I found the author's tone supercilious and condescending, and the people I met and places I visited MUCH more warm and inviting than this book would suggest. The only place I found people a little "snotty" in the whole country was Bucharest - and they were nicer than the average Manhattanite, that's for sure! Your ideas about poverty and wealth WILL be challenged, your sense of humor will be expanded and thoroughly spanked, and if you don't try to buy everything that isn't for sale (or haggle over already [low] prices) you'll be amazed at how generous people are, too. Yes there are tourist traps galore, with inflated prices and rotten service, but not nearly as many as in say, the average coastal town in Maine.

This book came in handy during my entire stay in Romania. It also pointed out little known monuments. This is definitely a comprehensive book on many levels...I wonder why they left out Transylvania on the cover though.

Modern Day Romania is comprised of the former country Romania, Moldovia, and Transylvania.
This book is chocked full of information. This book is not intended to be a phrase book and it's entire emphasis is the unique sentence structure that the Romanian language requires.

I was there because one of the books I authored was translated into Romanian by the Sibiu Monetary Financial Commodities Exchange.

After having spent two weeks last summer as well as several small ventures in and out of the country in the fall, I have to say that this guide is by far the best one to use for travels throughout Romania. There are a few inconsistencies here and there regarding buses, restaurants and hotels (most notably price-wise...quite forgiveable), but overall the book is extremely well put together and informative. I had the Rough Guide for Romania throughout my travels, but I always found myself using LP's guide instead. The only thing I would recommend for an improvement is the inclusion of a few more "off the beaten path" areas such as the Csango enclave in Moldavia and the Kalotaszeg region in Transylvania (the brief mention of the Kalotaszeg is rather insubstantial), as well as the oft-ignored Danubian town of Braila, which has a very pleasant and attractive town center. Perhaps it could use more expanded sections on Wallachia and Moldavia as well, since Transylvania is by far the most covered region in the book (an understandable decision, though it sometimes seems as though coverage of other areas is too skimpy in comparison). Regardless, for the first edition of the guide, LP has done an excellent job, and I'm sure the next edition will see a few more additions to fill out the book.

I have always been interested in the Central African Republic, and since I don't speak French, it is hard to find material on it-so I was very pleased to find a book like this. The Bokassa saga, shows that truth can be stranger than fiction. After all, if the average American turned on the television special featuring a country called the 'Central African Republic', where the ruler converts at will, stages a coronation in the style of Napoleon, and has a harem of wives from throughout the world-chosen at will, they would dismiss it as a fiction.
Yet it was not, Bokassa and many other tyrants were supported by nations seeking to play their role in the Cold War.
It reminds me of Heart of Darkness, which took place in what is now, CAR's neighbor, Congo, formerly Zaire. While, I admire Titley's attempt to try be factual and trace the story in terms of politics and recorded intrigues. But there is little oral testimony, or information on the local culture and sociology.
This is a shame, because I think this story, or could been on par with chronicles such as Killing Fields, and this lacks the side of the victim. Also, Titley never address the brutalities, frankly, any nonacademic who is reading this wants to be titilated by the accusations of cannabalism and torture-and this issues are not addressed at all-neither dismissed or denied, or resolved. Also, the AUTHOR has access to Bokassa's autobiogaphy [of which all but 2 copies still exist] and it is rarely mentioned. All in all, it is not easy to have written this book, the topic carries the day, but I can't help feeling that this has the taste of an incomplete academic lecture series, that could have used an editor and some pungency.

Brian Titley's account of the life of Jean Bedel Bokassa, self-proclaimed Emperor of the Central African Republic, is an unsettling one.

On the one hand, the personal detail that the author builds up on his subject can paint a fascinating and sometimes engaging picture of the Emperor.

After all, Bokassa was the dictator whose behavior was said to cause embarrassment even to other African despots. A caricature figure, who had warned senior government colleagues on different occasions that he was "properly annoyed" and was thinking of "going for a coup d'etat", he rose to power from an impoverished rural background.

As Emperor, however, he was the giver of envelopes of diamonds to visiting dignitaries; the collector and wearer of a huge collection of period-piece French military uniforms and the unrepentant womanizer who accumulated wives from countries as far distant as Romania and Vietnam.

With his subject never too far from the ridiculous, Titley dredges up some fantastic narrative. Even the photographs tell a story - an image on an early page of the book pictures Bokassa together with his favourite young son on the day of the imperial coronation. Africa's Napoleon, resplendent in a velvet robe, is desperately seeking a regal pose. His son, then aged about six, sits sulkily beside his father, his tasseled white sailor suit topped off with a captain's cap at least three sizes too big for him. He looks like he has rushed straight to the ceremony from an audition for the Jackson Five.

