Not much detail if you want to get off the beated path. I prefered Harvey's "Rough Guide". If you're spending a lot of time in the capital [Santo Domingo], this book may help.

I found the authors tone in his review of areas to visit in the Dominican Republic to be extremely negative. I was going to go to Punta Cana and after I bought this book and read his review, I felt like I made a mistake. He does not seem to offer general information for all travelers but writes "if you have moola, like large resorts, and want to get away from everything, this area MAY be what you are looking for. I found him very negative, yet there is another book if you are going to the Dominican Republic & Haiti which offered a wealth of information and history, it's Lonely Planet's book on Dominican Republic & Haiti which offers many tips, history and general information. And by the way, Punta Cana is a beautiful place to visit regardless of whether you are wealthy or not.

This is the best of the D. R. guide books (the Moon guide is the worst), however.....one still needs to pay VERY close attention to the NEGATIVE REVIEWS of resorts at the web site debbiesdominicantravel dot com. I say this because many who post on that site inexcusably downplay shoddy lodging and abusive treatment of tourists. Usually, the negative reviews are more realistic, especially of tourist traps like the Punta Cana Beach Resort (some of whose bungalows are not even weathertight). This author justifiably mentions the isolation of the East Coast (Punta Cana). Having recently traveled to both the East and North coasts, I say without hesitation the North Coast (Sosua, Puerta Plata) is far superior in every way. The Dominican Republic is a wonderful value overall and the Dominicans themselves are gentle and friendly (unless they are employed by certain resorts). I will probably retire there. There are many tips and strategies in this book not found in other D. R. guides. Your best choice in D. R. guide books.

Mr. Fred A. Reed wrote a compelling and extremely readable book about the murky puzzles of the Balkans. His intentions were very noble indeed, but it takes much more to understand the fine details of the notion of nationality in an area where the formation of national states first happened only 80 years ago and wasn't consolidated until the 1950s only to start being challenged again in the 1990s. Similar to many of his fellow authors, he falls victim of the Slavic propaganda concerning Macedonia. To a person who doesn't have any picture of the overall situation concerning ethnicities in the geographical area of Macedonia, the emotional descriptions of endured hardships given by Slavic-speaking persons from Greek Macedonia appear heart-breaking and unsurprisingly end up demonizing Greece. In a region where different ethnicities lived side by side there are many parallel names for the villages and towns. Mr. Reed is impressed by a man with Slavic identity who "launched into a catalogue of place-names whose Slavonic resonance he immediately recognized: Golishani, Negush, ...". I don't know about Golishani, but Negush is the Slavic name for Naousa, a town who has never seen any sizeable Slavic minority. In Greek, New York is called "Nea Yorki" and although it is true that there are around 200,000 Greek-American in Queens, this hardly designs New York as a Greek city! I was very upset from the fact that Mr. Reed used the Slavic name along the Greek one when talking about the Greek towns of Florina and Edessa. His pro-Slavic propaganda friends probably never told him that in the late 19th century, Ohrid/ Ahrida (now in the FYROM), the town described as a Mother for the Bulgarian (later changed to "Macedonian") nation was 32% ethnically Greek, according to the German scholar Hermann Wendel. Bitola/ Monastiri, Krushevo/ Krousovo, Strumica/ Stromnitsa, Veles/ Velessa, Gevgelija/ Gevgeli, were town in what is now the FYROM with an ethnic Greek majority or sizeable minority. So, although it is true that Aridea/ Meglena is ethnically Slavic, one has to see the greater view of the problem. Mr. Reed outspokenly adopts the Slavic propaganda and claims that as many as 270.000 people in Greece have a Slavic identity. In the last elections, in June 1999, the Slavic nationalists participated with a political formation of their own and only got a meager 1,800 votes out of more than 7.5 million voters. Greece may have many flaws, but its democratic institutions are impeccable. There are so many things I'd like to comment on Mr. Reed's book, but there is not enough space. I'd like to comment on his note that only 10% of the inhabitants of pre-1912 Macedonia were Greeks and give you the pre-1912 Turkish statistics stating that Macedonia as a whole was 55% Greek. And we all know that the Turks hardly were sympathizers of the Greek national cause! I'd like to write about the Greek atrocities who were only committed during war and only as retaliation to the devastation suffered by Greeks in what is now Bulgaria and FYROM. I'd like to write about the reason why we, as Greeks, do not want to cede the name "Macedonia" to the Slavs. I'd like to transfer to you the rage I feel whenever my 3,000 year old local and national identity are being challenged by a people who first appeared in the Southern Balkans 1,300 years ago. I'd like to transfer the frustration I feel when my history is being raped by a Slavic people who come and tell me that Alexander the Great, a figure sung in ancient and medieval Greek folk tunes and recognized all the way to India as being the quintessence of Greekness, was in fact of another nationality. As I think of my cousins who are second generation Greeks of the USA and have a principally American national identity, I'd like to explain why the Vlachs are Greeks and how the only legitimate absolute definition of nationality is a person's self- identification, not language, not religion, not genes. Mr. Reed's would get a 3 or 4 star rating for its readibility, but I only give it 1 star as it sheds very little light on the complexities of the Balkan reality and despite his good intentions, does very little to reveal the truth.

