Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
12 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Don't buy this book - it's rubbish, 19 Jul 2005
This is the worst alternate history book I have ever read. Historically there are real liberties taken and takes points too far. Why would Britain want to reconquor America when it's main imperialism was economic not military? However, what really bugged me though were the characters. The British characters were all shown as idiots; sailors who couldn't sail, soldiers who were little better than butchers, Palmerston's main feature was his gout whilst Victoria was shown as an hysteric. Within a few chapters it became obvious the book was just an hoorah for the good ole US (and CS) of A.
|
|
|
11 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Forever a Disappointment, 15 Nov 2003
If you are looking for a viable, believable and enjoyable book on a possible alternative history, this book is not it. After a good opening and a plausable drift towards war, it then moves into a sequence of increasingly rediculous events. The characters portrayed, whether fictional or based on fact, lack depth and appear to unresearched. Timelines are confused and have no relation to time and distance. In terms of military operations the author clearly has no knowledge of anything above the tactical level, and it shows. Generals appear to lead only regiments, and there is little attempt to portray the vast sweep of battles in a period which should be portraying Army Corps and Armies in large campaigns. The American generals bear little resemblance to the actual real life characters which are well documented and many are poorly researched. General R E Lee was not Commander in Chief of the Confederate Armies in 1862 and, at this time, had only just taken command of the Army of Northern Virginia. The Peninsula Campaign of 1862 is not mentioned so perhaps it doesn't take place, in which case Lee was only a military adviser to the CSA President and without the authority and power he was later to win throughout the rest of the campaigns in 1862 and 1863. The portrayal of UK Generals and Admirals defies description and is probably better left unsaid. The US navy devastates the greatest maritime power of the period but no explanation offered other than suggesting that a bit of armour and a big gun or two on a couple of extemporised small coastal monitors made the difference. As with the respective armies, the navies of both sides are poorly researched and the battle scenes and respective strategies are not believable. The book also fails to convince on the political level. The rapprochment between north and south in 1862 was unlikely, given the causes of the war and the question of State Rights which had far more influence on events than the book credits. In addition, in 1862, France was all for supporting the CSA but only held back because the UK showed no enthusiasm for intervention. Had events gone the way the author portrayed, Napoleon III would also have been involved in supporting the CSA. In short, the book fails to convince and appears to be a vehicle for the author to express his anglophobic sentiments. It is not a serious alternative history. Harrison should have stuck to Science Fiction.
|
|
|
16 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Oh dear, this is bad, 13 Mar 2004
I thought that i would just have a go at listing the historical problems i have with this"alternative"history, and a few literary questions.
1.The Trent Incident. Stopping a neutral vessel in international waters and removing two of its passengers would be regarded by most international lawyers at best as an act of piracy. And was incidentally the american justification for the war of 1812.
2. The Trent was RMS Trent, a Royal Mail Steamship, a vessel under charter to Her majesty's government, which elevates piracy into an act of war.
3.In 1860 Britain was the world's greatest power. she produced two thirds of the the world's iron. Built the first iron ship(SS Great Britain)and the first all iron warship(HMS Warrior). The Royal Navy had about ten times the tonnage of the US navy, and the British army was only small by european continental standards. The Battle of Koniggratz(1866/in the modern czech republic)had about half amillion participants.
4.without british arms how would america have even armed its soldiers. Over half the weapons used in the civil war were imported, including the largest. Most of which were built in britain. if you want an illustration, the first black regiment(54th Massachusetts) was armed with british enfield rifles, watch the film"Glory"
5.In the war of 1812 ordinary canadian citizens fought alongside british regulars. The canadian population is largely descended from crown loyalists who left the us of a after independence. people hardly likely to welcome an invading us army.
6.Queen victoria is portrayed in a less than flattering light, for a more realistic portrayal watch the film"mrs brown"
7. Perhaps someone should purchase a few history books for Mr Harrison, i.e The british battlefleet by fred t jane, he might then get a few more of his facts correct.
8.The british army appears unchanged since blenheim never mind waterloo, whereas the us army appears invincible.
9.Equipping the entire us army with repeating rifles would have required increasing production over 20 times, and have cost billions.
10.The south just rolls over and plays good dog. There is no mention of the problems and conflicts which plauged america for decades before the war.
11.regarding the USN V the Royal Navy. where does the uss avenger come from, in the time frame given john ericsson had only just finished the monitor. And hms warrior outgunnned any us ironclad of the era, a royal navy crew could fire a broadside a minute and get under sail in a fraction of the time it took a monitor to reload its guns.
11a.An interesting historical note, hms warrior carried a young gunnery lieutenant by the name of john arbuthnot fisher, later admiral sir jacky fisher, first sea lord and builder of THE hms dreadnaught. mr harrison please do your research.
12.just plain numbers. in the 1860's britain and america had roughly the same populations. the british were almost insanely patriotic and part time volunteer regiments were very popular
13.i have no problem with foppish dolts running the british army but they were not all so. and the civil war is notorious for generals capable of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory need i mention ambrose burnside, nathaniel banks, benjamin butler and so on.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Harry Harrison
by Harry Harrison
by Robert Conroy
by John Birmingham
by Robert Conroy