On the other hand - and this is the problem for the reader - much of this colour surrounding Bokassa turns out to be dark and foreboding. Although his alleged taste for human flesh has never been fully proven (nor his preference for the throwing of those that displeased him into his swimming pool of crocodiles) his regime was responsible for the torture and death of hundreds of his countrymen. He personally caved in the skulls of some of them with his favourite walking cane.

Can you enjoy a man's more attractive idiosyncracies when his darker ones include participation in the torture of schoolchildren? Titley does try, in an excellent concluding chapter, to put Bokassa into a political context. He killed fewer people than Dictator X. He stole and extorted less money than Dictator Y. He was aided, encouraged and manipulated by the French throughout his period in power. He lived the closing years of his life in (for him) relative poverty and isolation, deserted by his wives and children. He even chose to return from exile to his native country and face state trial.

More opportunities for the reader to adopt an ambivalent attitude to Africa's Napoleon? Probably not. Bokassa's expressions of remorse seem to have been limited to his sense of personal misfortune. And if we are to be asked to judge him less harshly only against a backdrop of more dangerous and more evil men, then we must ask ourselves if Bokassa may, after all, be deserving of the company that he keeps

This is a most interesting book about one of Africa's most extravagant leaders. Brian Titley does not write with particular elegance or wit, but his account of Bokassa's life seems well documented, even-handed and is thoroughly readeable. The details on the coronation ceremonies or the emperor's love life alone are worth the reading. A five star book on a five star general.

We found that some of the walking tours in Budapest were outdated and difficult to follow. (We toured 9 other locations using other travel books, not frommers, with minimal problem) Elements could not be reached due to changing areas. Cautions regarding closings or operating hours were not accurate. Language was not a problem since one of the 4 of us could speak fluent Hungarian.

In preparing for a trip to Hungary, I examined thoroughly the choices for Budapest. The Frommer's Budapest book (3rd edition) gave the best information about finding and choosing accomodations, but the book has no pictures and aside from a nice subway cover on the inside cover, the maps are hard to find and not very easy to use. Frommer's gives excellent information about prices and shops and restaurants; it's almost a guide to buying things rather than a tour book. I didn't find it particularly thorough about travel information, customs, or those sorts of details. That is not entirely fair. They have a nice section in the front a kind of "best of" list for things in budapest. The nice thing about the book is that it recommends things to do if you have only one day, three days or a week. They also suggested some itineraries for walking tours.

The Fodor's Budapest pocket reference is drab and not full of much information. Don't get it.

My favorite guidebook series has been Lonely Planet, and the Budapest Lonely Planet is fairly helpful. Although it doesn't give as thorough a treatment on accomodations, the book gives a lot of hints and secret. I found its facts for the visitors to be the most helpful, and the maps (placed at the very back of the book) to be the easiest to use. The frommer book, on the other hand, put the maps close to the section of the book referring to it. The organization of LP makes it easiest to use in the field; they tend to have the best background, history and cultural information. It was particularly good about including rules, regulations and things like closing times. ON the other hand, there are not many photos, and they don't plan as many walking tours as the frommer book does.

The Eyewitness Travel Guide on Budapest by Tadeusz Olszanski is the most eye-catching and the least helpful. It contains lots of graphics and diagrams and maps, and not too much information. The multitude of pictures are helpful in describing architecture, geography and art. On the other hand, its information on accomodations is very limited. Don't get me wrong; it's a beautiful and interesting book; it just is not as helpful as the other three. And it is two years old. I'm not necessarily saying that this book is bad, merely that it may not help you very much on the excursion.

The Budapest: A Critical Guide by Andras Torok, 4th edition is a less complete and more personal account of things to do in Budapest. The other books were like encyclopedias, but this book was just a few personal recommendations about things to do and places to stay. Also, the writing for this book seems to be better than the other books. If you already are a little familiar with Budapest, but just want to learn about new and undiscovered places, this might be an excellent book. It certainly covers most of the bases, but it just doesn't try to list a huge number of accomodations or restaurants.

I ended up buying the Frommer's and a used copy of the Eyewitness travel guide.

WOW what a wonderful book. I was very pleased with all the great information.

