The Great Upheaval: America and the Birth of the Modern World, 1788-1800

by Jay Winik

It is an era that redefined history. As the 1790s began, a fragile America teetered on the brink of oblivion, Russia towered as a vast imperial power, and France plunged into revolution. But in contrast to the way conventional histories tell it, none of these remarkable events occurred in isolation.

Now, for the first time, acclaimed historian Jay Winik masterfully illuminates how their fates combined in one extraordinary moment to change the course of civilization. A sweeping, magisterial drama featuring the richest cast of characters ever to walk upon the world stage, including Washington, Jefferson, Louis XVI, Robespierre, and Catherine the Great, The Great Upheaval is a gripping, epic portrait of this tumultuous decade that will forever transform the way we see America's beginnings and our world

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, World History, American Revolution, American, Politics

720 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 1, 2007

About the author

A New York Times best-selling author and American historian. He had a brief career in the U.S. government's foreign policy, involving civil wars around the globe, from the former Yugoslavia to El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Cambodia, including helping to create the United Nations plan to end Cambodia's civil war. In 1991, he took up writing history full-time.

Reviews

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

Four Stars. Open your eyes to a vibrant, violent turning point in world history. In America, a fierce revolution has been won against the greatest superpower of the 18th Century. Former enemies reconcile and set out to build the greatest nation in history. In France a weak, indecisive king is soon overcome by a revolution that initially dreams of repeating the American Revolution but turns into a horror story. In Russia, a minor princess from an obscure German family morphs into an iron-fisted Tsarina, expanding her empire at every turn. In the parlance of today, we’d say Catherine the Great “ruled like a girl”! She’s awesome when you compare her to other monarchs in history.

Why the heck should we care about some sissy French king about to lose his head? Well King Louis XVI ensured America could win the Revolutionary War, in the process bankrupting France and setting the stage for the French Revolution. Who the heck cares or even knows about this Russian guy, Potemkin? Catherine the Great and her best bud, Potemkin, are raising hell and expanding the empire at the expense of the Turks. And really, nothing happened in America after the revolution until the War of 1812 right? Weak America is surviving among powerful forces by sheer wit and luck. It is a giant game of Risk played out for real. We probably studied all these events in isolation in our history classes but Winik connects them all in a mostly interesting and believable way.

Winik’s thesis is the world of the 1790’s was far more interconnected that we commonly believe. The eighteenth century was stitched together in ways we can scarcely grasp, even by today’s standards. The great nations of the day and their leaders were all intimately tied together, watching one another, marveling at one another and reacting to one another—whether from the bustle of French salons in Paris to the young American capital in Philadelphia, from the luxury of St. Petersburg to candlelight dinners in Monticello and Mount Vernon, from the splendor of Vienna to the mysteries of the seraglio in Constantinople. Political figures of the day, great philosophers, ardent rebels and revolutionaries, all freely crossed and recrossed borders, switched allegiances, spoke in foreign tongues and fought for foreign causes with great relish and shared dreams beyond their national boundaries with an alacrity that has little parallel in the modern world.

Winik succeeds in portraying that world, how fluid it was and how some extremely interesting characters get around and cause trouble. We see John Paul Jones of “I have not yet begun to fight” fame take command of Russian ships on the Black Sea. Potemkin leads the empress to Crimea, along the way we learn the genesis of the “Potemkin villages” some of which have grown into major cities. The specter of France, starting a revolution that had such high hopes and then becomes a blood bath is central to the entire story. I love a book that shows me a new perspective. The Great Upheaval does that and it makes some figures so much more real and appealing. If you are looking to spend some time reading history, this would be a great starting point. Here we see “the greatest generation of American talent in history”, Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, Adams, and Madison. But we are also introduced in a new way to interesting people, places and events like Thaddeus Kosciuszko, Charlotte Corday, Marat, Robespierre, Danton, Napoleon, Thomas Paine, Marquis de Lafayette, Suvorov, siege of Ismail, Sultan Selim III, Pugachev, Shays, and Whiskey rebellions, Poland carved up between Prussia and Russia, the seraglio, Marie Antoinette, Rousseau, Voltaire, and many others.

This book illustrates how amazing America is by showing how “America’s own rebellions and heated disputes were absorbed into a political process rather than resolved by the guillotine and assassination…” We marvel at how the founders started out on a path to what we are today: “What the Americans lacked was perspective—the very idea of a loyal opposition did not exist, nor did the notion of an orderly transfer of power from one party to the next”. At the time, the Americans are watching the terrible results of the party factions in France, devolving into a blood bath of unimaginable savagery. Would the same happen in the U.S. if we had political parties?

