Andrew Lambert; a leading authority on naval history; reexamines the life of Sir John Franklin and his final; doomed Arctic voyage. Franklin was a man of his time; fascinated; even obsessed with; the need to explore the world; he had already mapped nearly two-thirds of the northern coastline of North America when he undertook his third Arctic voyage in 1845; at the age of fifty-nine.His two ships were fitted with the latest equipment; steam engines enabled them to navigate the pack ice; and he and his crew had a three-year supply of preserved and tinned food and more than one thousand books. Despite these preparations; the voyage ended in catastrophe: the ships became imprisoned in the ice; and the men were wracked by disease and ultimately wiped out by hypothermia; scurvy; and cannibalism.Franklin’s mission was ostensibly to find the elusive North West Passage; a viable sea route between Europe and Asia reputed to lie north of the American continent. Lambert shows for the first time that there were other scientific goals for the voyage and that the disaster can only be understood by reconsidering the original objectives of the mission. Franklin; commonly dismissed as a bumbling fool; emerges as a more important and impressive figure; in fact; a hero of navigational science.
#250020 in Books Yale University Press 2009-01-06Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.14 x 1.43 x 6.26l; 1.78 #File Name: 0300136218448 pagesYale University Press
Review
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Difficult BoringBy KwanThis book was EXTREMELY difficult to read. Usually when people say that an author is boring or hard to read I tend to find that they are overexaggerating but not with this book. I am also familiar with George III; the problem was definitely how this book was written and organized.Very dry reading. This book also isn't in chronological order at all for the first 200 pages so the author frequently skips from decade to decade. The author also fills this biography with tedious and mundane details about random people. I would be okay with it if it was about King George but it's usually not. Instead the author will randomly mention someone that George had a conversation with and it would be like "this man was related to _____ who was duke of ______ a great grandfather to ______". This happens frequently throughout. There are so many people with no importance that I'm confused as to why the other decided to fill pages with this information. I also found that the author likes to fill up 10 pages worth of detail when it could have taken only a few paragraphs.Jeremy Black also only dedicated ONE chapter (about 27 pages) to George's actions during the American revolution; and only one chapter in regards to the wars with France as well. He doesn't even talk about his first mental health breakdown from 1788-1789 in one chapter but instead briefly mentions it in his chapter about George's relationship with William Pitt the Younger. I found that the really important events in George's life were simply glossed over and mundane every day transactions and dialogue with his ministers described in great detail with no benefit to the reader at all. I would recommend something else for those interested in the life of George III. AVOID7 of 7 people found the following review helpful. THE LAST KING OF AMERICABy Jeremy A. PerronJeremy Black has written a very good biography of one of the most important monarchs in world history: King George III. I think in the end George III was a good king; just not great one. He might have been able to be a great one but his mental health stood in the way of any possible greatness. George III did however provide precedence for the monarch as a ceremonial figurehead of unity rather than an active ruler. He was a person of great abilities and great flaws.Unlike a lot of his contemporary monarchs of the same time period George III accepted the concept of constitutional monarchy. During this period Gustav III of Sweden suspended his country's constitution; Louis XVI tried to undermine the constitution forced upon him; and Russians dared not challenge the rights of the Tsar. King George III was not only loyal to the British constitution; but he actually loved the idea of the British system. George III understood that his family's very claim to the throne of Great Britain was dependent on the very idea of revolution and he was committed to the British ideal.Unlike his immediate predecessors George III was very British. The Royal Family for the bulk of the last century had been what we would now call an immigrant family. Like most immigrant families after a few generations they embrace their family's adopted home over mother country. George I and II were German princes who were Kings of Great Britain; George III was a British prince. George however had several problems. The first of these problems was even though he believed in his constitution; his constitution was unwritten. Today in the United States we often debate about what our written constitution means; imagine debating what the unwritten one is suppose to mean. And it seems that everyone's interpretation of this unwritten constitution is the interpretation that gives their political group the most power. George knew he was King and as King he had certain rights under the constitution to govern his country under the law and traditions established.I have some sympathy with George; although I do not agree with monarchy; if you are going to have one does it not make sense to let the monarch do his job? It seems throughout his reign King George would try to his job as the unwritten constitution