Barbara Tuchman (1912-89) captured the 1962 Pulitzer Prize with this gripping look at the opening stages of World War I. Tuchman begins by examining the pre-war politics, military plans, and inept diplomacy of major European nations. Once hostilities begin, she focuses heavily on Germany's attack through Belgium and Northern France - an offensive that just missed defeating France outright in 1914 and altering the course of history. The author exposes military stupidity, German atrocities in Belgium, and shows how this conflict opened as a murderous war of movement rather than as the entrenched stalemate that followed. I'd have liked fuller coverage on competing theaters of war, and wish that Tuchman hadn't stopped at the Battle of the Marne. Still, this is compelling history. Most importantly, the author shows how new technology and bungling politicians that failed to control their eager militarists plunged Europe into needless disaster. No wonder President Kennedy referred to this book during the Cuban missile crisis.

Tuchman was one of a few readable non-historians (William L. Shirer, John Toland) who outdid the stuffy academics. I particularly liked her coverage on Belgium's dilemma: either let the Germans march through, or fight them against overwhelming odds - you have 12 hours to decide. "The Guns of August" is gripping, tragic history at its finest.

Barbara Tuchman's account of the 30 days of August 1914 can be viewed as a prism of events before and after this pivotal month at the start of the WW1. There are many views as to whether this War was an inevitable manifestation of tottering monarchies, deadly new technology, colonial rivalry and and the still very prevalent romance and chivalry associated with War. WW1 forever debased that latter notion, but sadly did not put an end to war. Although this can be read as a stand alone piece it is better put in the perspective of it's precedent, the war itself and its aftermath. John Keegan's new study 'World War One' is highly recommended, and perhaps Clausewitz's classic study of causes and tactics 'On War'. Tuchman does not present an ideological or chauvinistic perspective. Her strength is in her objective narrative rendering, and her character insights, including the llumination of some lesser known figures who played a key roll in events. Excellent, readable history with the drama and immediacy of a novel. You'll have trouble putting it down.

What Barbara Tuchman has done here is something precious few historians are able to do. With her stunning prose and fathomless knowledge, she brings to life that first fateful month of World War One. The historical figures she describes seem more like a collection of characters from an action novel. More than once I found myself saying "Did they really do that?" Ordinarily I can only read about 75 pages at a time before I start to lose interest and need a break. This book I began one morning and didn't put it down until I finished it. Tuchman kept my interest throughout and at times, though I knew the outcome, I found myself sitting at the edge of my chair wondering what would happen next. Even some of the best novels do not have this kind of power.

As for the book itself, it covers only the first month of the war. Though it does go into some depth of the war's origins, the main focus is on the movement and action of the armies from mobilization day until stalemate is reached. Tuchman's research is exhaustive, and this is the definitive work on that period. When the book was finished, I was disappointed only because she didn't continue. I wish I could give this more than five stars. If you have any interest in history whatsoever, regardless of your field, you must read this book, because this is what history should be!

I've tried reading this book repeatedly over the last two years and, although the material is interesting, just find it a slog. Tuchman presumes a lot of knowledge about the 14th century on the part of the reader which, combined with the often dense writing, makes it difficult to get through. Tuchman's clever twist is to focus on the life of one French nobleman. This should make the narrative more personal, but frequently results in portions of history, especially outside England and France, feeling short-changed or forced, and making the narrative difficult to follow. If you have some basic understanding of the middle ages in France or England and can get through it, though, it gives a great overall impression of what life in 14th century Europe must have been like.

I have to admit that Barbara Tuchman is one of my favorite history authors and it was this book that introduced me to her. This book tells the truth about that time period, a time of turmoil, illiteracy, wars, bloody mercenaries roaming and pillaging. A lot of people when they think back to this time period they have these romantic notions of dashing knights, damsels in distress, wonderful luxury and refinement, and noble wars. These people are totally ignorant of the subject and time and I would definitely recommend for them to read this book to open their eyes to a time period that, thank god, is in the distant past. However, if we are not careful this same chaos and substandard living could return and modern chaos is a lot more destructive and dangerous than 14th Century chaos.