Intriguing or horrifying stories:

The newspaper war of 1792: “The brutal tone of these newspapers meant that anything could be said, anything alleged, without any recourse. Monstrous portraits were sketched and unsubstantiated gossip peddled…“ The Great Moderate of our times, Bill O’Reilly constantly rails against the anonymity of the internet today but he would be immensely pissed off at how unfair and partisan the media was back then.

The French took no prisoners, literally. In Nantes, we see “republican baptisms”. The head of the revolutionary force decides: “trials are a waste of time and ordered his aides to fill barges with anywhere from 2000 to 4800 people and sink them in the Loire River…priests, women and children and the elderly hands and feet are bound” The French taught the Germans and Russians well how to mass murder. “In the Vendee, 200 elderly forced to dig a large pit and drop to their knees; they were summarily shot…30 women and children buried alive” when they attempt to escape.

Weak Points:

Overly dramatic at times, such as when he discusses the mood in America during the summer of 1798 when war with France loomed: “Too often when men smiled, it was a vulpine smile, a smile of menace and malice, a cynical smile flashed by men who more than anything relished revenge” supposedly captures the animosity between the factions for and against declaring war.

Stretching a comparison out of all reasonable bounds: The horrendous Alien and Sedition Acts are compared to Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese in WWII – ok, I’ll buy that. But then he also compares the Acts to the Patriot Act—get real, not even close. But he has to be the good Northeast liberal NY Times guy and get a BDS moment in.

Washington’s second term and John Adams’ term to 1800 felt rushed and without the explanations/scene setting that he does so well everywhere else. The last 6th of the book seemed flat and uninspired— that is where the overly dramatic often occurred to the detriment of the overall narrative.

The fanatical anti-Catholic, anti-priest pogroms in France are never explained or given context. They just occur. I wanted to know why.

Connecting the events in America, France and Russia gets strained at times. He jumps around in time and ties events together tenuously at times. The Pugachev Rebellion is interesting but impact on this narrative not really there. And why not a few MAPS please! I don’t know off the top of my head, the road from St Petersburg to the Crimean Peninsula or where Ismail is or the Vendee…give us a map or two for context.

Overall, I was mostly fascinated by this book. I sure wish school history had been this interesting, maybe we all would have a better sense of how we relate to our predecessors and take lessons from their struggles and apply to today. Of course, if school materials were made interesting, Jay Leno’s Man in the Street segments wouldn’t work because the people walking around would have a clue.

[Joe · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Great Upheaval is nothing if not ambitious. In this author's previous book, April 1865, the topic was extremely focused both in timeline and subject matter. Not so in The Great Upheaval. Technically it covers the years 1788-1800 and a majority of the civilized world at that time, attempting to link events globally by what occurred locally. I didn't realize this was a point of contention among historians, i.e. The American and French Revolution. So in breadth, scope and length it dwarfs its predecessor - except in readability. I applaud the effort and I really wanted to like this book but it was a challenge to finish.

The title is somewhat of a misnomer. The goal may have been to focus on the years 1788-1800, but the text/topics slip(s) chronologically back and forth by years, decades and even centuries - including the building of Versailles and Louis XIV, the history of Islam and Peter the Great. Also the United States is not the focus here either - the narrative changes from America to France to Russia - and Turkey, Great Britain, Poland, Vienna - and more. Although this may sound fascinating, it comes across as willy-nilly, confusing and at times exasperating - with a lack of coherency to the transitions and narrative. Major characters' bios are introduced pages and sometimes chapters after they enter the story adding to the reader's confusion/frustration, particularly when the specific characters provide the thread between the geographic narratives. There is also no balance in coverage of historic events. The French Revolution is covered in minute detail as well as Catherine the Great's march to the Crimea. On the other hand America finding its identity as a new independent country is given short shrift.

Compounding the readability issue is the writing - which is ponderous, repetitive, and at times painfully verbose - adjectives and adverbs abound - with nothing succinct. No one simply speaks - they mutter or exclaim or shriek or wail. Eyes flash, banquets are demolished and the blood - all the blood - drenching hills or soaking the ground or running through the streets. There are also a multitude of rhetorical questions throughout the book. Out of the ordinary? Yes. Necessarily bad? No. Frustrating? Well - you get the point.

Again I applaud the effort/attempt in writing an engaging book on a tumultuous period bringing events and historical figures to life for the "lay" reader. Unfortunately the author's attempt here in painting a dramatic picture accomplishes the exact opposite, bogging down in both detail and overwrought descriptions to the exclusion of a coherent narrative.