The name of the book is largely inspired by the spring 1943 departure of Thessaloniki's Sephardic Jews to their deaths in German concentration camps; and it is from Thessaloniki that the author departs for a train journey into the past and present of a part of the Balkans where Jews and many others coexisted under the Ottomans for several centuries. As Greek language (if not culture) did have considerable influence over the Christian peoples of that region during the Ottoman period, it is natural for the author to take a closer look at the contact of Greek institutions and governments towards them and the Ottomans during and after the period in question.

It is fair to say that Hellenism -- whatever that means! -- has been dominated by the Romans, the Jews (by way of Christianity) and the Turks. The first two conquerors were at least partially overpowered from within (by way of the Eastern Eastern Empire (Byzantium) and the Greek language), but the third one stood its ground: an exception that, quite naturally, most individuals or institutions "closely associated" with Hellenism would rather forget about. Mr. Reed has trouble understanding or even forgiving this "forgetfulness". Inquisitive and poetic traveler as he happens to be, he surprises the reader from time to time with such fascinating incidents as Greece's failure to "remember" that a 19th century Egyptian king was born an Albanian Muslim in the Greek town of Kavala.

Much less innocently, Mr. Reed likens the capture -- nowadays political correctness hardly allows one to say "liberation" -- of Thessaloniki by the Greek army in 1912 to the seize of Sarajevo 80 years later: both events reflect on a lack of "cosmopolitanism", he argues in passing. With the ghastly events of Bosnia very fresh in their minds -- the book was published in 1996 -- contemporary readers are likely to lose any sympathy for Greek gains against the Turkish oppressor, be it in 1912 or 90 years earlier: the very war of independence and the existence of the modern Greek state may now be viewed, under very contemporary lenses, as unfortunate deviations from the Ottoman "cosmopolitanism"! (More to the point, Thessaloniki fell to the Greeks quickly and relatively peacefully, and its two largest ethnic groups, Jews and Turks, vanished only decades later due to much bigger events associated with the two world wars.)

This fundamental mistrust toward the Greek nation sets the tone for the rest of the book. We are led to believe, or at least suspect, that the Balkan Christians' interest in educating themselves or their offspring in Greek had more to do with the cunningness of the Greek Patriarchate than with the self-evident importance of Greek as the language of the Bible, culture and Balkan commerce. (And yet eight decades after the Bulgarian monk Paisi called for Bulgarian learning and awakening in 1760, Constantin Miladinov was translating Plutarch into *modern* Greek ... before Russian instigation turned him into a Bulgarian patriot (later to be claimed by the "Macedonians"), that is.) And the conflict between Greece and FYROM is viewed as having its roots at the oppression of a very distinct (?) ethnic group ("Macedonians") by an intolerant nation state (Greece) throughout the 20th century, rather than at the collision between two well defined (by church and school), equally intolerant, nationalisms (Greek and Bulgarian). And so on.

On the positive side, the book makes for a very interesting reading and exploration of Balkan history and folklore. For example, we hear an Albanian poet stating that "(most) Albanians became Moslems in order to protect their language and resist the Turks" and an ethnic Greek in Albania complaining about the Greeks' lack of interest in their own classic works (and language). The situation in Kosovo (before NATO's intervention) is examined quite thoroughly and vividly, even though the author has barely bothered to interview members of the Serbian minority. His discussion of FYROM varies from the situation in Albanian-dominated Tetovo to an otherwise open-minded local woman's claim that the world's strongest dog is Macedonian, not Serbian.

