The Etruscans are one of history's great mysteries -- a sophisticated society that flourished at the heart of the Classical world and then vanished; leaving relatively few archaeological remains and few records of their culture. The Etruscans were adept at magic; and Etruscan books of spells were common among the Romans but they have not survived. While greatly influenced by the Greeks; the Etruscans retained elements of an ancient non-Western culture; and these archaic traits contributed greatly to the civilization once thought of as purely Roman (gladiators; for example; and many kinds of divination). Leland retrieves elements of Etruscan culture from the living popular traditions of remote areas of the Italian countryside where belief in "the old religion" survives to an astonishing degree. Recorded when many of these secret beliefs and practices were fading away; this remarkable volume deals with ancient gods; spirits; witches; incantations; prophecy; medicine; spells; and amulets; giving full descriptions; illustrations; and instructions for practice.
#2754367 in Books 2011-12-01Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.00 x 1.10 x 6.30l; .88 #File Name: 1597972789272 pages
Review
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful. Comparing Two Historical GiantsBy Kevin F. KileyThis is a subject worthy of study and analysis and is the first book on this fascinating subject that has been written. The co-authors have set themselves a monumental task to do justice to both Washington and Napoleon; as volumes have been written on both of these great men; and a good portion of it; especially on Napoleon; has; in the words of a leading historian of the Napoleonic period; `a waste of good paper and printer's ink.' This volume; while not sinking to that low standard; has not covered the material as adequately as one would have liked; but on the other hand has given the subject a very good beginning.This volume is full of interesting information; compares and contrasts Washington and Napoleon very well; and does come to a definite conclusion after presenting the information deemed necessary in the study. The book does suffer from some inadequacies; the most telling being a dearth of primary source material as demonstrated in the Note on Sources on pages 199-211; the Notes on pages 213-229; and the Select Bibliography on pages 231-244. There are no primary sources listed for Washington; though many of the sources listed have primary source material in them. For Napoleon; there are only four: Bourrienne's malicious; mendacious; and ghost-written alleged `memoirs'; Armand Caulaincourt's excellent memoirs; and Las Cases study on Napoleon. There are only two references to Napoleon's Correspondence in the entire volume; which is unfortunate; for one of the ways an historian can `get to know' Napoleon is through his own writings.Besides Bourrienne's unreliable memoirs; some of the other `source' material consulted and referenced on Napoleon used in the book is dubious at best and mendacious at worst. By far the worst and most inaccurate are the afore mentioned `memoirs' by Bourrienne and Alan Schom's horribly biased and error-ridden `biography' of Napoleon. After studying the Napoleonic period for over forty years and writing about it for over ten; Schom's biography is one of the most factually inaccurate books on the period this reviewer has ever read.Other source material used that to my mind is not reliable for the period because of too many errors in the text; or the conclusions drawn; for the Napoleonic period are Alan Schom's One Hundred Days; Jonathan Riley's Napoleon as a General; Alistair Horne's How Far From Austerlitz?; and Frederick Kagan's Napoleon and Europe. For Washington; The War of American Independence by Don Higginbotham; leaves something to be desired.There are excellent secondary sources listed; however; some of them being; for Napoleon John Lynn's Bayonets of the Republic; Michael Leggiere's The Fall of Napoleon and Napoleon and Berlin; James Lawford's Napoleon: The Last Campaigns; Frederick Schneid's Napoleon's Conquest of Europe; as well as Harold Parker's Three Napoleonic Battles as well as many others. Most of the secondary references used for Washington are excellent.What is curious is that John Elting's Swords Around A Throne and A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars that he co-authored with Vincent J. Esposito are missing from the listed sources for Napoleon; as well as Vincent Cronin's Napoleon Bonaparte: An Intimate Biography; which I consider the best of the Napoleonic biographies. Additionally; Cronin has done excellent analytical work on some of the memoirs of the period which is in an appendix of his volume.However; the worst fault on source material is the lack of primary source material for both Washington and Napoleon; especially by people who knew Napoleon and saw him work on a day-to-day basis. There are plenty of those books and memoirs in print regarding the Emperor; and much of it in English; if understanding French is a problem. The memoirs of Baron Fain; Meneval; Marchand; Lavalette; and Rapp were written by men who knew Napoleon and worked with him on a daily basis. Further memoirs from such as Baron Lejeune; Charles Parquin; Antoine de Brack; Colonel Noel; and others give an accurate view of the period and are invaluable. Why these and other works were not consulted is puzzling and leaves the book's narrative and conclusions incomplete regarding Napoleon and his rule. What this did is cause an imperfect or incomplete picture of what Napoleon was like as a man; a head of state; and a soldier; especially the common sense passed on to his family and subordinates in his voluminous Correspondence.Errors of fact in the text are common; though not fatal to the overall presentation. Statements such as describing Napoleon as `five-foot four' when he was actually a little over five-foot six (converting the French foot to the English foot; with the French foot being three-quarters of an inch longer); that Washington was the `military equal of Napoleon' that Napoleon `never became fluent' in French; that Napoleon considered suicide early in his military career; and that he was promoted to general of brigade after helping to suppress the revolt against the government in 1795 (the famous `whiff of grapeshot'); when he was actually promoted to general officer rank for his successful performance at the previous siege of Toulon.Some of the other errors in fact that hurt the narrative for both the Washington and Napoleon sections are:-the battle of Germantown in 1777 is characterized as a defensive struggle; when in fact it was an American attack (page 49).-the characterization that the American southern army was completely annihilated at the Battle of Camden in August 1780; when the nucleus of the Continentals with which Green would rebuild the southern army remained (page 55).-that American General Nathaniel Greene `embraced what he called a `partizan' war in the south when without Green's army and especially his Continentals; the war would have been lost (page 55).-the characterization that Napoleon's first Italian campaigns in 1796 and 1797 `were hardly successful' although they ended virtually at the gates of Vienna with Napoleon dictating peace to the Austrians (page 58).-that the results of the wars of 1805-1807 `were clearly questionable' when the Austrians; Prussians; and Russians were all decisively defeated; the Prussian army and state being completely destroyed in a three weeks campaign (page 58).-that the Battle of Friedland on 14 June 1807 was a `rather modest success' even though it resulted in nearly destroying Russia's best field army and ended in the Treaty of Tilsit with the Tsar (page 67).-the idea that Napoleon `never achieved a decisive victory' when in fact the campaigns of 1805; 1806; 1807; and 1809 accomplished just that goal (page 71).The above conclusions; as well as others in the narrative; are not supported either by primary source evidence or logical historical conclusions; which is a major historical error compounded by the continual theme in the book that Napoleon; and to a lesser extent Washington; were driven in their careers by an excessive ambition; relegating any other motivation to second class considerations.This book is recommended as worthy of study and argument. However; as a reference for the periods described and discussed it should be used with care as the definite lack of primary source material and evidence cripples the narrative and conclusions drawn not from eyewitness material; but from secondary sources; some of which cannot be relied upon.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Five StarsBy Kristine CourtialGreat comparative analysis. I use it every time I teach the revolutions and Napoleon.0 of 2 people found the following review helpful. A Great ReadBy L91HistorianOverall its a great read. I never had any idea just how close America came to having a King. I think Washington would have placed the crown on his head if the Americans had asked him to. I always thought President Washington was this paragon of virtue; but when you put him next to a conqueror like Napoleon that's just not true. The American people decided the outcome of the American Revolution; not Washington. Very cool. Once I started; I just couldn't put it down until I saw how Napoleon would compare in each part of their lives. I highly recommend taking a look at this book.
