Bonnie Prince Charlie is a figure of myth and romance, and anyone who enjoys Scottish folk tunes will hear his name sung with reverence many times over. It is easy to get lost in the story and lose hold of the reality.

"The Road to Culloden Moor" is a fantastic book, telling the history of Charles Edward Stuart and his quest to regain the British throne in 1745. This is no "hero with feet of clay" revisionist history, but instead equally recalls the strengths and weaknesses of the young pretender. Beginning with the raising of his father's standard at Glenfinnan, the Jabobite rebellion would capture of Edinburgh and march to within 130 miles of London and end in a devastating defeat at Culloden Moor on 16th April 1746.

This book brings the rebellion alive without resorting to purple prose or dramatic emphasis. The facts are facts. The characters are accurate portrayals, based on journals and eyewitness accounts. One of the most interesting pieces of this story is the role the English media played in the rebellion, manipulating stories to achieve emotional effect. "Sweet" Prince William (also known as "William the Butcher") was sold to the English people as a charming and brave defender of the crown. Charles Stewart, the Young Pretender, was marketed as a rapist and eater of babies.

A very interesting book to those interested in Scottish history.

With the writting of "Lusitania: An Epic Tragedy", Diana Preston has unquestionably assumed the statis of being the "Walter Lord" of the Lusitania story. Like Lord's "A Night to Remember" and "The Night Lives On", Preston's book is thoroughly researched, giving the reader an accurate and balanced sense of the political and military realities that led to the torpedoing of the great liner, while still relating all the shipboard events occuring before, during and after the sinking in a narrative that is both easy to understand, as well as read. The personal stories of passengers, crew and combatants (specifically Kaptianleutnant Schwieger) serve to bring home the human side of the tragedy to the reader. Therefore, if you are at all interesteded in learning about the sinking of the Lusitania, but have limitted time to invest, this is definetly the book to read. My only criticism is that Mrs. Preston failed to include a passenger list in the Appendix, but that is admittedly only a minor quible.

It's the facts that make this one of the better history books available about this topic. Ms Preston gives the reader pretty much all the facts from both sides of the issue, while leaving out her opinion (until the very end). As you read, you can make your own decisions about the facts presented and the decisions made by the involved parties.

Another good point about this book is the look at the personalities of the people who were touched by this tragedy. From German high command, to American president, to lowly deckhand, the reader gets close to all the people mentioned in the book. One gets to feel bad for many of the passengers and the plight they experienced. Ms Preston also brings home the facts about the many children who were victims on the Lusitania. It seems that other historians forget about the world's youth in reporting and writing, but not here.

I enjoyed Ms Preston's style and use of words that made the reading easy and enjoyable. She tells a very good story, without getting longwinded or overdone. The time went by very fast while reading this book, and I'm sorry that it had to end.

Thank you Ms Preston. I look forward to your next opus.

The sinking of the liner Lusitania by a U-boat in May 1915 helped bring the U.S. closer to entering the Great War on the side of the Western powers, even though that entrance did not occur for almost another 2 years. This well-written book gives all of the background of that last, fatal voyage, with thumbnail biographies of many of the important personages involved, whether politicians, statesmen, military men, crew and passengers. It's a fascinating book, and even more so once the ship is struck by the torpedo and begins to sink. That's when the real tragedy happens, and that's when the writing gets fantastic. You can almost feel the fear, and the cowardice, and the heroism, and the fatalism of everyone involved. The author then relates the attempts of all of the governments involved, Britain, U.S. and Germany, to "cover up" or change the facts of what actually happened on the seas off the southern coast of Ireland. This is a fascinating story, well told, and well worth reading.

Let me say from the beginning that I enjoyed reading this book very much. The author wrote an exciting, informative, and easy to read read book on the Boxer Rebellion in China. I do not wish to take that away from the author or to underscore how much I enjoyed reading this book.

Now to my major problem with this book. Let me make a similar comparrison. I recently read "Embracing Defeat" which looked at Japan right at the end of WWII. There was a chapter on all the poor Japanese soldiers in Korea and China who were so far away from home. The author conviently left out why those Japanese soldiers were there and what horrible crimes they committed.

In this history of the Boxer Rebellion, the author makes a similiar mistake. Simply, this book might as well be Rudyard Kiplings history of the Boxer Rebellion. I am not saying that the Boxers didnt do some horrible things, but the bottom line is foreigners whether imperialist or missionaries..they simply did not belong in China. And the onese that were there were not doing the right thing.

