Nathan Miller's Sea Of Glory: A Naval History Of The American Revolution is a straightforward, exceptionally well-researched, meticulously detailed history of the battles on the high seas that helped win American independence from England. Sea Of Glory is an enthusiastic, superbly written account that makes fascinating leisure reading for history buffs, as well as offering a serious, scholarly highly welcome contribution to American history collections.

Sea Of Glory: A Naval History Of The American Revolution is a superbly researched, written and presented single volume history of the development and role of American's first navy during the war for independence against Britain -- at the time the strongest naval power in the world. Nathan Miller provides the reader with a lively, accurate, "reader friendly", account of the Continental Navy's operations, the various state navies, as well as the British and French fleets. Of special interest and value are Miller's attentions to the lives of ordinary seamen, privateering, and how wooden ships were built, crewed, and sailed. Sea Of Glory is an invaluable, highly recommended addition to any personal, academic, or public library naval history or American Revolution history collection.

Exposes the Founding Fathers for what they really were. Gives us a new perspective from which to view our system of government and the people who run it. Not for die-hard patriots. For: those who always felt their high school history books were leaving something out! Makes you appreciate other cultures' ways, especially the Native Americans...specifically the Iroquois. Easy read.

As a 1-volume history of the naval war in all theatres in WWII, this book can by no means be complete or in-depth. However, if you read this book as an introduction to naval warfare, or as a look at the "big picture", this volume does the job very well. It is easy to read, informative, touches on virtually all the important events, and keeps up a good pace. Of course, certain events are relegated to mere footnotes, including the Dieppe raid and the loss of USS Indianapolis (where most of the deaths were from sharks and exposure, not enemy activity) in the interest of timing and length. However, Miller usually points the way to further readings in such cases, if the reader wants to know more. There is an extensive notes section at the end of the book divided by chapter, listing many primary sources, which gives the book a good deal of credibility.

His analysis is generally brief as well, which is ideal for a book of this type, where pace important. This doesn't mean it's any less insightful, however. He convincingly argues that the use of the atomic bomb was a strategic, war-ending measure, not just an attempt to scare the Soviet Union; that the refusal of the Japanese to withdraw skilled pilots to train the next generation was a fatal error; and that the industrial might of the combined allies was too much for the Axis - they had to win in the first couple of years or be ultimately worn out. Another important point in praise of this book is the way Miller is careful to point out the involvement of the so-called minor allies. For example, by 1945, Canada had the 3rd largest navy in the world, but because the RCN primarily participated in the Battle of the Atlantic, they get ignored by historians who get caught up in Big Events storytelling. Miller is always very careful to point out these countries' contributions.

Unfortunately, there are a few quibbling points that drop the book to 4 stars. First, the maps are conveniently located together at the back of the book, but are never referred to in the text, and are often of too large an area to be useful. For example, a lot of space is devoted to amphibious operations on Guadalcanal, Okinawa, etc., but these islands are merely dots on a "Pacific theatre" map. Even a 1/4 page sketch per island would have been very helpful. Secondly, Miller seems to have a vendetta against Winston Churchill - he is always quick to ridicule Churchill's wild ideas, but never to give credit to his good ones, instead saying, "The British wanted ...." Finally, there's an occasional confusion, such as mixing up the British cruisers Dorsetshire (that sunk the Bismark) and Devonshire.

These quibbles do not really detract from the overall enjoyment of the book, however, and it's recommended for any armchair historian interested in the naval aspects of World War II.

This work is pure and unadulterated magic for any reader even remotely interested in World War II. The scope of the work is daunting: documenting the enormous impact naval activity had on the course of the War . . . in one manageable volume.

As a fairly well-read amateur historian (admittedly unfamiliar with many of the primary and secondary historical sources upon with the author relies), I cannot overemphasize the joy I found reading this book. The author's prose is almost uniformly flawless, a characteristic sadly lacking in all too many historical works. The book reads as easily as any work of fiction you would care to name, without losing any of its historical accuracy or objectivity.

The author scrupulously documents the issues faced by all the War's participants, though a careful reader might detect a small amount of Anglo-Allied bias. However, whenever the author passes judgment on the actions of a particular admiral or political leader, he almost always presents an opposing viewpoint.

Overall, the reader will be, as the title of this review indicates, in the presence of greatness upon taking up this book.