Back to Thessaloniki, the author takes a thorough and balanced look at the development of the "Mother of Israel"'s Jewish community between their expulsion from Spain and their extermination by the Nazis. He even delves, assisted by Greek writer Tolis Kazantzis, into the "communist" politics of the 14th century movement of the Zealots: not a bad idea, given that their contemporary and sympathizer, Nikolaos Kavasilas, the man who wrote that "God's love for people depleted Him", is still popular among Thessalonican intellectuals! (Neither Kavasilas nor Metropolitan Eustathios' legendary 12th century work "Commentary to Homer" are mentioned as strong links between Thessaloniki's past and present; at least colorful writer Ilias Petropoulos has been interviewed, although we never hear why exactly he left Thessaloniki for Paris with "no intention of ever returning".)

Having grown up in an ethnically pure Thessaloniki, I would like to assure Mr. Reed and his readers that my hometown was a vibrant city, despite its lost cosmopolitanism; and it is becoming even more interesting now that immigrants from Eastern Europe and elsewhere are taking the place of its lost or assimilated minorities (and majorities). Building a Greek Thessaloniki (and state) under very difficult circumstances was certainly not a perfectly smooth process, and our Balkan neighbors may well have some fairly justified complains against us: while I do not feel that we should be apologetic or rueful about the past (and our inevitable manipulation of it), as Mr. Reed seems to suggest, I would recommend that we Greeks, and other interested parties as well, read his book as a good guide on such neighborly bitterness.

An exquisitely perceptive dissection of the Balkan predicament. While handling extremely difficult material, the author achieves a rare blend of compelling style, thought-provoking observations, humanist humour in the midst of one of the grimest human socio-political contexts in the world. This is no mere journalistic writing - it's almost a new genre. I would read any book that Fred Reed produces, regardless of my personal interests.

I am amazed at how much this book is just a copy/paste from Caesar's own _The Gallic War_ written before Christ! It is actually a more dynamic read than this version, and without the distracting *spin.*

Fuller's account of the Career of Julius Caesar can also be found in Caesar's own commentaries. Some of his insights into Caesar's personality are interesting, but most can be found in classical works by Appian and Dio. His thesis that Caesar was not the great general and statesman that history dipicts him can be disputed. Caesar was the first ancient general to incorporate siegeworks as a tactical tool. Fuller's claim that the roman army was "lucky" that it did not encounter stronger cavalry arms is unfounded. Cavalry in anceint times was not much more than a skirmishing force, not in the same league as the legionares.

I was displeased with the dry, accounts of caesar's campaigns, surprising for a military man like Fuller. Also, he does not go into great detail about Caesar's personality, other than to quote the classical historians.

Overall, a very average work.

This book is a classic. Not only is it a classic, it is written by one of the most innovative generals in the 20th Century: JFC Fuller. Mr. Fuller is credited with developing the armored division of the British army, and is therefore an innovator. Almost a kindred spirit, Julius Caeser is described not in terms of how his life was led, but how it was affected by military and political aspects. This book is a must read for any ancient history or military history buff.

Libaridian's disjointed narrative makes excuses for the failings of the autocratic ruler he served as advisor--some would say éminence grise. Claiming confidentiality, he fails to reveal anything new; not that his "revelations" would have been particularly credible. One might have hoped for a coherent explanation with a touch of self-criticism. One would have been disappointed.

The other reviewer has some valid points, but I think he may be blinded by the fact that quite a few people disagree with certain choices that the author has made in his personal and political life. In my opinion, this does not take away from the fact that this is the most honest and realistic books on the current political situation in Armenia. One who is not familiar with some of the basic issues in Armenia politics may not enjoy this book as much.

I loved this text because it talks about some of the more valiant points in Armenian political life. Libaridian speaks about topics of Armenia's government that are very rarely talked about. He supports his claims with evidence, most of it first-hand, so the reader must recognize, and at least respect, his views.

It takes a lot of guts to denounce the Diaspora and to speak in-favor of an unpopular President. The book definetely provided insight on Armenia's government and some of the issues they were struggling with since the inception of statehood in 1991. Some of Armenia's problems that were discussed were the Armenian Genocide and how to handle it, the non-existant economy, and the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute.

