Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

First, let me say Wilson clearly knows what he's talking about, and has written a highly detailed work. Second, I'll admit that reading a work like this in 30-minute bouts on the way to work in the morning probably doesn't make me Wilson's ideal reader--but how do you plan on reading it? My main problem with this work is that, if you know nothing about the Thirty Years War when you crack it open, you will know only slightly more when you close it. The subject spans hundreds of people and places and (to his credit), Wilson covers more than just thirty years. Yet it seems Wilson failed to see the forest for the trees, and he fails to present the reader with a clear, comprehensible narrative. Perhaps the scope of this subject means a clear, comprehensible narrative is impossible, but there are a few things Wilson could have done to make it better. I understand the version I read was missing a map or two as endpapers. Not Wilson's fault. But the work could have used about 50 extra maps. How am I supposed to know where Lower Saxony is in relation to East Frisia in relation to Bohemia, not to mention the hundreds of other cities, towns, bishoprics, rivers, mountains, and other locations that are discussed? Maybe Wilson expects me to know this stuff, but if you are an unitiated reader like me, you'll find the action in this book extremely hard to follow. You also won't understand the importance of certain events if you don't know how close or far away one place is to another. Similarly, the cast of characters is huge. The only reference Wilson provides, however, is a Habsburg family tree. Thanks, but that doesn't cut it. I, and probably you, could have used a clear, alphabetized, cast of characters with a quick blurb on each one. Otherwise, there are simply too many people to keep straight. When they start to run together, everything just becomes a confusing blur. Wilson's writing style also assumes the reader knows a good bit about the period before picking up this text. Figures at this time often have a few names (duke of one place, king of another, etc.), their names often come from a place, and something important may have happened at that place. When I read (I'm making this example up, but it is typical) that "Saxony approved of X", does that mean the person the Elector of Saxony, the populace of the region of Saxony, or some treaty of Saxony? Wilson doesn't feel the need to clarify. Organizationally, the book suffers from the same sort of academic writing that assumes familiarity with the topic wich makes the book unfriendly to the novice reader. Wilson repeatedly tells the reader to (see chapter 10) or some other chapter when he comes to various topics that don't fit into his structure. I understand the Thirty Years War is wide-ranging, but Wilson should understand that someone reading this for fun isn't going to flip ahead and read the chapters out of order just because Wilson couldn't figure out a clear structure. That's the historian's job, not the reader's. If the reader needs to know something, fit it in when the reader needs to know it. Similarly, Wilson has a few excellent chapters at the end of the book that recount the total devastation of 30 years of war, and its impact on the economy and populations, etc. This is very useful and illuminating. But why did I have to wait until the end to find out how bad the war was? For a few hundred pages Wilson's main account of fighting is limited to "5,000 men went there, 7,000 men went here." Wilson does not seem to have the ability to pick out the illuminating details that enliven the story. The battles are poorly described (and the maps aiding them are confusing), and the full impact of the war and its devastation is barely discussed until after the war is over. Learning about population declines, plague, and failed harvests would be good to know in real time, rather than a few hundred pages later. Again, Wilson's expectations for his reader come out when he describes "famous" events, or argues against "common interpretations" of the Thirty Years War. Being told that a particular event is famous or that it has been interpreted a certain way is important, and it keys the reader into a fuller understanding of an event. But it should not be a shortcut for failing to describe or explain an event. Imagine if a book about the American Civil War said no more about Gettysburg other than it was famous, or that many have argued that it marked a turning point in the war. You'd probably want to know more. But I felt repeatedly like Wilson used "famous" as a cop-out--"I don't have to describe this event because you should alread know it," and that he gave short shrift to explaining the reasons for the common interpretations he wished to counter. You are expected to know this already. Lastly, the writing style is rather dry, although I must say not offensively so. The book is nowhere near as exciting as the picture on the cover (yes, don't judge a book by the cover, but then again, the cover is exactly what the publisher wants you to judge the book by). The writing itself is fine, but it's just that the other problems noted above impact your ability to enjoy the writing. As noted above, battles are poorly described, and key characters often aren't described with the lively spark the would make them stand out. Wilson does have some well written sections, however, so I think the failures in his writing stem from the fact that he's not interested in writing a general history for the masses. Characters don't pop because there are so many, and Wilson doesn't feel the need to distinguish them or aid the reader in keeping them straight becuase you should already know who they are. Battles aren't exciting because Wilson spent an early chapter describing battle tactics and a later chapter describing the impact of the fighting, so you're left with a dry account of troop movements to suffice for the actual battle. The politics of the situation seems lifeless because, again, the lack of maps leads the reader to forget the geopolitical impact of decisions, and Wilson's failure to paint the characters means it's hard to follow their motivation or care about what happens (assuming you haven't confused characters or their allies). If you enjoy reading history, and find it fun and entertaining and educational all at the same time, and know nothing about the Thirty Years War, this is not the book for you. You will go in thinking the war was a big can of worms, and you will come out thinking the same.