[Kim · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's a general misconception even among Americans that we kicked the British out of our country and then things were generally calm until the Civil War. The end of the war was just the start of an ongoing internal conflict that wasn't free of bloodshed and reflected the kind of angry partisanship which, today, we push into social media.

Jay Winik focuses on three major areas of the world to illustrate the political and ideological impulses that were changing the world. He begins with the post revolution in the United States, and with the failed Confederation of States that was born toothless and stayed that way through its brief existence. In addition to being a weak federal government the Articles of Confederation set up tax systems that it could not enforce. This was seen in Shay's Rebellion which grew from a protest meant to stop tax collectors from doing their job into an attempt to seize the government of Massachusetts. 

A call to revise the Articles turned into a series of secret meetings, even to the Congress of Confederation, that hammered out the Constitution in a room where the windows were shut and blackened to avoid reporters and others from overhearing any part of the debates. The US government narrowly missed a hundred different changes that might have completely altered history.

The Constitution wasn't immediately adored, and further tax revolts appeared and were quashed by a stronger federal government that was able to outgun the Whiskey Rebellion and other attempts to fight the newer threat of a stronger unified government. Unlike the atmosphere later in France, leaders of the American counter-revolutions were given death sentences but most were commuted.

The second area is France, turning from a relatively calm and hopeful rebellion, and a successful push to have Louis XVI concede freedoms (an end to serfdom and freedom of political opinion) into one of the most horrifying bloodbaths in history. From that blossomed the rise of Napoleon and the wars to spread the revolution into Italy, Germany, and Austria. 

The third sphere is Russia under Catherine the Great. A foreign queen whose husband had been murdered she took the Russian throne in a hopeful atmosphere. An enlightened queen she adored Voltaire. She also bought the library of the aging Diderot (creator of the French encyclopedia) and then provided him with a stipend so that he could maintain it until his death. After seeing the destruction in Paris, however, she decided that a strong monarchy was the only way to manage a country as large and diverse as Russia. She annexed Poland and began a campaign to gain free access to the Black Sea and attacked Turkish Istanbul to allow further access to the Mediterranean.

Warnik profiles a surprisingly broad number of heroes and villains in this work. The penultimate hero is George Washington, not the greatest thinker or finest warrior, but a man fully aware that he was cutting the pattern for the cloth of every future presidency. His distress over the raging factionalism of the country led him to write a resignation after his first term. He was talked out of this but had that letter dusted off after his second term, a tradition that lasted until FDR's four-term presidency. Also profiled are John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, as well as Alexander Hamilton and his political battles with ... everyone in his drive to create a capitalist economy in preference to the agricultural utopia sought by Jefferson.

In France we learn about the lives of Robespierre, Danton, Marat, and the fated king and queen. In Russia the lives of Catherine and her brilliant alter ego Grigory Potemkin. 

The book is a thorough and insightful look into a time general taught in broad strokes in American schools. With the vast number of real conspiracies and faux conspiracies, executions and arrests the book reads like more of a political thriller than a history tome. 

It's eye-opening to see the paranoia that is still alive and well in American politics being played out in powdered wigs. Republicans were sure that Washington and Adams were secretly conspiring to set up a new monarchy allied with Britain. The Federalists were certain that Jefferson and his allies were set on importing a French bloodbath to American shores. What today is a fear that a president might act to seize guns was a fear that Washington would seize cattle and land. Outrage over diplomacy with France and England is no less visible in outrage over Iran and North Korea.

Meanwhile the French Directorate was slicing off the heads of brilliant scientists and philosophers while using the guillotine to settle political scores. Partisans in southern France used less humane methods, tying women, children, and priests to boats that were sunk in rivers to drown all on board. 

It was a perilous time on both sides of the Atlantic, held together on this side by the calm and wisdom of Washington who limited intervention to shows of force followed by mercy. 

An excellent book that deserves the attention of anyone interested in history and American political life. 

[Ari · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had high hopes for this book. Jay Winik is a good stylist, with a knack for focusing on underappreciated nuances in the historical record. This book, unfortunately, was a bit of a disappointment. The premise is a good one: to look holistically at US and European history in the period from 1788 to 1800. Unfortunately, the Russian, French, and American strands still seem quite separate in this narrative. It reads more like three parallel stories than like a unified narrative. There's a great deal of material that doesn't seem closely tied to anything else. Yes, it's interesting to hear about the Pugachev rebellion, but what does it have to do with the topic of the book?

If you're seriously interested in the period, you'd be better off reading Simon Schama's Citizens, a good biography of Catherine the Great, and a couple biographies of the American founders. If you don't have the patience for that, though, The Great Upheaval is a good synthesis and summary of the period.