Tuchman's A Distant Mirror is not only a wonderful historical book, it is a work of art. Tuchman avoided the dryness and lack of "reality" that is common to many historical books that merely list past events and describe them from the author's vantage. By contrast, she used historical events and setting, and related what actually happened through the thoughts and [probably] spoken words of those alive at that moment in time. She humanizes history. Of course she did not have actual transcripts from the 14th century, but with great skill and eloquence she puts words, thoughts, and feelings into actual principles of history that she skillfully brings alive. This is not a historical novel in any traditional sense. Rather, I'd say, it's a factual description of the 14th century, as felt and lived by actual people of the time. In fact I believe A Distant Mirror is the first acclaimed book of this type that most historians acclaim as very worthy. It's a must-read for all who are interested in medieval times, especially, medieval France. It's very hard to put down, once started.

Barbara Tuchman is a first-rate writer and historian whose books I have much enjoyed. For some years now I have been meaning to get a copy of "The March of Folly," since it is a book which greatly appeals to me in its concept. To look at the history of modern man (since about 1,000 BC) and take examples of real foolishness on the part of a number of key governments, and try to see why they so acted, strikes me as a wonderful idea for a book. However, I can now say, somewhat reluctantly, that "The March of Folly" is not up to the standard of Tuchman's earlier books. I find this curious indeed and have been wondering for some time why it is so.

Firstly, the writing is not up to par and I can only put this down to sloppy editing. Some of the oddest phrases in the book are so un-Tuchman like, that I imagine they have been written by a researcher and, for whatever reason, have managed to sneak by both the author and her editors. Tuchman is usually crisp and succinct. Some of this text is laborious and redundant; it's most surprising. Perhaps this first fault leads to the second, although not entirely. In "The Guns of August" and "The Proud Tower," Tuchman seems to be in very complete command of both her history and her sources. In "The March of Folly," one begins to wonder if she has not strayed too far afield and is rather unsure of her ground. So it appears to me, especially with reference to the beginning of the book, where she discusses both the siege of Troy and then the Papacy during the Renaissance, when she seems very shaky indeed. Or it may be that this apparent instability is founded on limited research and that that has been allowed to come through in the book. Whatever the reason, I find that the book does not live up to its promise, either conceptually or authorially.

The sections on the American Revolution and the Vietnam War are interesting in themselves, but one wonders at times, given the detail involved in both cases, if Tuchman is not actually off the rails. The fact that there is no stated plan at the beginning of the book (chapters and sub-headings and synopses, I mean) makes me wonder indeed, just how much of a plan she had. So I think you can read this book for its individual content (i.e., if you happen to be interested in the particular periods covered), but the disappointment overall is that the really first-rate text that one might have expected, does not materialise. I will say that the essay at the end is very Tuchmanesque and is a brave attempt, quand même, to tie the threads of the book together. Yet I'm unsure of just how far she can get away with a text that smacks so readily of invention and understudy, and in my opinion, the epilogue is hardly sufficient, by itself, to save the whole. I suppose it is just possible that she and I both got carried away by the title.

Where is Barbara Tuchman now that we need her? As the United States pursues a "war" on "terrorism" -- the former undeclared, the latter undefined -- I fear we are heading down a familiar road that led the Trojans to open their doors to the Greek horse, the Renaissance popes to ignore the Protestant secession, the British to lose their colonies and the Americans to lose in Vietnam. All it takes, the two-time Pulitzer-winning author claims, is folly: the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests, despite the availability of feasible alternatives. Even, perhaps especially, eighteen years after publication, this book is crisp, lively, and relevant.

"The power to command" concludes the author, who earns high marks for being an independent scholar rather than an academic, "frequently causes failure to think. " Of course there are examples of individual folly, that is, folly committed by individuals. However, folly by governments is more far-reaching. Merely surrounding yourself with competent people, as apologists for George W. Bush boast, will not steer you away from folly: JFK had "the best and the brightest" working for him, yet he began to get the US deeply involved in Vietnam; fearing the right wing would think him soft on Communism, Johnson escalated the folly. It is principally for that Vietnam section, comprising over a third of the volume, that I recommend this book.

....