defined it; only to be criticized as a Stuart want-a-be. He thought he had to job to do; tried to do it; and was criticized for undermining the constitution that he actually loved.He also had a hard time accepting any change what so ever. He could not see that the House of Commons need to be reformed; he could not listen to the needs and legitimacy of the plight of the American colonists; and he needed to be nudged into supporting the abolition of the slave trade. Most importantly he saw the emancipation of Catholics in Britain to be a betrayal of the Glorious Revolution that brought his family to power.His last major problem was his battles with mental illness. This problem would undermine his reign and destroy his attempts to make an active monarchy. He would have to accept a more ceremonial figurehead role during the Napoleonic wars; although in that role he would have his greatest rise in popularity.An ironic twist in King George III's career is although he most known for losing the thirteen American colonies that became the United States of America; under King George III; Britain actually underwent a very large expansion of its imperial borders."In 1779; firmly stating his resolution never to grant American independence; George claimed that such a measure `must entirely fix the fall of this empire.' Instead; on the global scale; the reach of British power provided one of the most lasting legacies of George's reign; and one that; in the shape of political culture; survived the end of the British empire. As a result of this reach; this chapter is necessarily eclectic; but it reflects the range of activities and topics in which George was engaged as a result of the spread of the empire; and the very different ways in which he was of real or symbolic importance. One of the most enduring aspects was naming which marked British imperial expansion with the royal presence. The process of naming is still readily apparent; especially in areas where the end of imperial control was not accompanied by a determination to reject the legacy of the past. The royal nomenclature of place indeed is the most persistent for the Hanoverian period; when empire was largely a case of North America and the West Indies: Georgetowns and Charlottes testify to the reach of British power and the determination to identify colonies with the crown and the royal family." (p.329)When he ascended to the throne of Great Britain he had two goals. The first goal was to restore the monarch to a more active role in the government from the more a supervisory role of his grandfather and great-grandfather. The second was to make the monarchy above politics and a symbol of unity. On first point he failed and the second he succeeded. The reason for this is these were contradictory goals. You cannot act political and be above politics.Jeremy Black wrote a very great book about a very difficult ruler. I only a have few quibbles; for example why is words `king' and `king of Great Britain' not capitalized but the words `Elector' and `Elector of Hanover' are. Also there is slight error; George Washington never preferred the title `His Mightiness; President of the United States and the protector of their liberties'. That was John Adams; Washington rejected that; although everything else Black said about Washington is true. Other than those two things the book is perfect.1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Not an Enlightened Despot but probably somewhat a despot!By Douglas E. LibertThis person is definitely not a "nice guy"!-He is a remnant of the old European oligarchies and he is proud of his role.-He was hesitant to outlaw the slave trade in 1808 because of the profits reaped by British merchants-He was among the first to want to rapidly and totally end the rebellion in the American colonies-and it wouldn't be difficult to imagine him financing some Indian raiding parties on the frontier-His "madness" that went from 1788-89 and is the subject of some frolicsome plays etc.; I didn't find so much amusing because of his coldness toward others in so many other instances. He seems like he had a big grudge against Catholicism and he was solely interested in promoting the Anglican church but he did have rational limits there because he doesn't seem to get bogged down in dogmas but is more practical. He ruled about 50 years from the end of the FIW to the end of the War of 1812 but his last 10 years he was mainly debilitated from a return of the "madness". His other titles included Elector of Hanover and King of France although the latter was finally dropped. He was probably chosen from the European royalty for his continental affiliations to German lands and the fact that he could recruit loads of German mercenaries who according to the book often were not paid. The other reason for the German connections is the fact that these areas were primarily Protestant and not in league with Catholic and later revolutionary France. George had no empathy with the freedoms hoped for in the French Revolution and spent lots of time and money helping to defeat Revolutionary France. He liked to let the British capitalist type naval merchants have a lot of power and he used the Royal Navy to back them up the world over from Russia to India. He did have a very large family though and his wife Queen Charlotte pretty much stayed with him. He didn't seek out mistresses like many of the British Kings. He doesn't really seem much like a leader but knew his role in the traditional British Monarchy decline in influence; but he still sought to always better his position if he could. He comes off as more a mediocre type king crawling through the age.
