Renaissance Lives: Portraits of an Age by Theodore K Rabb. This nicely done book, based on the PBS Series, is an excellent reference for the understanding the important people during the renaissance. It gives the reader a clear picture of the famous folk (and some not so famous) that an educated person living during the sixteenth century would be familiar with. Renaissance Lives: Portraits of an Age gives a synopsis of the lives of 15 men and women from Galileo Galilee to a merchant named Gluckel of Hameln. Covering England and Western Europe, the living history aficionado is provided with yet another great aid for the performance of their art.

Rabb picked a great selection of people to write about in this book and presents them all in such a way -- erudite, smart -- that changes in European society are detailed very well. This great book gives in-depth information about these people who characterize aspects of the changing Renaissance society & gives a very workable outline of major changes that happened among the people throughout the Renaissance centuries, from Petrarch who lived through the 1256 Plague to 17th Century poet & academic John Milton. He uses letters from the people & incidents from their lives that tell more not only about who they were as people but also describe changes in the society that he uses these people as a portal to.

Having been challenged by interpretations,and analyzing the assumptions behind the concept of Western civilization, The Western Experience presents a confused panorama about what Western Civilization is all about. Is European Civilization the civilization of Modern Europe and America excluding Australia? The concept of civilization is avoided in spite of the fact that the text was designed to provide an analytical and comprehensive account of the processes by which European society and civilization evolved. Civilization is defined as just a social organization with more complex rules than those of the cavemen. The proper concept of civilization is not treated in a rational and coherent manner. How does the narrative around selected recurring themes fit together under a broader concept of civilization in order to understand the continuing thread of developmment of the so-called western civilization? How do you distinguish one civilization from another in space and in time?

This is a collection of essays by various historians on alternate military outcomes in history, arranged in chronological order from Ancient times to 1983. Although there are some interesting essays on the American Revolution and a few other areas, the book is very disappointing. The "big name" historians provide the worst-written essays, almost afterthoughts. The essay by John Keegan on what if Hitler had pursued a Mediterranean strategy in 1941-2 totally ignores logistics and Nazi political objectives. Stephen Ambrose's essay on what if D-Day had failed rests on non-military reasoning and is ridiculous (as if the Allies would have abandoned D-Day because of bad weather). In light of Peter Tsouras' excellent "Disaster at D-Day", Ambrose's essay appears pathetic. Other essays are rather pedestrian, like several on what if the South had won the Civil War. Yawn. How many times is this going to be passed around? Many interesting and almost situations, like Operation Sealion, or what if Iraq had invaded Saudi Arabia in 1990 are ignored. None of the essays do a very good job on strategic analysis and assume too much about single win/loss results (e.g. a Southern victory at Gettysburg was unlikely to have won the war, since the North had already lost several battles without any real reduction in its will to win). This book is a collection of not-very original quasi-historical fluff.

For anyone who likes history, this book is an uneven, but overall excellent and very enjoyable, series of exercises in "counterfactual" history. Not the silly, frivolous, or nonsensical kind, where Robert E. Lee all of a sudden is given a nuclear bomb, but instead serious, meaty (even highly PROBABLE) ones, like what would have happened if there hadn't been a mysterious plague outside the walls of Jerusalem, or if there had been a Persian victory at Salamis, or if Genghis Khan's drunken third son (Ogadai)had not died just as his hordes were poised to conquer (and probably annhilate) Europe, or if Cortes had been killed or been captured Tenochtitlan, etc.

The major flaw with this book is that the essays are of somewhat uneven interest level, style, and quality. Personally, for instance, I found the essay on the Mongols to be fascinating, sending chills down my spine! "D Day Fails" by Stephen Ambrose, on the other hand, didn't do much for me at all, nor did "Funeral in Berlin." In general, I would say that the essays covering earlier periods in human history tend to be better than ones covering more recent history. Possibly this is in part because the later periods have been covered to death. I mean, how many "counterfactuals" on the US Civil War can there be before we get sick of them? But a well-written, tightly-reasoned counterfactual which, based on events hundreds or even thousands of years ago, quite plausibly leads to a result where there is no Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, or Western culture at all, is absolutely fascinating in my opinion. If nothing else, books like "What If?" show how important CHANCE is in human history, as well as the importance of the INDIVIDUAL, as opposed to some Hegelian/Marxist-Leninist historical "inevitability." The bottom line is that it is rare that anything is truly "inevitable", and the aptly titled "What If?" gives us some excellent case studies.

Heard the taped version of WHAT IF?: THE WORLD'S FOREMOST
MILITARY HISTORIANS IMAGINE WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN, edited
by Robert Cowley . . . I often speculate about lots of things, and so do the contributors to this book--including Stephen E. Ambrose, John Keegan, David McCollough, and James M. McPherson (to name just a few).

For example, what if:
George Washington had never made his miraculous escape
from the British on Long Island in the early dawn of August 29, 1776?

a Confederate aide hadn't accidentally lost General Robert E. Lee's plans for invading the North?

the Allied invasion on D Day had failed?

These and a whole host of other questions are considered . . . the resultant answers are often fun, but at the same time, sometimes frightening . . . as in, Hitler's case . . . had he not attacked Russia when he did, he might have moved into the Middle East and secured the oil supplies the Third Reich so badly needed, thus helping it retain its power in Europe . . . can you just imagine the present-day implications for that scenario?

If you're a history buff, this is a MUST read . . . but methinks
that others will enjoy it and become much more interested
in the subject as a result . . . I know that I'm now looking
forward to Coweley's follow-up effort, WHAT IF? 2.

I had to purchase this book for my guide to AP European History.

I had never before had a course in European History and this gave me a disadvantage in using this book.

Because the text assumes you know who everyone is, the immeadiately tell you every single way history views important people, classes, wars, monarchs, etc.

Also, the reading can get very tedious.

However, I gave this book 3 stars because it does offer more than just what happened. It also tries to show the student, "why did it happen."

TO teachers/professors: Only give this book to your class if they have some experience of European History

"The Western Experience" edited by Chambers covers a massive range of topics in a manner that is conducive to the understanding of the material. The book discusses many Social, Political and economic trends for each respective time frame. However, there are some glaring omissions as a historical text. The book will state for example, that a certain organization was established in a certain year, however, nothing further is mentioned. No explanations as to why or as to what purpose said organization ultimately served. Further, the text becomes, at times, difficult to follow, as things are not discussed in chronological order. The reader often has difficulty in distinguishing the year and what specific events where happening elsewhere at the same time. But it must be noted here that the reader most certainly does recognize parallelism within history, as the result of its interconnected, yet non-chronological, organization scheme.

If must be noted, however, that while it is at times difficult to follow, the book, especially in the more modern history parts, does a relatively good job of remaining objective.

continuation... Mention is made of a new civilization taking root in the west and north of Europe without specifying what are the elements and characteristics of such a civilization. Why west and north and not the south such as Italy or Spain and Portugal? The factors and conditions that make-up this new civilization are not analyzed nor systematized. Medieval civilization is mentioned without describing how it developed through its supposedly unifying theme of community and class identity. Finally in the epilogue, Roman Civilization is touched under Human Rights, as Roman law was extended wherever Roman civilization could reach. Roman Imperial Civilization is a sub-title but there is no analysis nor consideration of this HIGHER empire as a civilization. If historians look to Near Eastern societies for the root conceptions of organized government, writing, law, complex religious ideas, ethical values, etc., cornerstones of modern society,

they should also trace the origins and development of Western Civilization under this context.