Our First Revolution
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle .
Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Plus, get an extra £5 Gift Certificate when you trade in books worth £10 or more before June 30, 2012. Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. |
Product details
|
More About the Author
Product Description
Synopsis
Describes the influence of Britain's Glorious Revolution of 1688 and 1689 on America's founding fathers, detailing the impact of the era on the evolution of representative government, the foundations of global capitalism, and the hallmark of individual liberty.
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Browse and search another edition of this book.
Browse and search another edition of this book.
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organise and find favourite items. |
Customer Reviews
There are no customer reviews yet on Amazon.co.uk.
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
43 reviews
67 of 75 people found the following review helpful
Badly Edited
19 Jun 2007
Format:Hardcover
I don't disagree with the praise of various reviews, professional and otherwise, but this is one of the more poorly edited books I've come across in the past few years and that's why I give it only 3 stars. I'm not talking about typos or transposed words, though there are enough of those instances.
No, there's a larger problem here: repetition. Two pages after Barone tells us that the fortress of Phillipsburg "spans the Rhine," he repeats the same phrase. Historians he's quoted from are re-identified. Two or three times we hear that Holland was a whirlwind of printing presses and pamphlets which were a chief propaganda tool. The ways in which James tried to pack Parliament are explained more than once in too-similar language, and I could list other examples of unnecessary repetition in a book that's under 250 pages of primary text. They're all annoying.
Almost as annoying is the lack of maps, the quality of what's there, and their placement. Why is the map charting the progress of William's army in England tucked in after an appendix and almost 100 pages after it's necessary? It's not even mentioned in the Table of Contents. Why is there no full map of England with its various counties, since they're so frequently brought up? Not even an Anglophile like myself knows where they all are. Why is the map of The United Provinces so sketchy, so that major towns mentioned in the text don't appear on it? Why is there no map of Europe in that period, so that when mention is made of various principalities and duchies you can see where they are? Had I not just read Jessica Mitford's Frederick of Prussia, I wouldn't know where many of the German states referred to in Barone's text are located. These are not trivial omissions in a book about the movement of armies and the threats to sundry territories.
No, there's a larger problem here: repetition. Two pages after Barone tells us that the fortress of Phillipsburg "spans the Rhine," he repeats the same phrase. Historians he's quoted from are re-identified. Two or three times we hear that Holland was a whirlwind of printing presses and pamphlets which were a chief propaganda tool. The ways in which James tried to pack Parliament are explained more than once in too-similar language, and I could list other examples of unnecessary repetition in a book that's under 250 pages of primary text. They're all annoying.
Almost as annoying is the lack of maps, the quality of what's there, and their placement. Why is the map charting the progress of William's army in England tucked in after an appendix and almost 100 pages after it's necessary? It's not even mentioned in the Table of Contents. Why is there no full map of England with its various counties, since they're so frequently brought up? Not even an Anglophile like myself knows where they all are. Why is the map of The United Provinces so sketchy, so that major towns mentioned in the text don't appear on it? Why is there no map of Europe in that period, so that when mention is made of various principalities and duchies you can see where they are? Had I not just read Jessica Mitford's Frederick of Prussia, I wouldn't know where many of the German states referred to in Barone's text are located. These are not trivial omissions in a book about the movement of armies and the threats to sundry territories.
16 of 19 people found the following review helpful
When will they put out the edited version?
4 Sep 2007
Format:Hardcover
I very much expected to enjoy this book, interested as I am in English history. However, having only reached page 102, I can't help but feel that I'm reading an unedited first draft rather than a finished product. Disappointingly, the book appears to be full of typos, contradictions of fact, and bewildering and clumsy constructions.
To give a few examples:
* On page 6, the author is discussing the populations of various areas at the time of the Glorious Revolution. He writes: "Britain's North American colonies had about 250,000." But then, at the end of the same long and confusing paragraph, he writes, "...Spain's Latin American colonies had approximately 10 million, while the English North American colonies had only 280,000." I kept looking for the signal phrase that would indicate that the numbers 250,000 and 280,000 are meant to refer to different things, but I can't find it.
* On page 24, the author writes that "John Evelyn heard the sermon at the king's chapel...." I don't believe that Evelyn had previously been introduced in the book, and there is no explanation of who he is. He is mentioned at least one other time, again with no clue as to who he is, on page 27. But then, on page 49, the author introduces a quotation from Evelyn's diary with this phrase: "As John Evelyn, a Kent landowner who seems to have known everyone in London, noted in his diary...." Wouldn't it be better to give us that short explanation of who Evelyn was the first time he's mentioned?
* On page 97, the author introduces "one of the most remarkable characters of the period, Robert Spencer, the Earl of Sutherland." However, later in the paragraph, he refers to him not as Sutherland, but as Sunderland. He refers to him once again as Spencer, and then calls him Sunderland from there forward. I had to keep going back to make sure we were still talking about the same guy.