I must concur with other reviewers that Nathan Miller's "War at Sea: A Naval History of World War II" is the best history on naval warfare during the Second World War. The book reads like a novel without getting bogged down in details. What I enjoyed most was Miller's recounting of the naval battles that took place during the European war's early years. When most individuals think of naval warfare in the Second World War, they tend to think of the Pacific war - Pearl Harbor, Midway, Leyte Gulf, etc. (for the simple and correct reasoning that the Pacific Ocean's great expanse required strong and large navies to ferry troops, equipment, aircraft, etc.). But Miller does an excellent job of educating the reader about the tremendous naval battles that took place in the Atlantic and Mediterranean. For instance, Britain's pursuit of the Bismark, the destruction of the Italian fleet and, importantly, the U-boat war. Thus, in essence, the European war was as much of a naval war as was the Pacific war. I highly recommend this history to all World War II history readers.

John Wortman p.4 The Fine Art of Spying is a collection of true, and truly amazing, stories written by Somerset Maugham, Anthony Abbott, Winston Churchill, Fletcher Pratt, Alan Hynd, Kurt Singer, and other famous authors. But The Fine Art of Spying would not have come together without the editing of Walter B. Gibson. I highly recommend this book to anyone who likes to read about clever and incredible strategies that people use when they find themselves in difficult situations. Although The Fine Art of Spying is a book about the exiting events and missions that certain spies go through, the book does not include 100% concentrated action. So, if you are looking for a pointless, plotless, "everybody dies" novel, (which I DO enjoy reading) I don't recommend this book to you. Otherwise I recommend it to anyone. Although this is a great book, it does have a couple of boring parts. There is a story in The Fine Art of Spying entitled "The Traitor." This is one of the book's less enjoyable stories, in fact, I think it is the worst one in the book. "The Traitor" is about one spy trying to get another spy to work for his network. This may sound okay but it wasn't because the first spy did nothing to persuade the other spy. This makes it bad because there was no conflict and without conflict there is no action. Don't worry, however, there are really only two bad stories. "The Traitor" and "Prisoner in the Legation" are those stories, but I found "Prisoner in the Legation" not to be as boring as "The Traitor." There are, however, many good stories in this book. One of my favorites is called "Encounter at Treasure Island." This story is about an ordinary guy who gets tangled up with some Japanese spies and tries to get on the inside of their network and obtain enough information about them to get them arrested and convicted. The Fine Art of Spying is a great collection of some excellent spy stories. I liked this book because most of the stories were extremely exciting and they told what real people have done in actual situations. Many of the strategies that these people thought of I would not have dreamed of, so my attention was held. Even though the interesting aspects varied from story to story, some stories were very boring, while others almost forced the reader to continue. Over all I highly recommend The Fine Art of Spying.

This book is a most excellent read. It is good for people casually interested in espionage and those with more background in it. One of the most overlooked areas was the periods between the world wars and the late 19th Century which is well treated. It is also written in a fast paced style that is never boring. I highly recommend this book. I have several other books by the author after reading this one and have been impressed with them all. A definite "can't miss" book.

This Biography of Theodore Roosevelt is a very good and well written accounting of the personal side of his life. The book examines his youth, first marriage, and his time in the west in very good detail. The book fails miserably in it's exploration of the time TR spent in the White House. It falls far short of detailing the day to day political manuvering and his interaction with the other national political players. If you are primarily interested in his personal life, this is the book for you. If you are more interested in the compromise and delicate balanceing act of his national political career you should seek out other works. The biography by Henry F Pringle or Willaim H Harbaugh offer a far superior political biography and spend a little less time on the personal life. Because of this failing Miller's bio is not the advertised COMPLETE life. Other bio's are more Difinitive.

This book is by far one of the best I've ever read! Although I am only 17 I found it to be very well written and intriguing, not in the least bit boring! I was a bit overwhelmed at first when I found out that the book was 567 pages long but as I began to read the book I found the pages going by more and more quickly. A true biography, it goes from his childhood to his death and details his life in politics, his friends, his foes, and the decisions he made as well as why he made them; also includes many in depth looks at the his private life and the events that shaped him. I hadn't read much of anything ,prior to having read this book, about Teddy Roosevelt and now find myself to be as informed as the most fervent admirer of the former president. Don't pass up the opportunity to read this book, I guarantee you'll love it!