In The March of Folly, Tuchman does not shrink from harsh criticism of politicians. In the semi-mythical Trojan War, at least the gods could be blamed for the successful Greek ruse. The roguish, opportunist, nepotistic politicians of the Holy See, from 1470-1530, saw that they were doing wrong, but lacked either the sense or the courage to put it right and save the church. Those Renaissance popes saw the chair of Peter as a cash box for their personal aggrandizement, and a venue for their political exploits and carnal festivals -- but only because that was the way things had always been done. The British couldn't grasp that their American colonies consisted of people who, once having tasted of freedom, might be irked to have that freedom recalled and, at the same time, might not like their sweat equity in the new land become an entitlement for the lords.

The first three sections of The March of Folly are well and vividly written, a melding of historical narrative and commentary. I suspect that Tuchman couldn't wait to wrestle with the Vietnam War. Here her insight into the workings of policy makers from Eisenhower to Nixon is acute, yet dissected in an account that a layman can follow. One of the most interesting, and currently relevant, observations from Tuchman is prompted by a remark made at the time by Governor Nelson Rockefeller: "We ought all to support the President. He is the man who has all the information and knowledge of what we are up against." That, she says, "is a comforting assumption ... usually invalid, especially in foreign affairs." When pursuing liberty, America will wave its flag and invest its heart. But the current administration would do well to follow the second part of John Quincy Adams's dictum: "... but [America] goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy." Smiting terrorists for their actions is one thing, and one with an end in sight; aiming to smite terrorism, root and branch, worldwide, is not only endless, it is folly's march.

Tuchman's brief history of governmental folly begins with the Trojan's ill-fated decision to admit the Greek wooden horse, moves across the Mediterranean in time for the Renaissance popes to provoke the Reformation, then moves to exclusively Engish-speaking follies, culminating in Vietnam. Folly, by her definition, is pursuit of policy contrary to self-interest, best summarized in relation to Philip of Spain, for whom no experience of failure of his policies would dissuade him of their essential excellence. Vintage Tuchman; by far the strongest passage is the wonderful tableau of British eighteenth century splendor depicted in the American Revolution section. As she portrays it, the life of a Whig parliamentarian was so sumptuous that only the insanely puritanical would trouble themselves with minor administrative hiccups like the Boston Tea Party.

Barbara Tuchman attempts something that is not normally done by historians. She tells a tale of how a war starts not from the perspective of princes, politicians and the great generals but from the mood and movements within the societies of the main combatants. We are a century, and a culture, removed from the way our great-grandparents saw life. It's difficult for us to understand how World War I came about without understanding the mind-set of the people who fought it. This, unfortunately, can make for dull reading unless enlivened by the stories of outstanding or eccentric individuals. Real history isn't always so obliging so yes, there are dull sections in this book--especially in the latter half. I applaud Ms. Tuchman's honest and honorable attempt to give us the social viewpoint of the time but I must warn you this is not a book for the casual reader who is looking for light entertainment. This is a work of scholarship.

The Proud Tower is in my opinion Tuchman's best work. Yes, even better than "The Guns of August." Writing about the 20 - odd years before the start of World War One, Tuchman explores European society at the turn of the century, recalling the forces that eventually collided in 1914.

As she chronologically moves towards the beginning of the Great War, specific countries and specific social issues are addressed. This works well, and makes for a fast-paced intriguing read. However, Tuchman devotes most of her energies to on the personalities and forces in Western Europe with little more than a cursory nod to Russia and Austro-Hungarian Empire. Turkey, Italy and the balkans are hardly discussed at all, and even then only as they relate to Western Europe. This is peculiar, given the disproprotionate influence these areas had on the causes of the eventual conflict.

The Proud Tower is nontheless a wonderful social history of fin-de-sicle Europe. A better read on the same time period - and one that has more of a Central European focus is Frederick Norton's Thunder at Twilight.

I greatly enjoyed this book and re-read it on a periodical basis. Its principal strength is Ms Tuchman's ability to quickly limn the predominant characteristics of a person, a movement, or a society-- after just a few paragraphs I felt I truly understood the psychology of Kaiser Wilhelm, for example, or the insufferable yet somehow enchanting serenity of the English aristocracy. Another strength is that, although the individual chapters by and large concentrate on specific phenomena of the time (the disarmament movement, or Socialism), Ms Tuchman is able to interweave highly descriptive portraits of individual nations as well: thus, for example, her chapter on the Arts is bound up with the person of Richard Strauss, and by extension vivid depictions of fin-de-siecle Germany. Serious scholars will probably find fault with occasional superficialties; I thought, for example, the chapter on the arms race gave only a taste of the complex issues involved. However, as a general intoduction to the period The Proud Tower offers a lot to any reader.

