What is better, this book reads like a good novel, and as such is great not only for a student of Texas independence, but also as a satisfying read for anyone interested in history.
Rating:
Summary: Beautifully written, marvelous scholarship
Review: This book is an accomplishment on many fronts. It digs where no one else wants to dig, which is the true hallmark of a historian. It reveals truths that entrenched and calcified communities wish to hide -- a sign of high scholarship and meaningful journalism. Best of all, it is wonderfully written. Jeff Long spends as much time providing ambience and atmosphere than the usual historian. You are transported there. This book is much more interesting that the childish fairytales surrounding the Alamo and Texas "independence." Thanks for expecting that your readers are adults. You won't find any pandering in this book.
Rating:
Summary: Revisionism with Malice
Review: This book is the most insidious type of agitprop, a heated stew of folklore, myths, rumors and speculations, much of them from highly dubious sources, with a fact stirred in here and there for the sake of credibility. As other readers have noted, the author definitely has an agenda. One can only guess what it may be. Does he truly despise those who had the audacity to take arms against a monster who had already established a long record of genocide in Mexico's interior, or has he sought to peddle his brand of vitriolic revisionism on the basis of its controversial tone and appeal to hardcore America bashers? In either case, his ad nauseum attacks on the characters of individuals who can no longer defend themselves undermine the historical value of his work and place it in the same category with post-mortem trashographies of Frank Sinatra, Jackie Kennedy and Princess Di. Throughout the text Long refers to the Texian rebels who defied Santa Anna's bloodthirsty regime as mercenaries. Since the rebels hardly ever got fed, much less paid for their services, the most derogatory fact about them that comes out of this essay is that they were indeed very poor businesspersons.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Account of the Alamo
Review: This is a superb account of the Alamo--far and away the best I have read. One reason it is superior is that it gives the Mexican side as well as the American side of the battle--the book is subtitled "The Mexican and U.S. Fight for the Alamo." The book is also the most objective, in that it does not start with the premise that the Texans were right and the Mexicans wrong. It provides a wealth of information on the political and historical background of the battle, enabling the reader to understand the battle in the context of the larger struggle between the United States and Mexico. Unlike many other accounts, Long's emphasizes that Texas was a part of Mexico; the Texas Revolution was not so much about liberty-loving Texans fighting against a despotic Mexican dictatorship as it was about Americans having migrated to Texas and still feeling primarily loyal to the U.S. rather than Mexico. The reasons for the colonists' loyalty to the U.S. were not always noble--for example, many of them wanted to own slaves, which was allowed in the U.S. but not in Mexico. Long's book is also superior because it provides so much detail. All other books on the Alamo seem superficial by comparison. As good as this book is, it also has some major flaws. It is written in a somewhat academic, laborious style, so it is not as captivating as accounts written in a more popular style, such as Lon Tinkle's 13 Days to Glory and Walter Lord's A Time to Stand. Also, Long takes a pretty cynical perspective, painting almost everyone, American and Mexican alike, in pretty negative terms. And he seems to prefer melodramatic explanations at the expense of more reasonable, but also more prosaic, ones. That said, this is the closest yet written to being the definitive account of the Alamo.
|