This excellent biography, published in 1992, is interesting and lively. It paints a picture of a dynamic leader and "literary feller" who was also a nice guy. Well, that is, unless you had crossed him in some way. But he had lofty ideals that he usually stuck to, and he loved his big family. Of particular interest are the pictures and section devoted to his first wife, the tall and lovely "Sunshine" Alice, who died tragically on Valentine's Day at age 22. There is the charge up San Juan Hill in Cuba, his cowboy times "out West," his struggles with gout, the Nobel Peace Prize for helping end the Russo-Japanese War...and during all these activities, the amazing man found time to publish 40 books! They don't make 'em like this anymore. Well, maybe they will in the future, but the U.S. political horizon looks gray and dim, does it not? Can you imagine Clinton or Bush publishing 40 books? Or winning the Peace Prize? Great book for those folks interested in Great Men. It's fascinating and highly readable, not your daddy's biographical Oldsmobile.

Now, do what you might have done for Teddy: Give me a good vote, please! This is all in fun, isn't it? Thanks.

Meyer Levin was a news reporter during the Leopold and Loeb case. He had sailed to Europe before the hearing began, and thus missed out on the opportunity to cover one of the most sensational crimes of the 20th Century. Years later, Levin secured a contract to write a book based on the Leopold/Loeb crime. Levin met with Leopold in prison and they spoke of collaborating on a story. But Leopold did not want to retel the story of his crime. He wanted to concentrate on his life after the crime. Thus no collaboration ever came about.
Levin created his book, focusing on his own psychological intepretation for the crime. He researched for his novel heavily, and uses large chunks of the testimony, as well as letters Nathan wrote Dick, and the ransom note, word for word. However, Compulsion is a work of fiction. Despite the claimes from other reviewers here that Compulsion is a love letter to the killers, Nathan Laopold found the novel revolting. Later, after his parols, he would sue Meyer Levin.
Any student of the Leopold Loeb case should by all means read compulsion. However, keep in mind that it is a work of fiction and should not be the be all and end all of research. There are blazing inacuracies, and the entire thing is captured through one man's opinion- Levin's. Others have differing views and perhaps after further study, so will you.

This book is a novelization of the infamous Loeb & Leopold murder case of 1924. The murder was considered at the time to be the crime of the century (like O.J. Simpson was to us). Why would a pair of rich young geniuses kill a randomly selected child? This is a fascinating psychological study of evil. Levin knew the perpetrators personally, so he was in a strong position to tell this story. And he has a brilliant writer's ability to get inside the head of a human being who has lost his way, morally speaking. The book is old and the story is old, but the tale remains relevant and powerful.

Factoid #1: It was made into a movie, "Compulsion", with Orson Welles. The murder also inspired a play and a Hitchcock movie based upon that play (which pre-date this book), "Rope". And yet a third movie (which I didn't "get"): "Swoon".

Factoid #2: Levin opens the book with this line: "Nothing ever ends, and if we retrace every link in causation, it seems there is nowhere a beginning." That's a succinct, intriguing observation, isn't it?

Factoid #3: This book was written in 1956, long after the crime and trial. Levin decided to tell the tale at that point because Leopold, still in prison, was being considered for parole, and it seemed appropriate for the case to be revisited.

I enjoyed Meyer Levin's sentimental and fictional account of the 1924 Leopold-Loeb murder of Bobby Franks as a fascinating study of abnormal psychology and the judiciary. A former classmate of the killers at the University of Chicago, the author's sympathetic treatment of likely psychopath Leopold ("Judd") may have aided the latter's parole in 1958 (Loeb was killed in prison). Nevertheless, Leopold sued the author over this book. Compulsion is a great novel, but for a starkly realistic view of this brutal crime readers should consult Hal Higdon's superb non-fictional account, Leopold and Loeb: Crime of the Century.

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.

This book of four hundred pages by Nathan Miller is a great and riveting account of the age of 'Fighting Sail'. The book covers the period from 1775 to the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815. Having read a number of books on Nelson, Sir Sidney Smith and Lord Cochrane I found this book a treat. It covered this great period of sail with a majestic overview, covering all the famous actions and commanders. Many of the stories I had heard before but the author's style of writing made it all seem new to me. I still found many things that I had never heard before and the book was full of fascinating stories.

The narrative was easy to read and just flowed along with accounts from the participants adding flavour to the story. Accounts such as the story about one French officer having himself placed in a tub of bran to slow the bleeding from his legs that had been blown away so he could continue to command. And another about how the water frothed from the feeding frenzy of the sharks after dead seamen had been dumped overboard during an engagement are just awesome when you sit back and think about the those images.

