Customer Reviews
Lamentable - By: a reader, 08 Aug 2006 
One has to take into account Leckie's advanced age at the time of writing. But so should the publisher. Like the other reviewers I lament the apparent lack of editing, which should have prevented a number of howlers. A casein point is Leckie's account of William III. He appears to have conflated events from the lives of this king of England & his great-grandfather William the Silent. This should have been apparent from the anachronismsin the account to even the layman.In view of this, it is difficult to take the book seriously as a work of historiography.
Utter drivel - look elsewhere - By: , 07 May 2004 If you want to own one book on the French & Indian wars - this is not it. Search out a copy of Parkmans 'Montcalm & Wolf' instead.
The problem with this book is that it is highly subjective. Theories are presented as 'facts' with no indication that there are other opinions or supporting references, & the quality of the research is lamentable.
In fact there are no references anywhere, & a perusal of the 'selected bibleography' reveal that it is entirely made up of seconday or tertiary sources.
Sloppily researched, sloppily edited, & badly paced. In the last ten years I have abandoned maybe 5 books without finishing them. This is one of those 5.
Interesting observations but appalling editing - By: , 17 Jul 1999 
I find the conclusions Leckie draws from his research to be very interesting, sometimes very insightful, but I'm constantly balancing that against how he seems to draw a lot from little evidence.
The writing is generally very good, but when it (or the editing is) bad, it's REALLY bad. Aside from the duplication mentioned above, Leckie also gets away with absurdities such as "the sole & only credential". Also, he presents a discussion about someone's viewpoint, which I have read two dozen times & STILL cannot understand (and I don't think I'm the problem).
I'm not sure slogging through the messes is worth it to get the interesting details.
look for another book on theFrench and Indian war - By: , 18 Jun 1999 I have tried to read all the books I could find on the French & Indian war. This one has some good points. But the points are few &in between. You go from talking about how the weapons of that day worked. To weaponsin World War 2. I think years have passed between the two wars. Their is alot more problems with this book. So look for another one.
Interesting and lively narrative; a couple of reservations. - By: , 10 Jun 1999 
This book provides as background to the French & Indian Wars a history of the (re)discovery of the New World by Christopher Columbus & its subsequent colonization by Spain, France, & England. By emphasizing the different waysin which the colonizing powers treated their possessions, & providing histories of many of the major personalities involvedin the growth of the colonies, Leckie does provide insight, as the jacket says, into "why we speak English today instead of French-and reminds us how easily things might have gone the other way."
However, there are some irritating aspects. First, on at least two occasions material is repeated, sometimes word-for-word,in different chapters (compare the final three paragraphs on page 100 with the last two paragraphs on page 158 & the first paragraph on page 159, & also page 126 & pages 165 to 166). This appears to be at least rather sloppy editing, & gives the reader some problemsin keeping the succession of events straight.
Second, Leckie seems to be somewhat prejudiced against women. He names Queen Elizabeth I "the Pirate Queen," as if England alone engagedin somewhat less than legal behavior on the seas, & he devotes one of the few footnotesin the book to the following tirade:
"Permit the author a single digression on this subject [womenin combat]: In World War II the chief German ace, Erich Hartmann, shot down no less than 352 enemy planes. Our chief ace, Richard Bong, had 40 kills. What would happen to an American female fighter pilot challenging either one of these superior gentlemen of the skies? Obviously, she would lose her life, & the U.S. Air Force would lose not only the time & money wastedin training her as well, but also an aircraft valued at $36 million." I translate this argument as: "An average female fighter pilot challenging the best aces of WWII would 'obviously' lose. Therefore, it is ridiculous to think of using women as combat pilots." One could equally well argue that an average male fighter pilot challenging one of these aces would also probably lose-but this does not cause Leckie to suggest that men should not be allowed into combat.
These two characteristics of the book kept me wondering what other prejudices & padding I might have missed.