The book was written around 1997, 1998, so the current Kocharian Administration is not really talked about. I hope Libaridian writes a follow-up on Armenia in the 21st century. I would love to hear his probably controversail views about Armenia today and the handling of "Artsakh" versus the terroristic and human-rights violations champion Azerbaijan.

.....

Do not, repeat DO NOT, trust any information found in this book if the correctness of the information is important to your safety or the successful completion of your travel. We trusted the statement on page 9 under ENTRY REQUIREMENTS, where it states that " Americans, British, Irish, Australians, New Zealand, and now Canadian citizens need only passports (no visas) for stays under 30 days." My wife, an Australian, was "disembarked" at the Zurich airport because she did not have a visa. The Czechs require Australians to obtain visas in their country of origin (the US in our case) and THEY MAKE NO EXCEPTIONS! Needless to say, our trip was ruined. There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of incompetent reporting of critical data, the edition we purchased was published in 2000, and so was our trip. The Czech visa policy has been in effect for years.

Use this book with caution. Restaurant reviews are very helpful and the walking tours get you into the tourist parts of town. But don't trust the telephone/fax numbers. Of the three I tried, all were wrong. Overall, worth using though.

Just returned from Prague, and this guidebook was by far the most valuable resource we had. Walking tours and restaurant reviews particularly valuable.

I was so excited after reading the first 75 pages of this novel. Petra was intriguing and hilarious. Her thoughts in paranthesis are priceless. However, the novel seemed to become entangled in a plot that couldn't save itself. Perhaps I simply missed something! I had a hard time keeping up with the characters, their motivations, and their actions. By page 200, I was lost. Petra was a complex character and the events in her head should have been discussed more fully. I loved the idea of the book - mystery, romance, intrigue, political scandal.... However, the book fell short and I inevitably lost interest.

Pavel Kohout is among the best and best-known of modern Czech authors, but he is not at his best here. As a compelling story of characters living in a post-socialist society, the book belongs on any list of good modern Central European fiction. The problem is (pace another Amazon reviewer) that Kohout is utterly unconvincing as a woman, and it is a genuine puzzle why he chose to write as a female narrator.

Probably the most surprising thing about this book is that author Kohout is not a woman. That's surprising because he has been able to create a main character, Petra, who is the epitome of womanhood, with all the attendant glory and confusion that such a designation entails. I Am Snowing's plot is masterful in its page-turning abilities; the reader keeps flipping not only to find out what's going to happen in Petra's ultra-chaotic lovelife, but to get to the bottom of the web of intrigue spun in this tale of post-Communist Prague. At bottom, it is a classic whodunit, but Kohout writes with such elegance that the feel is more highbrow than that. In short, the only thing that ruins this book is a clumsy ending. But don't let that keep you from picking this up at the first opportunity.

In his book, 'Post-Soviet Russia', the famous historian Roy Medvedev writes about the perilous course Yeltsin drove the country with his modernization program, bitterly described as "Shock Therapy", amongst Russians. And he also describes many of the figures who sway political power amongst Russian voters. Medvedev portrays Communist party chief, Gennady Zyuganov as kind of a dullard, who only sways power because of the fact, no other Communist leader has arisen, that has any sort of abilities. Medvedev says that Zyuganov has very little, if any, knowledge of Russia's past, and buys into laughable esoteric theories such as this, "the World is run by a select group of individuals" (sort of a New World Order Conspiracy type theory). His description of Gennady Zyuganov couldn't be closer to the truth than if God had wrote it!

But that's what Roy Medvedev wrote about Zyuganov in general. Let's occupy ourselves with Zyuganov's petty attempt at describing his own country's history (keeping in mind he knows very little about Russian history). His description of Perestroika, and Communist terminology, is absolutely hilarious. To elaborate, anyone who studies Gorbachev, and Gorbachevism, will come to understand that Gorbachev could be described as a 'neo-Bukharinist'. However, in his petty, and uneducated way , Zyuganov refers to Gorbachev as a 'neo-Trotskyite'. How could Gorbachev in any way be described as a 'neo-Trotskyite'? Leon Trotsky, as Isaac Deutscher explains in his masterful biography of Trotsky, advocated virtually everything Stalin advocated; collectivization, super-industrialization, and revolutionary expansionism (although Stalin briefly had to condescend to Bukharin's level, and pretend he was in favor of 'socialism in one country'). Conversely, Mikhail Gorbachev, in a move that Nikolai Bukharin would likely have favored (a narrow minded, nationalist type of action), allowed all of eastern-Europe to fall into the hands of the liberal bourgeoisie. The Russian Communist "Chief" Zyuganov should have refered to Gorbachev as a 'neo-Bukharinst'.