[Tina · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book if full of details that your teachers probably didn't have time to share with you when you were in school. Interesting!

[Tracie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was fascinating! After reading Les Miserables I was so disappointed that I did not know more about French history, especially the time period of the French Revolution and then into Napoleon. I knew the French Revolution was bad... who doesn't? But I did not realize how bad. The author at one point compared what went on in parts of France with the Nazis, the gulags in the Soviet Union, and Cambodia's Khmer Rouge regime. There were points when what I was reading made me so sick that I just had to stop for awhile. And a really sobering statistic is that over 85% of the people guillotined were commoners! (I guess it's time for some "fluff" reading.) I would highly recommend this book, despite the gruesome parts, because I learned a ton and felt the author did a great job of weaving together the events that were happening in America, Russia, and France during this time period.

[Maxwell Dalton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whenever I'm reviewing a history book like this one, I struggle greatly to come up with a rating for the book. On the one hand, this is an insane achievement that took over 6 years and an endless amount of research all to provide a Game-of-Thrones-esque overview of one of the most interesting time periods throughout history, and for that should clearly deserve 5 stars at least in my eyes. On the other hand, I have an extremely minimal knowledge of history and therefore any rating I give to this book must be taken with a grain of salt, as perhaps Winik's takes are controversial or just plain incorrect and I just don't have the knowledge to realize such. So that being said, I am providing here the disclaimer that the vast majority of my historical knowledge is coming from this book itself (prior to this I had never even heard of such monumental characters as Marat, Suvorov, or Gerry), and as such someone with a deeper history may find some faults that I am overlooking.

Okay, so that's over and done with. Now onto the book itself.

This is, as the title suggests, a detailed account of the turbulent time period of the late eighteenth-century. Specifically, Winik hones on on three areas of extreme levels of activity: America, France, and Russia. The main argument that Winik seeks to convey, as per the introduction, is that even this early on in history, the world was an extremely entangled place, and the events unfolding in these three countries greatly influenced one another; this is opposed to traditional educations telling of these events in isolation of one another.

In particular, the thread of events follows the creation of a federal government in the U.S. with the Constitution and the ensuing baby steps along the way, and how the American revolutionaries' success influenced the French to conduct their own revolution against Louis XVI. The ensuing terror as the French revolution took a darkened turn then led Empress Catherine the Great to turn from her more liberal, youthful ideas towards more autocratic ones when dealing with such uprisings as the Pugachev Rebellion and the Polish uprising.

The main strength in this book lies in Winik's ability to take this treasure trove of historical events and weave them into a single, compelling narrative thread. As I've already alluded to, this book really feels more like you're reading a Game of Thrones novel than actual events. Sometimes I wish that were the case, particularly when reading the atrocities unfolding in Europe: the brutal Terror that took hold over the French, Catherine's initial coup d'etat plot to rise to power, the list goes on and on (see: the book).

After reading this book I am simultaneously envious of those who lived in this time period and grateful that I am not living in that time period. Envious because the world was an exciting place changing practically daily, and grateful to not be there because it was a truly brutal place, complete with citizen killings for seemingly no reason, slavery, and censure of the press, all depending on where you were.

I could go on and on about different thoughts I have about this book, but the review is long enough and I think I've already conveyed my point: you should definitely check this out.

TL;DR: Game of Thrones but make it the late eighteenth century real world.

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book wasn't bad, and there were definitely things here that I didn't know, but I really ended up annoyed with the author's style. Without quoting a lot of passages, it's hard to convey exactly how irritating this was, because it was a cumulative thing rather than anything technically wrong with his writing. I listened to the audio version, and that might have had a lot to do with it, but there was a lot of padding, a lot of 'Captain Obvious' stuff, and a lot of writing that ended sounding similar to this:

And was X successful at doing Y?

Yes. But not completely...

It seemed like every time there was any definitive statement about an event or a person, within a page, sometimes even a few paragraphs, Winik was modifying or refuting whatever it was he'd just said. As I said, listening to it, this seemed exaggerated--maybe reading it would make it seem less so. But there was also a tendency to be facile and sensational in the writing, as if the target audience needed to be kept in a high state of tension while reading. Sometimes this worked well, sometimes it was very strained.

Nor do I know if Winik proves his point that this is the 'Birth of the Modern World', but honestly, has there been any popular history book written in the last 20 years that doesn't have a improbably or improvable subtitle designed to hook readers? I don't know of it. This is such a standard marketing device, I don't even look for the author to convince me of it. Winik makes a case, and it's probably as good a case as several other decades one could choose from, though if you were to ask me (and nobody is), I'd put my money on 1915-1925.