This book is profoundly flawed. The author is oblivious to the implications of her admitted license. For instance, she uses the term 'moral' while admitting that it comes from a tradition post-dating Plato ('Introduction' p.11) and uses it to smear across distictions Plato himself found necessary. Professor Annas refuses to deal with the core concepts, as core concepts specific to Plato's time and place, and substitutes them playfully with her own modern day conceits. I quote: "I shall use 'morality' for the area of practical reasoning carried on by an agent which is concerned with the best way for a person to live." Why does she need to do this? If one was to say 'the best way to live' as Plato himself does, is that not sufficent? Does the reader/student really need a professor to explain that Plato really means 'morality'?. Baffling is why so much time is spent on non-Platonic terminology. To continually butcher 'The Republic' with these artificial terms, such as 'moral', 'values', 'society', and 'state' is to assume 'we' know more than 'they' did. This is a historical prejudice , and it does an injustice to the unsuspecting reader/student. Moreover, Professor Annas seems to be obtuse to the dramatic quality of the dialogue. An educated reader of this book cannot help but think this when the author stumbles across (454d-e) of 'The Republic'- quoting Socrates "the male begets, the female gives birth." Professor Annas then evaluates the statement, "This is an admirable argument as far as it goes; for Plato has removed any possibility of treating women as inferior as a class...but the argument suffers from being too generally stated" ( 'Plato's State', ch.7,p. 182 bottom). The author goes on to give her opinion on why it is too general- i.e: her considered views on the merits of a gender equality argument- which is fine and worth reading on it's own terms, if it was offered as such, but it is not offered as such. This is suppost to be a book on 'Plato's Republic', thus the title. Ask yourself- is that true? Is the only difference between men and women that men mount, or begat, and women bear, or give birth? That is what Plato and Socrates are asking? If the author of a commentary on 'The Republic' does not take that question seriously, and goes on to sum up her interpretation on the dramatic episode as: "Plato is confused." (p. 184), how can a reader take it seriously?

What is wonderful about this study by Julia Annas is the personal tone of her writing; her profound knowledge of ancient Greek philosophy and Plato is constantly confronted with her own views as a modern philosopher of our times, at times she admires Plato and at others she is shocked by his extremism. The only other study written this well is the shorter one that follows Bloom's translation.
The only thing I miss is a discussion of the literary, theatrical aspect of the text, the question being: are all of Socrates' views in the Republic really Plato's own? Is not Socrates a mask, an actor for Plato? Julia Annas automatically ascribes Socrates' views to Plato in her study. But this is of course an option that is possible, although not shared by all scholars.

The Republic covers many subjects and it's not possible for someone to write a comprensive book on the Republic. Most of the book written on the Republic usually focus on few particular subjects (the most notable one is justice). An Introduction to Plato's Republic is one of the few exception. Julia Annas doesn't interpreted the Republic from one point of view. She presented the Republic as Plato intended.. In the others words, the Republic is not the book about Politic only; it is also the book of metaphysics, educations, morality. Every chapters are very thorough and extensive but simple enough to read..

Somebody said that wars are too important a thing to leave them to military men. I would say that the history of the jesuit missions is too important a thing to leave it to jesuits. The book is a collection of bromides and uncritical descriptions of the mission's history. Very light and uninformative, the UN funds that went into it should have been better spent. The pictures are very nice and well printed, and are worth the money.

The history of the Guaranis is both fascinating and tragic. Anyone interested in these people should rent or purchase the movie, "The Mission," which is one of the most accurate depictions of the Jesuits, Rome and the Guaranis. Rome, ie the Roman Catholic Church, was very much in bed with both the Spanish and the Portugese in their conquering of the Guaranis. Although the Jesuits attempted to protect the Guaranis, they too eventually gave in to Rome and took the safe road, selling out the Guaranis. Thsi book is indeed a wonderful find for anyone interested in the culture of Argentina and the countries where the Guaranis are found.

I love this book. The photos are gorgeous, and it's the only really good book I have been able to find on this subject. The story of the Jesuits and the Guarani deserves a book that can do it justice, and this one does. It's on the short list of things I'd grab if my house was on fire.

This book is probably the most important book to have been written on the history of Republican Rome. If you have serious interest in the subject, you must have it. Having said that, it is not "light reading". Weighing it at just over 500 pages it is an exhaustively researched, densely written work of scholarship and erudition. Yet for all of its density, the style reasonably non-scholarly and it is possible to skim the more difficult passages and still capture the essence of what is being said.

Gruen thesis is that the Republic was not breaking down in its last generation and that there was nothing "inevitable" about what happened even up to the final months preceding the civil wars.

"The Ciceronian era, he writes in his introduction, "will here undergo examination in several different aspects. An unexpected portrait emerges: conventions were tenacious; no cascading slide downhill to destruction is evident; links to the past were more conspicuous than heralds of the future; tradition, not "revolution" predominated."

