We’ve just learned that this blog has actually been mentioned in the dead-tree literature!It may not be in the most complimentary terms, but as long as he spelled our name right, who cares?
A reader sent us this email tonight:
I just finished reading The Enemy at the Gate by Andrew Wheatcroft.- - - - - - - - -
He takes a slight jab at your website at the end of his book when he tries to have everyone play nice with each other, and downplays the most recent Muslim incursion into Europe.
It’s not a bad book about the history between the Hapsburgs and Ottomans; I have read worse when it comes to apologists for the Islamists.
The best thing is he directed me to check out your site and I enjoyed it immensely, especially the Danish hero.
Maybe this explains some of the Google searches that lead people to our blog.
The book is reviewed here. For some strange reason, the reviewer does not say, “The author fails to give credit to the noted blogger Baron Bodissey for his ground-breaking work in the Counterjihad.”
Perhaps that sentence was cut from the final copy by the Telegraph’s editor…
7 comments:
As a legendary Southern Senator once said to a newspaper reporter:
"I don't care what you print about me, son. Just spell my name right!"
Ah, Baron, the reviewer of this was Noel Malcolm, who has authored two "histories" of Bosnia and Kosovo (from a Muslim apologist angle, natch) in the 1990s. For him to talk about "history... being manipulated for unhistorical purposes" is especially rich.
Speaking of sieges - The Great siege by Ernle Bradford - the siege of Malta, is a great read.
He also cited your blog inaccurately, giving the URL as gatesofvienna.blog.com--see pg 299.
Natalie --
You've actually read the book? I'm impressed.
And alas -- he misspelled our name! My worst fears are realized...
Baron--
No, I haven't read it, but apparently I checked the sources more carefully then the author did ;)
The first two thirds of the book is actually an excellent read describing the events leading up to the siege, the siege itself, and the events following it. The final third is a bit meandering, but the gist of it seems to lead less into apologist for Islam territory, and more toward the notion that the conflict was as much a manifestation of the personal ambition for empire on the part of the monarchs involved as a clash of civilizations. Once those individuals were removed from the scene, the conflict waned.
At least that appears to be his point, but as I said, it's a bit meandering toward the end.
Victor Hanson recommends it on his summer reading list on NR. The description the author uses of the seige, that of a 17th century version of the Battle of Stalingrad, seems about right. And the vivid description of the Polish cavalry coming down from the hills and the Turks fleeing in the face of them was great stuff.
I'll have to read up on Prince Eugene of Savoy now, the only military figure worth a dime ever produced by Austria.
Post a Comment