As I said in the beginning--this isn't a bad book, and if you are interested in this time at all, you are probably going to learn some things. Winik's comparison of American, French and Russian history is sometimes apt, sometimes strained, but I think it follows a trend where the information is presented as if the author is constantly afraid of loosing the reader's attention, and seeks to keep the tension at such a pitch that it starts to sound repetitive and ridiculous. While this may be one of the few books that seeks to place this time in its worldwide aspect, I suspect there are much better treatments of the individual narratives.

[Monica · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simply outstanding account of the three nations involved in the revolutions begun by the American Revolution. All worked in context with each other, not in isolation, and all the nations knew what was happening elsewhere. Puts the American and French revolutions, especially, into context, and throws new light on both. The Russian situation under Catherine the Great, where an attempted revolution failed and the revolution in Poland was crushed, provides a stark contrast. The harrowing portrait here of the French revolution and its actual genocide shows that the reign of terror involved far more than the guillotine. The book takes the history through to Napoleon, and focuses on how the French revolution especially affected the young United States, with an insightful description of George Washington and his difficulties as President.

It was also fascinating to see how so many heroes of the American Revolution wound up in France and elsewhere. For example, John Paul Jones fought for Catherine in Russia, and Thomas Paine came within hours of being guillotined in France.

Excellent narrative writing that flows well. This book is a necessity for anyone interested in the period.

[Tony · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is: a brief history of the US, France, and Russia in the relevant time period. While each of these stories is interesting, the accounts are also so superficial that most of the material covered will already be known to even casual students of history. This book is not: an even remotely convincing argument for the author's thesis that events in each of the principal nations were strongly influenced by happenings in the other two. This is especially true for Russia. For instance, Winik offers no evidence that Catherine's turn away from progressive ideas had to do with the revolutions in the US and France rather than with, say, Pugachev's rebellion. Given its length, The Great Upheaval is simply not worth the required time investment.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

If his book April 1865 was a must-read for every high school junior in the nation, then this effort by Mr. Winik should be a must-read for every high school senior.

John Adams scared that the mob would drag him and Washington to the chopping block a la The Terror in the French Revolution? Wow!

Catherine the Great wasn't Russian, I knew. That her name wasn't Catherine, I didn't know.

The book is fair to Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. It was fair to Potemkin. It was fair to Robespierre (mercilessly fair). I think this is the best non-fiction I've read in a year.

It's 3 inches thick, and a quick read. I can't compliment it any better than that.

[Erin · Rating 2 out of 5]

The Great Upheaval gets two stars because it's well researched. I love this era in history and was looking forward to learning more about American history in the context of other contemporary world events. However, I could not endure the author's tone or syntax. Winik's descriptions are verbose and end up feeling pedantic. He had my attention but abused it. I was not able to finish this book, but perhaps in the distant future my love of history will win out and I'll finish it.

[Lauren Albert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Winik does an amazing job, better than any other author I've read, showing what it felt like to be in the middle of the upheavals of the late 18th century. He conveys the uncertainty, the indecision, the fear, that many felt while facing the French Revolution, war and change in general. He alternates between the US, Russia and France and shows how differently leaders in each reacted.

[Mshelton50 · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed Jay Winik's The Great Upheaval very much. In tying together the events in America, France and Russia, he reminds the reader how interconnected the 18th century world was, and in particular, how much the American Revolution influenced its French successor. He also points out how unique the American political system was, and how astonishing was the peaceful transfer of power from John Adams to his opponent and successor Thomas Jefferson. The book was very interesting and moving, too, on the final days of the ex-King and Queen, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.

I have to admit that I am still a bit stumped by Winik's admiration of Catherine II of Russia. He readily admits that (1) Catherine had a hand in the coup that toppled her husband, Tsar Peter III (perhaps even ordering his death by strangulation); (2) her protestations as a ruler of the Enlightenment were so much window dressing, and that her reign became more and more authoritarian and despotic; (3) her two wars with the Ottoman Empire were responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of her soldiers; (4) she was responsible for wiping Poland off the map for more than a century; and (5) on her orders, 800,000 free peasants became serfs. Yet, in spite of that abysmal catalogue, he still seems to have a soft spot for her.

The book is a fine read, but it could have used more careful editors. There are several places where the author's purple prose distracts from the story he wants to tell. And there are some odd factual errors, such as his repeated insistence that the French naval hero of the American Revolution, the comte de Grasse, was sent to the guillotine (he was not; he died naturally in 1788, well before the storming of the Bastille), or saying that Robert E. Lee was born in 1797-98 (he was born in 1807).