The Boxer Rebellion was China's attempt to kick out the imperialists. Can u blame them? Opium? Spheres of Influence? Unfair Treaties? Christianity? White Man's Burden? The Europeans did not belong in China. The Chinese were justified in trying to kick them out.

The author sets up a picture of the poor Europeans and the uncivilized and barbaric Chinese. Again, I enjoyed reading the book but this book might as well have been written in 1905.

Imperialists messed up China. Plain and simple. Not to defend the last Empress Ci Xi or the Qing Dynasty or the means used by the Boxers but heck can u blame them?

So to summarize, I enjoyed reading this book. It made great use of primary sources and told a good story. However, this kind of history is unfair. The Boxer Rebellion was more than the "good Europeans" vs. the "bad" Chinese.

Rudyard Kipling would be proud.

Diana Preston's "The Boxer Rebellion" is an admirable mix of first-rate historical research told with vivid journalistic flair and literary grace approaching that of a fine novel. Much to her credit, she points out various inconsistencies in the accounts written by besieged Westerners in Peking and Tientsin and notes the paucity of first-hand reports from Manchu Dynasty officials and educated Chinese. Hence, her book recounts the events of the Boxer Rebellion almost exclusively from a Western perspective. Despite this major shortcoming, she does a splendid job describing the trials and tribulations faced by those trapped in the besieged Foreign legations and Peitang Cathedral in Peking, and the two military relief expeditions sent from Tientsin. To her credit, she draws some interesting parallels between the conduct of the Western military force with those at the turn of the 20th Century, in places such as Eastern Europe and Kuwait. She clearly lays the blame for the siege at the hands of both Manchu Dynasty officials and Western diplomats, pointing out their pompous, arrogant behavior towards each other. She also describes in bitter detail the subsequent looting of Peking by the second military relief expedition. At the very end, she notes how influential Chinese politicians such as Sun Yat-Sen and Communist Chinese officials have favorably viewed the Boxers and their anti-foreign sentiments. This is certainly one of the finest books I have read on this important episode in the early history of modern China.

While not much is written about the Boxer Rebellion, Diana Preston, does a great job. I could not put this down, it reads like a novel. Preston vividly re counts the events leading up to the rebellion, as well as the conflict itself. The discription of the charaters in the same detailed light (the sexual habits of the players is also mentioned, but not over done)places a face on the conflict. It also descibes the awkward union of the world powers that sent troops to rescue the legations in Peking. What I noted the most is that in some aspects China has changed very little. The maps and pictures help with the story. I liked this book very much, and being an avid history reader I could not tell if this was a novel or a history book. If you are looking for a great read that covers this period (in which so few books are written) buy Preston's book.

I am an unsatiable reader of polar exploration adventure history. There are so many books such as "Mawson's Will" and "Endurance" that provide intricate details to gain insight into the explorer's thoughts and condition. Ms. Preston provides so much boring detail regarding each character that I skipped chapters to get to the subject. In one passage, she describes one of the crew as "studying at Oxford where he read the classics". This book is full of English dribble. I completely agree with another review who stated:

"This book merely perpetuates that success (non-British) was bad, and ridiculous failure (British) was herioc. I don't even know if the word tragic is correct, as that implies some sort of unforseen bad luck. Scott didn't have bad luck - he made it fail all through his own incompetence. The only ones who suffered any tragedy were his men, for the bad luck of having Scott as their commander."

Men like Mawson and Shackelton proved to be some of the greatest leaders despite great adversity and until recently, were only footnote in polar exploration

Read this book, it does provide good background on the crew and Scott but, beware of it's boring details.

After reading Caroline Alexander's account of Shackleton's adventure in the Antarctic, I then read this book. How anyone can say that this is not an apologist account is beyond me! Scott's mistakes are so terribly glaring and numerous, I am baffled as to why his status as a hero remains when true leaders like Shackleton are virtually unknown to most people. The tone might be more tolerable if the author was only trying to defend Scott, however, she continuously berates both Shackleton (seemingly more on the grounds that he is Irish) and Amundsen (characterizing him as a Nordic barbarian) throughout the book and promotes Scott as the "gentleman" explorer. Shackleton was able to keep over 20 men alive over the course of 2 years, cross a 1000 miles over the ocean in something akin to a row boat and then hike over mountains to save his men. In contrast, it was almost painful to read about Scott's errors in judgment and wonder what was motivating his thinking at the time - worrying about killing the dogs for food, bringing an additional person on the trek to the pole without enough food, making sure that they did a "man" haul - which finally and collectively sealed Scott's fate as well as the fate of his men. I use the term "fate" lightly because so many of the errors in judgment could have been avoided, I finished the book believing that if Scott had been a stronger leader, he and his men would have survived the ordeal.