He also takes a stab at literary theory as well. He writes that Russian's, read many of the writings of American authors, such as Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, and Twain. He says this forms some sort of dichotomy with America because we read the works of Tolstoy, Gogol, and Chekhov. What direction was he going exactly when he said that? Does he have such an inferiority complex, that he thinks Americans percieve Russians as some sort of cultural miscreants who are unable to comprehend mathematics, or able to read books? What point was he trying to prove exactly!

From beginning to end, this book makes very little sense, there's no continuity from one chapter to the next, and his life is of absolutely no interest to anybody, primarily because he was basically some low-level functionary from 1965 to 1991. If you can find an inexpensive copy at some flea market, go ahead and buy this book, but don't pay any more than $... for this book, you'll learn more reading 'Sports Illustrated' or 'Low Rider.'

In 1992, Communism was declared dead in Russia. The Communist Party, itself, was banned. Massive privatization, foreign investment, unbridled capitalism...this was the cure-all for Russia's (and the world's) ills. A few years of this treatment, and Russia will soar into prosperity. So everyone thought.

In 2000, the Communist Party is the largest in Russia. Many educated people from all over the Russian political spectrum have united under the electoral leadership of the Communists. Even the so-called "democrats" and "reformers" in the Kremlin are forced to plagarize, in words if not deeds, the Communist program and speak of things like "social justice", "strong statehood", and a "regulated economy". The rhetoric of '92 is dead and buried. Only corrupt electoral practices and widespread fear-mongering by Russia's state run media have prevented a major electoral victory by the reborn Communists.

More than anyone else, the man responsible for this is Gennady Zyuganov. This book is a collection of his articles and pamphlets. It explains the ideology of today's Russian Communists, and is very useful in understanding the current Russian political scene.

Reading Zyuganov's program, you can see how his party has seized the moral and intellectual high ground in Russia's political battlefield. This man is not a neo-Stalinist like his accusers make him out to be. The achievements, as well as the shortcomings, of the Soviet past are dealt with fairly and honestly. Likewise, Zyuganov's vision of his country's future and its place in the world is one of the most thoughtful and inspiring put forth by any politician of any nation.

Any American interested in Russian politics or history should read this book. The editor, Vadim Medish, did a fine job of adding footnotes to certain passages that require further informtion for a non-Russian to comprehend. Zyuganov himself also wrote an excellent (though brief) introduction for his American readers. Only four stars because it is a collection of writings from throughout the '90s rather than a complete work from beginning to end. Having said that, it was still a treat to read.

Russian politicians like Yavlinsky, Zhirinovskii, and Lebed are fairly well-known in the West. Gennadi Zyuganov, on the other hand (who has more support than the other 3 combined) is either not known at all or simply as "the Communist".

Yet, Zyuganov's party and the coalition around it have remained the only true opposition to Yeltsin and the corrupt "Party of Power" that have ruled the Kremlin since '91. This book outlines Zyuganov's views on Russia's past and his ideas and hopes for the future. Reading it, one can see why many non-Communist Russians support his party.

While Zyuganov and the Russian Communist Party have yet to win a majority of the Russian vote, they have been more successful at forcing their agenda on the Russian political scene. The Kremlin has been forced to plagarize (in words, if not in deeds) the Communist program in areas such as the economy and foreign policy. The liberal, capitalist, pro-Western rhetoric which dominated Russian politics after the fall of the USSR has largely vanished.

Zyuganov's writing, compared to the wildness of Zhirinovskii's or the gruffness of Lebed's, is intelligent, sober, and (most of all) relevant. The only disappointment for me was that the book is a compilation of Zyuganov's various articles and pamphlets written throughout the '90s rather than a true political autobiography. Still, it was nicely put together and a good source of information on a man demonized by Russia's media and ignored by the West's.

This book, while wrestling with and important topic and one of personal interest, fails to live up the billing given to it by the on line review. The theis is muddled and confusing. There seems to be a lack of organization. The author would do well to rework this piece and make it more along the lines of his previous work.