* On page 100, the author writes: "Sarah encouraged Anne to restrict pressure from James and his queen to convert to Catholicism." Shouldn't that be "resist pressure"?
It may be that in one or more of these examples, I've missed some key phrase that would make all clear. But I don't think so. Rather, it appears that the book is just poorly edited. And this apparent sloppiness has made me a bit distrustful of the information I'm getting in the book. The story is interesting, but I hope they put out an edited version sometime soon.
To give a few examples:
* On page 6, the author is discussing the populations of various areas at the time of the Glorious Revolution. He writes: "Britain's North American colonies had about 250,000." But then, at the end of the same long and confusing paragraph, he writes, "...Spain's Latin American colonies had approximately 10 million, while the English North American colonies had only 280,000." I kept looking for the signal phrase that would indicate that the numbers 250,000 and 280,000 are meant to refer to different things, but I can't find it.
* On page 24, the author writes that "John Evelyn heard the sermon at the king's chapel...." I don't believe that Evelyn had previously been introduced in the book, and there is no explanation of who he is. He is mentioned at least one other time, again with no clue as to who he is, on page 27. But then, on page 49, the author introduces a quotation from Evelyn's diary with this phrase: "As John Evelyn, a Kent landowner who seems to have known everyone in London, noted in his diary...." Wouldn't it be better to give us that short explanation of who Evelyn was the first time he's mentioned?
* On page 97, the author introduces "one of the most remarkable characters of the period, Robert Spencer, the Earl of Sutherland." However, later in the paragraph, he refers to him not as Sutherland, but as Sunderland. He refers to him once again as Spencer, and then calls him Sunderland from there forward. I had to keep going back to make sure we were still talking about the same guy.
* On page 100, the author writes: "Sarah encouraged Anne to restrict pressure from James and his queen to convert to Catholicism." Shouldn't that be "resist pressure"?
It may be that in one or more of these examples, I've missed some key phrase that would make all clear. But I don't think so. Rather, it appears that the book is just poorly edited. And this apparent sloppiness has made me a bit distrustful of the information I'm getting in the book. The story is interesting, but I hope they put out an edited version sometime soon.
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
Good narrative, but doesn't support its title
14 Oct 2008
Format:Paperback
It's a common misconception that the last time the British Isles were successfully invaded was in 1066 when William the Conqueror defeated Harold at Hastings. But many forget that William of Orange, invaded and occupied England, with the complicity of many nobles, claiming the throne for himself in 1688; in fact, Dutch soldiers controlled London's streets for ten years. For someone not well-versed in this episode and period of history, like me, I found this to be a great overview.
The book's strength is its analysis of the geopolitical context that surrounded William's decision to invade and James II's action and inaction. Besides the well known religious issue, a Catholic king vs. a protestant nobility and population, other pressures included William being fourth in line to the throne, with his wife being the second, and his desire to get England onto his side against France. At the same time France's military actions in central Europe and even Ottoman actions in Eastern Europe created the conditions that allowed William to act when he did.
The book's weakness is in its analysis of what it purports to do; argue that the "revolution" inspired America's founding fathers. After nine chapters of traditional narrative history Barone leaves this argument to the very end and offers little support. First his argument is based on an assumption that Catholicism was bad for England and Protestantism was good. This assumption is critical because many of his arguments in favor of the "revolution" rely on what happened in England after the invasion vs. what MIGHT have occurred had James remained king. The problem with comparing the facts of reality to the supposition of what never occurred, but might have, is that it can never be proven or tested. His argument merely amounts to the need to believe that bad things would have happened.
At the same time, despite claiming that American's founding fathers were inspired by this revolution, he offers very little evidence to support that claim.
All in all I really enjoyed the book and recommend it for those who want to know about the Glorious Revolution; but don't use it to argue that our founding fathers took inspiration from it.
The book's strength is its analysis of the geopolitical context that surrounded William's decision to invade and James II's action and inaction. Besides the well known religious issue, a Catholic king vs. a protestant nobility and population, other pressures included William being fourth in line to the throne, with his wife being the second, and his desire to get England onto his side against France. At the same time France's military actions in central Europe and even Ottoman actions in Eastern Europe created the conditions that allowed William to act when he did.
The book's weakness is in its analysis of what it purports to do; argue that the "revolution" inspired America's founding fathers. After nine chapters of traditional narrative history Barone leaves this argument to the very end and offers little support. First his argument is based on an assumption that Catholicism was bad for England and Protestantism was good. This assumption is critical because many of his arguments in favor of the "revolution" rely on what happened in England after the invasion vs. what MIGHT have occurred had James remained king. The problem with comparing the facts of reality to the supposition of what never occurred, but might have, is that it can never be proven or tested. His argument merely amounts to the need to believe that bad things would have happened.
At the same time, despite claiming that American's founding fathers were inspired by this revolution, he offers very little evidence to support that claim.
All in all I really enjoyed the book and recommend it for those who want to know about the Glorious Revolution; but don't use it to argue that our founding fathers took inspiration from it.
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