I still rate this book 5 stars, because regardless of the tone, I found it to be a fascinating study of weak leadership and the fatal consequences that can result from it

Books on North Polar exploration seem to take a pro-Peary or pro-Cook slant. Even the National Geographic Society pushes Peary's claim, because it also helped fund his expedition. So when a book like Bryce's COOK AND PEARY comes out, saying what many of us believed all along, that both men were unscrupulous liars and neither deserve polar priority, it's a breath of fresh air on the subject. Nevertheless, Bryce also tempers this conclusion by saying both men were skilled in extreme conditions and remarkable real achievements below their belts before they started lying on a big scale and claiming for themselves what they had not achieved. Bryce tries in a valiant book to put an end to the nonsense that if Cook failed, Peary won, and vice-versa.

Books on South Polar exploration must be different. Amundsen reached the pole. It's indisputable. Scott died bringing back the proof that he didn't get priority. Because he reached the pole and -- to the anti-Scotteans, more importantly -- he got back. However, Scott's expedition was not a failure. It was, first and foremost, a scientific expedition; Scott wanted polar priority and probably deserved it (Amundsen wanted the north, denied him by the charlatans Cook and Peary, so he jumped Scott's claim).

Scott's reputation, unlike Amundsen's, has undergone a roller coaster ride for almost a century. First he was made a hero. Then the iconoclasts set in. Roland Huntford's book on Scott and Amundsen was the Big Nail for the anti-Scott forces. To them, Huntford's book is gospel, and to question it is to question reality.

But Huntford, a fine biographer of polar explorers (Nansen, Shackleton), was distintly and unapologetically anti-Scott. And while Scott made errors (the biggest being his modern-minded "diversity" in taking seaman Evans along), his expedition was meticulously planned and employed the latest scientific and techonological advances. Solomon's COLDEST MARCH lays some Scott criticism aside (and since Solomon is a scientist who has actually worked in Antarctica her credentials should carry more weight with the anti-Scotteans than it does). Scott and Amundsen were products of their class and their era, but both also had been on polar adventures before and both men knew what they were up against. Scott is often, these days, portrayed by his detractors (euphemism) as mercurial and indecisive and, in some cases (as in the dramatization of Huntford's book) cruel.

In fact, Scott's polar expedition was a tragedy, in the classic sense as well as the modern. Many events beyond his control led to his death, but decisions he made did go woefully wrong. In any event, it seems, in light of more recent evidence than Huntford's, the whole party would have made it back in most years, but conditions were different on that part of the Antarctic than had been scientifically observed previously. Scott made some bad decisions that led to the tragedy, but it also seems he had a run of bad luck, while Amundsen (and this is not a detraction of him to say so) had a run of good luck. It's ironic that Amundsen left a letter for Scott to take back (and he did) in case Amundsen died, but it proves Amundsen knew that, even with his methods, which seem the "right" ones because he lived, he ran the risk of death in those extreme conditions.

In A FIRST RATE TRAGEDY Preston presents her case clearly and with fairness, and without the judgmentalism that mars Huntford's well-researched and iconoclastic study.

To lighten up some on Scott, folks, does not demean Amundsen's achievements. It's not the silly either/or with the partisans for Cook or Peary. Both Amundsen and Scott could have died (probably should have died) and both might well have made it back alive. There seems to be, in the anti-Scotteans, the fear that if someone treats Scott with a modicum of non-judgmentalism and doesn't bludgeon Scott as a downright fool, it somehow makes denigrates Amundsen. Nonsense. Both men were brave, courageous and intrepid leaders. Their men deserve every bit of praise as being the brave men they were. Scott's expedition was more interested in the scientific end and Amundsen's willy-nilly chase for hte pole was an opportunistis to get the fame to do researches in the north, but the achievements of both neither man, unlike Cook and Peary, need to be given proper appreciation without the need to bludgeon the other.

Preston's A FIRST RATE TRAGEDY is a study of Scott whose time has come.