In spite of its flaws, I recommend the book

[Yolanda Parsons · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you enjoy history, this is a fabulous read.

[Wyatt Reu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Masterful history writing. A treat to read.

[Pinko Palest · Rating 1 out of 5]

a quite conservative take on a very fiery and revolutionary period. Makes for some rather depressing reading

[Ben · Rating 5 out of 5]

Winik provides a sweeping, comprehensive account of late 18th century world history---particularly focused on Russia, France and the United States--- that is, at the same time, a highly cohesive narrative with an overarching thesis. Specifically, Winik shows that this was the era in which the question on the minds of rulers, nobles, bourgeoisie and peasants was the same: what is the best form of government?

America had cast off the British monarchy and attempted to enact the seemingly impossible: formation of a strong federal government to rule over thirteen highly diverse and often contentious states, which was, at the same time, republican in its structure. Successful republican governments were unheard of for large complex nations; the prevailing wisdom being that only an autocratic monarch could keep everyone towing the same line. It wasn't easy: the early days of America included frequent wrangling over the relative power of the states versus the federal government and America's place on the world stage, while the nation collectively stuck its head in the sand over the slavery issue in the interest of national unity. But it more or less stumbled through its early days as a successful nation with a stable government and peaceful society.

How very different was the French story. Inspired by the American Revolution, France also sought to replace the monarchy with a republic, but the result was an unmitigated disaster. Within a few years, the king and queen had been executed, and paranoia gripped the new government, as thousands perceived to be enemies of the Revolution were sent to the guillotine. Meanwhile, the other nations of Europe looked on in horror, and resolved to oust these regicides with force. So began the Revolutionary Wars, the rise of Napoleon, and decades of turmoil in France.

In Russia, Catherine the Great was initially an admirer of the Enlightenment ideas of Voltaire and Montesquieu, and therefore open to the concept of republicanism. Yet, in practice, she reinforced her role as an illiberal monarch, demonstrated by her brutal, imperialistic ambitions in the Crimea and Poland, and her decisive quashing of Pugachev's Rebellion.

Here then, were three interwoven and yet seemingly contradictory case studies. On the one hand, republicanism was an astonishing success in the United States, and a tragic failure in France, and not even a consideration in Russia, where autocrat rule worked perfectly well, thank you very much. Yet this was the beginning of the conversation that continues to this day, as nations attempt to construct democratic governments with mixed results. Two hundred years later, it seems that no one has found the unerring formula for effective, responsible and benevolent rule.

[Pete Welter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like many of my favorite histories, this one filled in some gaps for me about the time after the American Revolutionary War and before the age of Napoleon. The book is told from three main perspectives, American, French and Russian, and the major focus of the book is to illustrate how much interplay there was between each of these. We (or at least I) sometimes think of the pre-telegraph days, when news traveled across oceans by ship or across land by horse, as eras when communication so slow as to render news obsolete by the time it arrived. However, Winik shows that the major powers were deeply influenced by each other. For example, Catherine the Great of Russia kept tabs on George Washington and American independence and the effects that this new nation was having on the affairs in France and other European nations; her take on these events dictated how she both interacted with other nations and governed her own.

(Side note: Did you know that the American seaman John Paul Jones ended up as a commander in the Russian navy for a time?)

The American story explores the trials and tribulations of a new nation, and the numerous times early on when the United States could have in some ways disintegrated. Besides the tenuous nature of our nation's early years, the two impressions I really came away with how an exceptional a leader George Washington was, and how much the issue of slavery set the US up for the Civil War from our first days as a nation. The French story is about the slide of that country into revolution and then the Terror and the personalities involved. The Russian story is really the Catherine The Great story. She was a leader who I knew by name, but hadn't ever appreciated the power of Russia under her leadership in the late 18th century.

History is often told in independent threads: the French Revolution, or the American Revolution, or a personality like Catherine the Great. The beauty of The Great Upheaval is to take those separate threads and illustrate how they were woven together to drive the history of the Western world in that era of time.

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

This had what I enjoy the most in historical works...context. With "The Great Upheaval: American and the Birth of the Modern World" Jay Winik sets out to tell three stories simultaneously: American, French, and Russian history between 1788-1800. He mostly succeeds and frequently goes above and beyond this story by giving a great deal of history prior to 1788 as well.

I already knew the American story fairly well. It was how that story interacted with the French and Russian story that I found fascinating. I'd never really understood the French Revolution before this book. Going from the French Monarchy that supported America during the Revolutionary War to Napolean in a very short amount of time never made sense to me. Winik does a good job of laying this all out (although I felt like Napolean got rather short shrift).