The story was fast paced and the author provided a number of drawings of some of the classic engagements and commanders. I would have liked to see some maps outlining positions taken by the ships before and during the battles but that is only a small complaint. If you are looking for a good and easy to read single volume account of this period I could not recommend a better book.

If you enjoyed this book I would also recommend Tom Pocock's 'A Thirst for Glory' which covers the life of Sir Sidney Smith and Donald Thomas's 'Cochrane: Britannia's Sea Wolf' which is a brilliant story of one of greatest Frigate commanders during the age of fighting sail.

Those who have liked Patrick O'Brian's great sea adventure novels are sure to welcome this factual narrative of the same period of war on the high seas. Miller not only gives the historical background of naval warfare in the age of sail, he tells how the ships and guns worked, how the sailors lived, how the admirals thought and fought. His subtitle on the age of sail might also have been "the age of Nelson," for he uses the life of the hero of Trafalgar to tie together the widespread action during the years from the American revolution to the War of 1812. One of the book's most memorable scenes is the day when Nelson first went on board a warship at the age of 12. As Miller tells of the rousing battles to follow, they are not just scattered outbursts of action around the world; each takes on strategic meaning in relation to the others. This book is much better written than the typical history. Miller was a World War II sailor and has written a series of other naval histories; he knows both the subject and the lingo. His fluent narrative is founded on solid research. I recommend it as a companion volume to the works of O'Brian and C.S. Forester. It fully deserves five stars.

Miller has given us a valuable history lesson whose readership should include every candidate or potential candidate for the presidency. Although Bill Clinton is not considered for this book, will he become a "Starr (sic) Spangled Man?" This chapter is yet to be written.

In any event, the portraits of our White House schemers, wusses, and do-nothings are well sketched out, although I would have preferred more depth on the great "worst" -- U.S. Grant and Richard Nixon. The analysis seems a bit thin on these men, both of whom had such rich and and extraordinary pre-presidential careers. The chapter on overrated presidents, Thomas Jefferson and JFK was on the mark, althogh here, too, deeper analysis would have been welcome. I would quarrel with MIller on one major point. In his table of contents, he lists the 10 worst presidents in order from poor to horrid. If one regards the actual harm a president did to the country, I would rank order the final four as follows: Harding, Pierce, Nixon, and Buchanan. Buchanan was the very worst because he did not even attempt to halt the drift to the bloodiest period in American history. Nixon was bad enough, but his resignation prevented him from doing more harm; give him credit at least for not prolonging the agony and departing the scene voluntarily. For us history buffs, Miller should now try a new arcane theme. How about America's best Secretaries of Commerce?

My son and I are home schooling and we always use a minimum of three sources when we study people. Luckily this book is one of our sources for the ten worst presidents. Invariably, this book makes understandable what some of the others don't--for example, why Andrew Johnson is among the ten; some of our other books seemingly only convey that Johnson continued in the footsteps of Lincoln's vision of reconstruction! Nathan Miller's descriptions of all of these men are true studies in how good men (and in some cases, not-so-good men) can become very bad presidents. There's a lot to learn between these book covers. Sandy Kalman

I repeat my review of below so it will be linked with my newly created ID on Amazon:

These 10 Chief Executives are well-picked. Mr. Miller, an eminent historian and author, brings his extraordinary talents to bear in this nice little tome. Although brief, this book will gives more than enough information to whet the appetite of the most avid history buff. If you think things are bad with the current administration, a look back at Teapot dome, Watergate, the near impeachment of Johnson, and all the other shortcomings and scandals documented here will certainly leave you asking the question "Have things really changed?". The appendix on Jefferson and Kennedy were especially refreshing Another great contribution by Mr. Miller.

This is not a bad book, but is a breezy and non-scholarly look at the most important President of the 20th century. Miller's research is haphazard and he puts too much weight on witnesses who were unreliable and discredited by better historians. Miller grossly exaggerates the extent of FDR's womanizing in the 1910's and bases his assumptions on a witness who is a proven liar. A more methodical writer would have avoided this mistake.

Similarly, his take on the FDR-Eleanor relationship is also wide of the mark and inaccurate. His anti-Eleanor bias is evident and he makes several misstatements of fact. Blanche Wiesen-Cook's recent two-volume Eleanor books are the better and definitive treatment.

If you are serious about FDR, you will rely upon the superior books on him by Kenneth Davis, Geoffrey Ward and Frank Freidel.