The other reviewer is obviously kissing up to the author and has not really read the book in depth. Poorly written and underdeveloped!!

This is an in depth view of the principles upon which the Founding Fathers based the government of the United States. The author outlines the type of people and culture that allowed this type of democracy to come about. Accordingly, the reader is left with a better understanding of the problems inherent in American government today. There are organizational problems with this book. Key points are repeated often, leaving the reader to wonder, "didn't I just read that?" If the reader can look past these shortcomings, a better understanding of the American government's strengths and weaknesses can be found.

Generally I stopped reading books on the Balkans and the former Yugoslavia written by passersby (or perhaps a better word would be "passers-through") a few years ago because they are largely uninformative and self-serving. The only reason I picked this one up is because I met and briefly spoke with the author in Zagreb in late 1992. He made a very favorable impression on me; I found him quite intelligent and likable, and was therefore interested in his account of his trips to the Balkans. I wish I hadn't bothered. "Only the Nails" differs little from books written by various superficial journalists, writers, poets and other "truth-seekers." It follows the general framework established by Robert Kaplan's inane "Balkan Ghosts" and continued in various forms by Peter Maass, Janine DiGiovanni, Martin Bell and scores of others. To his credit, Merrill faithfully reproduces the many conversations he held with friends and acquaintances in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, etc. and some of these are very interesting. However, this hardly makes up for the book's glaring shortcomings: from factual errors that riddle the entire book (e.g. the frequent misspelling of place-names, inaccurate dates or misplacing of events) to the author's forays into history which are often misleading (e.g. he says Serbia started both of the pre-WWI Balkans Wars, which is untrue; or Bulgaria only gained independence in 1908, again, not completely accurate). Much of this could have been corrected by less-indulgent editors and even the most perfunctory consultation of dictionaries, atlases, encyclopedias or the very sources cited in Merrill's bibliography - which he obviously read quite superficially. Also troubling was Merrill's tendency, at least in Croatia, to play the typical war tourist, getting some knowledgable locals to take him close to the frontlines so he could observe wartime destruction and its sorrowful victims (playing guide to ignorant and often obnoxious free-lance reporters and photographers is something in which I have quite a bit of experience). He even has the cheek to say he became "bored" with the (understandable) bitterness of his two Croatian guides, both of whom had first-hand experience of Croatia's bloody and now largely forgotten war in 1991. In fact, the motive for his frequent trips to Sarajevo go largely unexplained, except that the author at some level liked the rush of being in a city under siege (he indirectly admits this toward the end of the book). In the end, this book is just a mish-mash of the author's impressions, which offer little in the way of explaining anything, much less the underlying causes or motivations that led to the Third Balkan War.

The previous review, by someone who admits to not reading the book, should be wholly discounted. Although no current book on the Balkans can compete with Robert D. Kaplan's incomparable "Balkan Ghosts," Christopher Merrill eloquently describes the mood, psychology, and turmoil of the former Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. I only wish that the book were a bit heavier on the historical background. However, it is refreshing to read a more human account of the effects of post-modern progress than the usual detached historical rendering. Merrill's work is to be praised, an attitude which can only be adopted after actually reading the book.

Readers of Merrill's book will find it useful for making sense of the events in the former Yugoslavia -- a region with too much history for its own good. Anyone who questioned how neighbors could end up at opposite ends of a gun will find answers here. Merrill explores cultural history -- the stories and sentiments that bind a people despite the political borders -- as he seeks to answer for himself how such barbaric and senseless destruction could happen. This book offers insights rarely found in contemporary writings on the Balkans.

I read this book for a course in Roman History, and found it more confusing than useful. Crawford assumed too much foreknowledge for the text to serve as a primer, but his analyses might prove more comprehensible to the non-beginner. It would take a fine professor, indeed, to overcome the pitfalls of this text in an introductory class.

I have read many books on the Roman civilization and sorry to say when I was reading this book the information was too condense and I could not get involved in the book as I should.The reason being he the author condensed the material and he occassionally would jump from one historian to another throwing my though process out of focus. In some regards,I tried to find what the book was really all about.

Though not perhaps ideal for the student market at which it was aimed, this book offers a complex, original and brilliant interpretation of the Roman Republic.