The parallels to the American Revolution were fascinating. There were definitely several moments on the American side of things were if there hadn't been such strong leaders or if anyone of the Founding Fathers had given into their base instincts you could see everything turning as bloody as France did. I think the ultimate difference was that the King we were rebelling against wasn't in America. Even though there were Tories, having everyone separated from the people in charge did a good job of separating US vs. THEM.

The Russian story was just as interesting. Catherine the Great was (wait for it) pretty great. I love that at every point in history (the last hundred years at least) the Russian people seem very difficult to govern and their governments feel the need to be super harsh to "correct" that. Luckily, that doesn't go on today. (coughPutincough).

All in all, a good read that will definitely lead to additional research on my part. The best books make you want to read even more books.

[Bryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Great Upheaval by Jay Winik is written to be a history of nations during the 1788-1800 time period. For me it became a macro analysis of the birth of the United States. This history includes the philosophers and philosophies that influenced the Revolution. One of the intriguing parts of The Great Upheaval is the history behind the countries that did not on the surface play a large role in the Revolutionary War but made decisions that without would have changed the outcome that we know. Most history books become so broad that they miss important details, while others focus so much on one individual or a single event that the larger picture is lacking. This book does well at looking at individuals, events, all the while bringing in the larger picture. Jay Winik does an excellent job comparing some of the greatest individuals to walk the earth.

[John Kaufmann · Rating 5 out of 5]

History at its best! An incredible read. The book is ostensibly about the pivotal decade of the 1790s. The author compares and contrasts America during it's fragile and formative years immediately after independence; France during the French Revolution and leading into the Napoleonic years; and Russia struggling to emerge as an imperial power during the reign of Catherine the Great. Fundamentally, it is about how and why America emerged as a democracy while France devolved into chaos and Russia moved toward despotism and totalitarianism. The combination of big picture themes laced and historical detail made it something hard to put down. It was so good, I re-read the book last year, and my opinion didn't change - I was still riveted, and I benefited from reading it a second time.

[Mark Myers · Rating 2 out of 5]

I've tried to think why this book disturbed me. I've come to the conclusion that the author and I hold different values. The author and the historical characters he admires are the ones that admire liberty to the point of using any means to accomplish that liberty. I admire the ones that not only held liberty dear, but sought honorable ways to administer freedom to ensure future liberty.

[Manu Dell'aquila · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book fascinating, historically interesting, and beautifully written.
I would not go as far as saying that I could not put it down as it took me a while to read through it, but that had more to do with time available for reading.
It made me interested in history again.
And I have to thank the author more than the history itself.

[Sloane Argyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

By far the most compelling work of nonfiction I've ever encountered. The author has a way of depicting complex geopolitical events in harrowing, vivid detail. More than once I forgot myself, having immersed myself so entirely in his narration. I listened to this on audiobook, and highly recommend it in that format.

[Avis Black · Rating 1 out of 5]

A cursory overview of information you should already know if you've had a halfway decent education. For example, if you've never heard of the Salem Witch Trials, then this is the book for you.

[Brian Manville · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this connected world of the 21st century - cell phones, internet, etc. - it's easy to think that previous eras were in the proverbial stone age. Growing up in the 1970s, the access to information and to other people wasn't what it is today, but it was still possible. Similarly, the 1790s were connected, and people were cognizant of what others were doing.

This book covers events simultaneously in America, France, and Russia during the last decade of the 18th century. The revolutionary fervor that led to England being cast out of their own colonies (and said colonies becoming its own nation). Reverberated across the Atlantic to the nations of Europe. Clearly, the "enlightened despots" of Europe looked on events in America with horror, recognizing that they could be next. In fact, Catherine II was so spooked by the American revolution that she stopped what liberalization was taking place, and went regressive on her own subjects. The French aristocracy , were not so lucky.

Louis XVI's subjects saw the American Revolution and wanted to emulate it. In doing so, events swung like a pendulum to the complete opposite extreme. In the course of three years, the citizens of France go from suffering as nearly serfs under a monarchy to citizens cowering in fear from the Jacobin mobs running France. The sad fact is that many French were sent to the guillotine for simply having been wrong convicted of wrong think, wrong attitude, wrong amount of fervor, etc. While Americans were advising all sides of the French revolution, it wasn't too far along before Americans realized that events in France had gone sideways. And in the end, after mob rule, the French ended up with an emperor who was just as bad as the monarchy.