It should become apparent here that the principal target of this is none other than Ronald Syme whose magisterial work from the 30s, "Roman Revolution" so influenced succeeding generations. It was Syme's view (dubbed a "glib pronouncement" by Gruen in his conclusion) that the city-state was incapable of governing an empire; the imperial holdings had reached such a proportion that government and society required a fundamental overhauling. For Syme the fall of the Republic was inevitable - even desirable.

Gruen tenaciously refutes this view. He canvasses the historical record with an eye for detail that is almost supernatural. There are Chapters on Consular Elections, Legislative Activities, Criminal Trials, The Plebs and the Army, and Discontents and Violence. In each case the evidence is marshalled and often re-interpreted to prove his central thesis - nothing particularly out of the ordinary was happening - at least as far as the Romans were concerned. Gruen believes that we have arrived at our modern view of the period because we are so influenced by the result. "Events," he writes, "tend to be refashioned into a pattern pointing inescapably to the final collapse." Speaking of the year 52, he writes, "Romans would not have described the events of 52 as a breakdown of the Republic." And again, "Hindsight has caused modern obsession with the background of civil war. It has too long clouded perception of a central fact: the remarkable conventionality of Roman behaviour."

Along the way Gruen offers some startling new insights and interpretations. For example, it is widely believed that Caesar could not afford to return to Rome as a "privatus", because he feared he would be immediately prosecuted and eliminated from political life. "That analysis", he writes, "has found its way into virtually every work on the subject, an article of faith unquestioned by the keenest critics." He proceeds to utterly demolish this analysis and in so doing removes one of THE central underpinnings of the thesis that war was inevitable.

Another surprise is the treatment accorded C. Scribonious Curio. Usually considered a stooge of Caesar's, a puppet of the Big Men, Curio emerges from these pages as a brilliant and talented, but reckless, ambitious and perverse man -- a man with entirely his own agenda, to split Caesar off from Pompey; NOT to advance Caesar's cause, but rather his own. It becomes abundantly clear that he unleashed forces larger than himself, forces that he was unable to control, forces that ultimately contributed to the civil war.

At the very least I would urge anyone with even a passing interest in the Republic to read the introduction and the conclusion. They are pithy and lucid and pretty much tell the story. I have been reading about the Republic for much of my adult life. I am sorry that I came upon this work so late. It will change forever the way you see the Republic. And it absolutely MUST be read as a companion to "Roman Revolution".

I'm a mere dilettante in the subject of history, but I found Prof. Gruen's book engrossing. Its prose conveyed a limpid, and therefore very credible, analysis of politics in the roman republic. It is still unclear to me whether Prof. Gruen meant to show that the end of the republic was an inevitable outcome of its political events. In any case, consumers of history who are interested in the late republic should not skip this satisfying work.

Gruen's book on the last generation of the Roman Republic is very easy to read and very scholarly, with extensive footnotes and bibliography. The crux of his arguement is that the generation of Caesar, Pompey, et al did not realize that their actions would cause the Republic to end. He cites many examples of senators who did not heel to Caesar, Pompey, or Crassus. In fact, most of the time their political enemies got the better of them. He examines the lists of the magistrates during this time, as well as different court battles. He stresses the factionality of Roman politics without becoming confusing with the different factions. The only problem I have with his premise is that he never really explains why "politics as usual" still contributed to the fall of the Republic and the rise of Augustus. This book is recommended to anyone interested in this time period of Rome who wants to read a different perspective on the events

I bought this book largely on the recommendations of previous readers and because I was looking for an intelligent, thought-provoking history of Modern China. On the whole, the book is all these things, but it left me unsatisfied. It's a particular kind of historical review which in the final analysis I found wanting because it delivers very broad-stroke judgements based on evidence gleaned from a very small grouping of sources. Mr. Meisner analyses modern Chinese history largely through the readings and actions of one man: Mao Zedong. Fair enough, given the title of the book. But it's almost as if no one else matters or had any impact whatsoever on what happened. The Chinese people are completely absent from this history, which is largely a history of Mao's shifting theoretical viewpoints. It may be true that the history of modern China is the history of one man's thought, but it wasn't until I got to the section dealing with Deng Xiaoping that I began to feel that I was reading a history of a people with a multitude of viewpoints and opinions. It may be an impossibility to know what actually went on in China from 1946 up to 1976 and that therefore all we have is Mao Zedong Thought, which may only be another way of saying that a history of Modern China has yet to be written.

