Book Bin

[Orestes Munn]

The New Napoleon biography by Andrew Roberts.

[cap10ed]

The New Napoleon biography by Andrew Roberts.

OM is that the version that puts him in a better light. Social issues and all?

[Orestes Munn]

The New Napoleon biography by Andrew Roberts.

OM is that the version that puts him in a better light. Social issues and all?

Yes, he's apparently the first biographer with access to a huge trove of letters, which reveal much. I must admit this is my first Napoleon biography, so I don't have the opposing view. However, it's a very well-written book and the scholarship is supposed to be quite strong.

[kimbottles]

Saw The Theory of Everything last night with Susan

I might reread his book A Brief History of Time again, I didnt understand much of it last time, maybe this time will be better?

I see he has written a couple other books too, maybe I will give them a go....

[SloopJonB]

The New Napoleon biography by Andrew Roberts.

I've always been puzzled by the way Napoleon has been treated by the French and by history. Aside from industrialized genocide, I can see very little difference between him and Hitler yet Napoleon has enormous monuments in his honour and is generally regarded as one of, if not the greatest person in French history.

???

[Orestes Munn]

The New Napoleon biography by Andrew Roberts.

I've always been puzzled by the way Napoleon has been treated by the French and by history. Aside from industrialized genocide, I can see very little difference between him and Hitler yet Napoleon has enormous monuments in his honour and is generally regarded as one of, if not the greatest person in French history.

???

The book is quite revealing in that regard.

[kimbottles]

The New Napoleon biography by Andrew Roberts.

I've always been puzzled by the way Napoleon has been treated by the French and by history. Aside from industrialized genocide, I can see very little difference between him and Hitler yet Napoleon has enormous monuments in his honour and is generally regarded as one of, if not the greatest person in French history.

???

I have always wondered the same, his tomb in Paris is over the top for a guy who lost the big battle. Bigger than Wellington's or Nelson's both who won their battles.

[Olaf Hart]

The French wouldn't have much to celebrate if they only celebrated their victories.

[Orestes Munn]

The New Napoleon biography by Andrew Roberts.

I've always been puzzled by the way Napoleon has been treated by the French and by history. Aside from industrialized genocide, I can see very little difference between him and Hitler yet Napoleon has enormous monuments in his honour and is generally regarded as one of, if not the greatest person in French history.

???

I have always wondered the same, his tomb in Paris is over the top for a guy who lost the big battle. Bigger than Wellington's or Nelson's both who won their battles.

They were really just a great general and admiral, respectively (actually Wellington was PM for a while), but Napoleon was a towering political figure who overpowered and held off the Jacobin, Republican, and Royalist factions to establish the most modern and, in many ways, the most enlightened state Europe would see for a century. As general and emperor, he had a cult of personality and was loved by the French.

The comparison with Hitler, about whom I know considerably more, is weak. Most importantly, while Napoleon was a dictator in every sense of the word, his regime was authoritarian, rather than totalitarian. That is, below him and his immediate councils, he put in place a strong and sustainable administrative system with a robust body of laws, which was designed to survive him and did. Hitler, as a totalitarian, embodied the state entirely and sought to control every aspect of life from the very top. There was no meaningful rule of law and the Nazi administrative hierarchy was extraordinarily weak. Moreover, Hitler cannot be separated from his irrational racial philosophy, which drove every state policy, no matter how damaging to his other aims or the state itself. Napoleon had no such obsessions and was essentially pragmatic.

[BeauV]

Napoleon was a much better general than Hitler.

[SloopJonB]

Which one of them caused the deaths of a greater percentage of the population of Europe at the time?

Also I would argue against the Napoleonic code being a good thing re: jurisprudence.

[Orestes Munn]

Which one of them cause the deaths of a greater percentage of the population of Europe at the time?

Also I would argue against the Napoleonic code being a good thing re: jurisprudence.

If you want to argue for their equivalency, the floor is yours.

[SloopJonB]

Got a couple of years?

Actually, arguing which one devastated Europe more is best left to academics who get paid for that sort of thing.

IMO neither of them did the world any good - certainly not enough to deserve monuments.

[SemiSalt]

I found Sailing A Serious Ocean by John Kretschmer under the tree. I'm wondering what the blue water sailors among you think of Kretschmer's experiences and advice.

[cap10ed]

I found Sailing A Serious Ocean by John Kretschmer under the tree. I'm wondering what the blue water sailors among you think of Kretschmer's experiences and advice.

Semi give us the skinny on the book once you have read it.

[Jamie]

I found Sailing A Serious Ocean by John Kretschmer under the tree. I'm wondering what the blue water sailors among you think of Kretschmer's experiences and advice.