Winik has a difficult task in attempting to tell three separate, but slightly intersecting stories at the same time. His premise that the people of the late 18th century were interrelated and interconnected is well defended and explained through the events. The French are influencing Russia's court life while America's spirit of rebellion is encouraging the French to rise up yet while Catherine tries to pull strings around Europe to keep the heat and attention away from her as she seeks to subjugate the Ottoman Empire. For those who like to see a higher view of history as events in one place affect events in other places, this book deserves to be on your list.

BOTTOM LINE: The 18th century was connected as the 21st, yet in its own way.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow, what a book! I just finished reading The Great Upheaval: America and the Birth of the Modern World, 1788-1800 by Jay Winik. As in all of the Jay Winik books I have read, the other two being April 1865: The Month That Saved America and 1944: FDR and the Year That Changed History, they are dedicated titularly to very narrow periods of history. Of course this it is impossible to avoid straying outside those bounds, but this book is more faithful to the boundaries than the other two. Perhaps this is unfortunate for reasons I'll outline.

The Great Upheaval focuses on the American and French Revolutions and the bloody final days of Catherine the Great, Czarina of Russia. These countries' evolution during this period of time in large part foreshadowed their futures. America at that time was a fragile republic clinging to the Eastern third of the modern United States. France and Russia were, as of 1788 well-established empires on the verge of implosion. What is remarkable is how their changes during this period foreshadow modern eras in these countries, but regretfully the author passes of the opportunity, other than through tantalizing hints, to explore this. In Winik's defense the book was copyrighted in 2007, before Putin had evolved into the modern-day Czar and monster that he is. The book makes glancing references to the fact that even in the early 1790's, as France began its hellish descent into the Terror, people were already talking about moving to America, and some were actually doing it or trying to.

To use an expression attributed to Mark Twain, History Doesn't Repeat Itself, but It Often Rhymes. This book is a major commitment to read. It was well worthwhile, particularly for a history buff like myself. It did not take me two months to read; I read two other books in between.

[Reginald Ankrom · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are like me and one who is fascinated by the players and history of the American Revolution, you have given little thought to what was happening with the great nations in the rest of the world. This is the book to change that. Jay Winik's excellent book "April 1865" was the reason I picked up a copy of his "The Great Upheaval: America and the Birth of the Modern World, 1788-1800." It was not an easy decision. Upheaval is 659 pages long. And I have never ventured far from America's shores for the stuff I read. Winik has changed that.

"Upheaval" is a highly readable, page-turning book about revolutionary activities in Russia, France, and Great Britain, with coverage of lesser uprisings in places like Hungary and Poland. And the book is a great eye opener in just how close American revolutionaries were to the precipice in their fight for independence, both in international and, more surprisingly, domestic threats. The bumblebee-like French Ambassador Edmond Genet was creating an insurrectionary atmosphere in the new United States at a time when American insurrectionaries in Western Pennsylvania were threatening a Whiskey Rebellion. It was much more dangerous than I'd thought. Genet's timing was perfect. He was responsible for hundreds of "Democratic Societies," modeled on the French c]template. And Americans, aggravated that a government sought to tax its citizens--many of whom had just fought a war for independence over such actions, were ready to rebel again.

Winik makes clear it was "One man" (page 70), who guided the young nation through its even more challenging times after the revolution. And it is Winik's coverage of the great leaders, and here I include France's bloody leaders, of the other great countries that make this book so interesting.

Highly recommended.

[Lauren Hiebner · Rating 4 out of 5]

The premise of the book is that the Enlightenment in Europe and it’s philosophers influenced the founding fathers in the Colonies which led to the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution. This event along with the Enlightenment then influenced the French Revolution. The book covers the years 1788 - 1800 and it is in these years that the transition was made to move governments and countries into the modern era. These upheavals contained the seeds of nationalism and imperialism which will eventually lead to conflict and world wars. Winik also sees the American Revolution within the context of world wide rebellions, revolts, and civil wars with a focus on France and Russia. Winik also sees the outcome for the United States as different than Europe. In France the monarchy was overthrown but the military dictatorship of Napoleon was installed while in Russia the monarchy was able to crush rebellions and gain strength. In comparison the result of the American Revolution was the overthrow of monarchial control by England resulting in a written constitution which later included a Bill of Rights and a republican form of government. Winik points out that in the 1800s countries were connected more than we thought and thus able to influence each other when it came to philosophical and political trends. In this context the author says that the United States was a shining light, an influence to others in bringing about change. The author was able throughout the book show how events in one country influenced others and while we think of this connectivity in modern times with technology, it was taking place at the end of the 18th century just at a slower rate. A fascinating book that puts the American Revolution within the context of world wide revolutions.