I very much enjoyed Bible and Sword. Like all of Tuchman's work that I have read, it keeps your interest just as much as a good novel. There were several places in the book where I made a note "good writing" such as when she wrote "Now the rationalists galloped with the bit in their teeth."

This book is principally about the ties between Britain and Palestine. Tuchman starts covering the story of how the Jews got back to Israel with the earliest sympathies in Britain coming from

interpretations of the Christian Bible's Old Testament. She then describes the imagined connection between Joseph of Arimathea and Britain that began in the Middle Ages and goes on to cite evidence of Briton pilgrims to Palestine beginning as early as the time of St. Jerome, ca 386 AD. She then leads the reader through the Crusades and Middle Ages when at times there was a regular tourist service to the Holy Land. These connections were primarily concerned with the New Testament connection with Palestine. During the evangelical Christian movement in Britain of the 1800's, however, there again developed a connection with the names and scenes of the Old Testament. She shows how these emotional and spiritual connections melded with Britain's imperial interests and led to the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and then the British-led Palestine Mandate in 1922 for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Imperial interests wanted a friendly and British controlled Palestine to protect the eastern flank of Britain's route to India through the Suez canal. By the 1930's the Brits were already tired of the job and were looking for some one else to dump it on - and then WWII intervened.

Unfortunately, Tuchman dropped the story pretty much in the late 1920's after telling how the Turkish empire got dismantled with only a few later events mentioned. That was quite a disappointment. I would like to have had her tell the story of how the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine got reactivated after WWII and how the dimensions of the Jewish and Palestinian areas were decided, what the commitments to the non-Jewish citizens were, and how the Jewish partisans forced Britain to get out of Palestine.

I do have to say that Tuchman's view of the whole of her history is very British. She cites very few Arab sources, not even the English Arab, Lawrence of Arabia, other to mention that he existed and was very active in negotiations on the part of the Arab interests. I had to keep reminding myself that Tuchman was an American educated in America as she gave very little perspective on views from this side of the big pond.

I suspect that most people who read Bible and Sword do so after an enjoyable experience with one of Tuchman's acclaimed later works, such as Pulitzer Prize winners The Guns of August or Stillwell and the American Experience in China. I fall into the extreme end of this group, having read all 9 of her subsequent books before tackling this debut offering. Major fans of Tuchman will enjoy Bible and Sword on two levels--as a stand-alone historical work and as a window on the early development of one of the finest American-born historians.

Regarding the work itself, the topic of Britain's relationship with Palestine and central role in the movement toward re-establishment of the Jewish state is fascinating. The canvas is broad, covering roughly 1,700 years from the original Christian communities in 3rd century Britain to the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which established the British policy of restoring the Jewish state to Palestine. The thesis is compelling, namely that the Balfour Declaration was the scion of twin progenitors--the Christian motivation to restore the Jews to the promised land as a prerequisite to the second coming of Christ and the imperial motivation to control the vital Mediterranean commercial route to India and the Far East. Interestingly, Tuchman makes it clear that, with several individual exceptions, these motivations had nothing to do with concern for the Jews but rather originated from the spiritual and temporal aspirations of Britain. The ebb and flow of the Britain-Palestine relationship makes for fascinating reading, covering topics such as the early Holy Land pilgrimages, the Crusades, the role of the British Navy in halting Napoleon's conquest of Palestine and the British role in propping up the Ottoman Turks.

Fans of Tuchman will immediately notice similarities to her later style while being struck by several glaring differences. Her almost lyrical, figurative style, while not as refined or prevalent as additional experience would eventually allow, is on display. For example, in describing the Turkish decision to seek help from Russia in fending off rebellion, she writes, "In his last agony, the Sultan, as a drowning man might clutch at a boa constrictor, accepted the help of his long-loathed enemy the Czar." Unfortunately, unlike her later works, Bible and Sword is plagued by an amazing number of relatively obscure literary, political and historical allusions that leave the reader with the impression of an unproven writer seeking desperately to provide evidence of her erudition. While this can be understood in the context of an aspiring historian without the typical credentials of a PhD and university professorship, it frustrates the non-academic reader, as is evidenced by an earlier Amazon review.