Semi give us the skinny on the book once you have read it.

I read it sometime last year...but you know what? I forgot most of it already. It's a good read, but I felt strange after reading it. Maybe it was too serious for me.

[cap10ed]

I found Sailing A Serious Ocean by John Kretschmer under the tree. I'm wondering what the blue water sailors among you think of Kretschmer's experiences and advice.

Semi give us the skinny on the book once you have read it.

I read it sometime last year...but you know what? I forgot most of it already. It's a good read, but I felt strange after reading it. Maybe it was too serious for me.

Jamie I think at a point it doesn't matter the number of miles you put behind your name but the common sence you have brought along with you. After 50,000 miles the next 300,000 and still counting may entice the up and coming but it brings out the WTF in some of us. Most of my generation commercial buddies are over the million mile mark and we are happy to just make it home at night. That's why I ask " What did he have to say" morbid curiosity.

[SemiSalt]

Maybe it was too serious for me.

I would say "pedantic."

I haven't finished, but here are some comments, both about the book as a book, and about the advice therein:

Mostly, the advice is conventional. He likes the Contessa 32, he likes Swans, he likes the Ocean 71. Well, who wouldn't. These were the best boats when he was forming preferences, and they're still good. He wants the boat to be strong enough for you to trust it. He likes a longish fin keel, a rudder with skeg. He likes a cutter rig, or a sloop with a babystay because he likes a low-cut, hanked-on, storm staysail set close to the mast. He carries a storm anchor or drogue, but doesn't use it. He gets a lot of use from whisker pole, and sets it up with guys fore and aft. He uses and trusts autopilots. He adjusts his watch schedules according to the weather and the personnel.

One thing that may not be conventional is that his preferred approach to a major storm is to fore-reach, i.e. sail under the storm jib only at perhaps 75 degrees from the true wind making 2-3 knots.

He stresses beware of chafe in a storm, especially with halyards and roller furler lines. (In the absence of a storm staysail, he will unroll a 100 sq ft of jib/genoa which means relying on the furler line....)

My biggest complaint about the book is that it could use more graphics. For instance, he describes a route from Florida to the Azores that involves riding the Gulf Stream. No graphic. He describes how a voyage from the US to the Caribbean is more east than south. No graphic. He notes that South America is to the east of North America. No graphic. He describes the path of Hurricane Bob. No graphic.

His writing is descriptive, but not as analytical as Alard Coles, not as poetic as Snaith, not as florid as Buckley.

I'm enjoying it.

[BeauV]

FWIW, I'm a fore-reach in a storm sort of guy. But, I don't like using a jib alone. Most boats won't head up in a big puff with only a jib flying. This is a BIG deal. I prefer a storm trysail or heavily reefed main so the boat will round up in the big puffs or (and this is really important) if the sails get filled with solid water. SAGA would round up nicely when a big wall of water hit her heavily reefed main. She'd bear off if it hit the storm staysail and lay on her side.

[SemiSalt]

FWIW, I'm a fore-reach in a storm sort of guy. But, I don't like using a jib alone. Most boats won't head up in a big puff with only a jib flying. This is a BIG deal. I prefer a storm trysail or heavily reefed main so the boat will round up in the big puffs or (and this is really important) if the sails get filled with solid water. SAGA would round up nicely when a big wall of water hit her heavily reefed main. She'd bear off if it hit the storm staysail and lay on her side.

Beau, he would stick with a third or fourth reef in the main as long as possible.

I also wonder about a 100 sq ft of sail in a 47+ ft boat with a tall mast, etc. It is not much sail for the windage, but never been there, never done that.

[BeauV]

FWIW, I'm a fore-reach in a storm sort of guy. But, I don't like using a jib alone. Most boats won't head up in a big puff with only a jib flying. This is a BIG deal. I prefer a storm trysail or heavily reefed main so the boat will round up in the big puffs or (and this is really important) if the sails get filled with solid water. SAGA would round up nicely when a big wall of water hit her heavily reefed main. She'd bear off if it hit the storm staysail and lay on her side.

Beau, he would stick with a third or fourth reef in the main as long as possible.

I also wonder about a 100 sq ft of sail in a 47+ ft boat with a tall mast, etc. It is not much sail for the windage, but never been there, never done that.

Semi, aboard SAGA (65' LOA, 98' masthead above the water, 35' boom, 35,000 lbs dis.) we used four reefs in the mainsail to get down to a sail with about 250 sq. ft. This was MORE than enough to get SAGA going at about 5 to 6 knots fore reaching in 60-70 knot winds. We once did that for about three days. I really screwed up on weather forecasting! I certainly didn't want any more sail area than that.