As a whole, this an excellent text. Meisner exhibits an incredible knowledge and understanding of the tragic history of the PRC. As he takes the reader on an incredible exploration of the PRC's many vicissitudes,Meisner, despite being a historian by trade, consistenly gives the reader masterful economic and political analysis of the events that swept the "Middle Kingdom" during this last half-century. In addition to this, he dissects with precision the manifold conceptual arguments, theoretical polemics, and numerous speeches Mao offered to the people as to how and why these incredible changes could and should occur. Upon completion of it, I am definitely better versed on the myriad events that have shaped today's PRC. From China's revolutionary heritage all the way up to the rise of Deng, Meisner is consistently clear and captivating. His masterful use of economic, political, sociological, and historical analysis is impressive. He also demonstrates quite a knowledge of Marxist-Leninism and Maoism. However, at times I felt bogged down by it all, and honestly had to wonder how germane it truly is to the events that transpired. Yet, as a whole, I still have to conclude that this book is excellent and should be considered on of the key books for someone investigating contemporary China.

I am very glad I read this book (which Howard Zinn recommended to me). I feel I have a firm grasp of the basics of 20th Century Chinese history now. Meisner really takes an independent line: he doesn't just parrot Chinese or US propaganda. I feel he makes reasonable surmises about motivations and actions which are still unclear, given the secretive nature of the Chinese government. In all, one of the best history books I have ever read.

A slow murky nerrative that builds to a anti-climax for the anti-hero. The atmosphere is like prague on qualudes. Raises questions on responsibilities and embracing social change. After reading Bohemial Hrable, Klima is like being coverd in crude oil.

Klima tells an interesting tale of a TV news cameraman, who must adjust to the Velvet revolution. I'm interested that his son says the author wasn't a great father, because the main character wishes he was a father. But he wishes many things.

This novel explores the events before and after the Velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia through the experiences of a photographer. Under Communist rule, he was forced to take artless phtotgraphs for news agencies but had always dreamed of being able to pursue his art and make great films. After the revolution, he may have his chance.

The novel works both as the story of a single man's life and in exploring more generally how Czech society after Communism did and did not live of to the dreams of freedom that its citizens had. There is a safety in unattainable dreams that is no longer there once they are realizable. (Think _The Iceman Cometh_.)

Shevardnadze is one of the great men of the century(in diplomacy anyway). Unfortunatly he is sandwhiched between the Dobrynin/Groymko periods of the cold war and the more chaotic period of Yeltsin. After all we have forgotten Gorbachev and the period of Glasnost. Is this because the Russians have a propensity to forget them? Its not clear.
Nevertheless this is the only book on Mr. Shevardnadze(the only one I could find). SO its an important document. It seems to glossy to me. It seems to not get at the beef, the meat of what was happening from 1980-1990. I wish it detailed the afghanistan ending, I wish it detailed the various new nations created in the breakup of the Soviet empire. I wish it detailed the new voices that came to the fore in eastern europe. I dont think the book answers the question: How did so much happen, so fast? Obviously Shevardnadze was key. But then why arnt we told more about his role in shaping policy throughout the Russian sphere of influence. I feel that the book approaches the topic from a political scientists analytical eyes, disregarding the historical questions. Lacking flair and literary greatness the book is doomed, and yet essential for those who want to learn more about the Gorbachev era.

I bought this book because I am a student of all things Georgian. However, while reading the book, I was constantly impressed how important this book would be for anyone who wants to have even the most basic understanding of Cold War politics or Soviet/Post-soviet studies. The book is a nice synopsis of the events leading to the dismantling of the Soviet empire. Its most obvious flaw is the tiring repetition; Although I usually benefit from repetition as a comprehension tool, this book went overboard, and hearing the same thing repeated for the fifth or sixth time became distracting towards the end.

Considering that the jury is "still out" on Shevardnadze and his deeds, especially as president of Georgia, I found the author tended to lean towards a typical Baker/Schultz (and US foreign policy) pro-Shevardnadze conclusion.

Minor criticisms aside, I'm glad the author wrote the book, and I glad I read it.

"The Wars of Eduard Shevardnadze" is an excellent description and analysis of the former Soviet foreign minister and his role in bringing an end to the Cold War. The book treats Shevardnadze's background in the Soviet republic of Georgia as well as his current role as the president of Georgia. The book is the only biography of Shevardnadze.

There are some good essays in this book. But if you want a textbook/intro, George Bournoutian's much more reasonably priced book is the one to buy. On the other hand, if you want scholarly essays, you're going to have to pick and choose between this book and a few others, because the quality is uneven.

This is about as good as it gets in terms of an overview of Armenian history. Armenia is an incredibly fascinating study in the context of the Middle East, and the world's history at large. Containing a series of contributions on various topics by leading scholars in the field and edited by one of the foremost scholars, Hovannisian, this is an outstanding read and should be on any Armenian or history scholar's shelf.