In the final analysis, Bible and Sword is a stimulating read, although unrefined in several respects. If you are looking to read only one or two Tuchman books, this is not the choice. But if you have an interest in the topic and/or a high level of interest in Tuchman as a writer, I highly recommend it.

As one of Tuchman's first publications, this book is perhaps a little rougher than some of her more recent works. The scholarship is, of course, thorough and brilliant, but the refined irony and humour found in her "Calamitous 14th Century" is somewhat lacking. (Of course, practice does make perfect, and this is a fine early work.)

With this said, her thorough coverage of the Balfour mandate starts not in the 19th century, but far back in the past, even before Britain first began to recognize the Christian debt to the Jews. Starting in the Bronze age, continuing through the Crusades, exploring Victorian ideals, and finishing with a thorough review of the events leading up to the formation of Israel, this book is nothing if not thorough.

For anyone who enjoys Tuchman's work, this book is no disappointment. For anyone curious about the convoluted and intricate relationship between Britain and Palestine, between Christian and Jew, this book is essential reading.

By now most of these essays are beginning to show their age...I agree with the other reviewer here that her style is quaint. I was most impressed with her ruminations on the craft of creative writing itself, and how that can come into conflict w/ the practice of history, and I enjoyed her reflections on doing historical research and also her considerations on academic vs. non-academic historians, and the importance of readability and narrative vs. cramming loads of facts into one's writing w/o a unifying narrative; British scholar A.L. Rowse makes a similar point (and praises Tuchman) in his _Historians I have known_. After having read Ron David's _The Arabs & Israel_ and a number of works by Noam Chomsky (themselves both American Jewish writers) critiquing modern Israel, I really cannot take Tuchman's triumphmentalist zeal vis a vis Israel seriously; I found myself talking back to the audiobook repeatedly "but Barbara, what about...?" , etc. Tuchman is a mainstream American liberal, and I am Left of the mainstream. I have yet to read Tuchman's seminal work _The Guns of August_, and I am eager to read _The Proud Tower_ also, about the last years of the 19th century before the Great War. You could do worse than Barbara Tuchman, but she is something of an anachronism by now and you can certainly do much better, too. (Howard Zinn comes readily to mind)

"Practicing History", by Barbara W. Tuchman, sub-titled "Selected Essays". Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, 1981.

This book is a collection of essays written by the noted Historian, Barbara W. Tuchman (e.g. "The Guns of August"), over the course of her long career. In my humble opinion, for the novice historian, the most interesting essays are, "The Historian as Artist" (pages 45-50), "The Historian's Opportunity", (pages 51-64). In these two essays, Ms. Tuchman challenges the budding historian to not only collect facts, dates and events, but rather to write History so the end product is as engaging as modern novel, BUT, based upon excellent scholarship. Ms. Tuchman is a proponent of "narrative" History, where the facts "...require arrangement, composition planning just like a painting - Rembrandt's 'Night Watch'" (page 49). These two essays would enhance any course in Historiography.

Some of her remaining essays are a bit dated, but provide keen insight into the times, as in Tuchman's "Japan: A Clinical Note", (pages 93-97). Her essays on Israel tend to be a bit chauvinistic, in the sense that the author's objectivity slips and she can find very little wrong with the budding Jewish state in what was once Palestine. The essay, "Perdicaris Alive or Rasuli Dead" (pages 104-117), is very entertaining, particularly if you are interested in New York's Teddy Roosevelt. All in all, the first section of this book, (called "The Craft"), includes essays that should be required reading for a student beginning graduate work in History.

These essays allow the reader to enjoy Barbara Tuchman's incisive historical analysis and sharp wit in small doses. Most of the essays were written in the 1950s or 1960s or even earlier, but they are still fresh and pointed. Reading Tuchman is like listening to your favorite history professor. She'll tell a dramatic story and finish up with some wry observations that will keep you thinking long after.