(Footnote: when you reef this much you need a topping lift or boom vang to hold the boom up or you run the risk of ripping the leach reef ring out of the sail.)

[Orestes Munn]

The Nuremberg Trial by Ann and John Tusa. A superbly written and extensively researched account of a great (and only partially successful) achievement of civilization.

[Jamie]

The Nuremberg Trial by Ann and John Tusa. A superbly written and extensively researched account of a great (and only partially successful) achievement of civilization.

Oh I bet that's an interesting book. I read the Telford Taylor version. I agree it was only partially successful but it certainly stands in positive contrast with the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.

Beau, he would stick with a third or fourth reef in the main as long as possible.

One thing that may not be conventional is that his preferred approach to a major storm is to fore-reach, i.e. sail under the storm jib only at perhaps 75 degrees from the true wind making 2-3 knots.

My parents had an old PJ/Swan 43, which is a bit like a big Contessa 32 and that's what they used to do - I recall the boat would sort of trundle along, and not require much intervention, if at all. I could hide under the dodger and watch the fisherman be miserable. Between Maine and Nova Scotia, the fisherman probably were our biggest hazard. My guess is if you look at the things that Estar suggests, and you are moving slowly towards the correct quadrant weather wise, it might not be such a bad mode.

[BeauV]

Given I was up a lot last night anyway, I started reading a book a friend had recommended by and about Bill Browder. For those not in the finance world, Bill was (at one point) the single largest investor in Russia and built a multi-billion dollar hedge fund that returned massive profits to its LPs during the phase of Russia's privatization that transferred almost all the wealth in the country from the USSR State to the Oligarchs and then on to Putin's gang. I use the word "gang" here because they are much more similar to the mafia or the crips than they are to a government. Bill writes well, but the story is pretty one-sided and set up to make himself look good. He is, however, a genuinely amazing guy for a lot of reasons. Here's the title:

Red Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder, and One Man's Fight for Justice by: Bill Browder

Interestingly, in the NY Times today it turns out that someone shot Putin's #1 enemy, Boris Nemtsov, almost next to the Kremlin. Nemtsov was Frist Deputy Prime Minister and a very active opponent of Putin's. This article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/world/europe/boris-nemtsov-russian-opposition-leader-is-shot-dead.html?ref=todayspaper is a really interesting read for any who've had to deal with Russia.

I think we forget that other than when the USSR was ruled by a small group, a party based Oligarchy, it has been a monarchy for its entire history. Putin has done an excellent job of installing himself as King and his loyal team as Barons - much as Henry the 4th did in the UK when he took over. The spoils, meaning assets of the country, now are being expropriated by the King and his Barons. No surprise to a student of the histories of monarchies, but a tremendous shock to those who thought that Russia and joined the world of democracies. Mr. Nemtsov is collateral damage as Mr. Putin makes himself the richest man in the world, which some think he has become.

[Orestes Munn]

I have always found it interesting that Bill is Earl Browder's grandson.

The Nemtsov thing is tragic and scary, but he is not the first guy whom Putin & Co. has offed. The combination of mendacious denial and obvious threat coming out of the Kremlin in the aftermath is reminiscent of Stalin.

[JoeP]

All too telling that Nemstov's murder investigation will be headed personally by Putin, according to a report on the radio this morning.

Crazy, rich, and in charge of a nuclear arsenal. What's not to like?

[BeauV]

OM, in the book Bill talks a lot about his grandfather and why he ended up in Russia for precisely that reason. It's really a good read. BV

[Orestes Munn]

OM, in the book Bill talks a lot about his grandfather and why he ended up in Russia for precisely that reason. It's really a good read. BV

Definitely on my list. Currently halfway through Charles Geisst's history of Wall Street. Made me realize that I had only a vague notion of what investment banking was. Now I'm pretty sure I know everything.

[cap10ed]

Beau they had a great interview on CBC with the author. His tales of Russia are not a shock to those with family from the eastern bloc. The sad part of this is all those people with their hopes for a better future dashed. Time to pick up that book. Thanks Beau. Ed

[BeauV]

Beau they had a great interview on CBC with the author. His tales of Russia are not a shock to those with family from the eastern bloc. The sad part of this is all those people with their hopes for a better future dashed. Time to pick up that book. Thanks Beau. Ed

Ed, thanks for the lead. I'll see if I can dig up the interview. I have to say that Bill made billions over the years, lost a lot and won a lot back. He was one of the most effective investors in a VERY tough market. I have to say I was surprised that he went this "public" with what happened in Russia. There are a lot of people who wouldn't want to piss Putin off this much. But that's not Bill. It wasn't his Grandfather either. BV