The Naval War of 1812: Or the History of the United States Navy During the Last War With Great Britain to Which Is Appended an Account of the Battle of New Orleans

by Theodore Roosevelt

Twenty three year old Roosevelt's acclaimed history of the War of 1812.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Military History, American History, War, Military Fiction, Naval History

476 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1902

About the author

Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., also known as T.R., and to the public (but never to friends and family) as Teddy, was the twenty-sixth President of the United States, and a leader of the Republican Party and of the Progressive Movement.

He fathered Alice Roosevelt Longworth, a daughter.

He became the youngest President in United States history at the age of 42. He served in many roles including Governor of New York, historian, naturalist, explorer, author, and soldier (posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor in 2001 for his role at the Battle of San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War).

Roosevelt is most famous for his personality: his energy, his vast range of interests and achievements, his model of masculinity, and his "cowboy" persona.

Reviews

[Ron · Rating 3 out of 5]

As history this may rate four or five stars, but its poor readability will repel all but the most numbers-oriented naval history buffs. Considering that Roosevelt's goal was to correct representations and misinterpretations on both sides of the Atlantic, perhaps his didactic style can be excused. That and the fact that he started Naval War while still in college.

Even given those excuses, this is not a readable tome. Many chapters repeat information and arguments given in previous chapters. And Roosevelt's dogged destruction of certain previous historians comes across as approaching a personal animus.

He may have had a point. Despite over a century having elapsed since he first published and two centuries since the events many of the battles--land and sea--of that conflict remain cartoon misrepresentations rather than fact--even in what passes for history books in today's schools.

[Jeff Tankersley · Rating 5 out of 5]

"We will do far better to recollect that as much can be learned from reverses as from victories. Instead of flattering ourselves by saying the defeat was due to chance, let us try to find out what the real cause was, and then take care that it does not have an opportunity to act again."

When Teddy Roosevelt was only 23 years-old he wrote this textbook as a comprehensive volume detailing the naval action of the War of 1812 between the US and Great Britain. It was quickly picked up by the Navy itself as an essential read for its officers and included on every ship by 1886.

I had expected a mostly dry relating of information we see in textbooks of old, this written in 1882, but instead I read a smart and interesting account with biting commentary (please see quotes below). Roosevelt here is a brilliant scholar with a quick wit, drafting a moving narrative with lessons learned, errors found in other writings (especially those of the British historian William James who was considered the master of the subject matter at the time), curt analysis of decisions made under pressure, and lessons still to learn for Americans in 1882 that he'd implement in his years as Assistant Sec of the Navy and President.

"The Naval War of 1812: A Complete History" is a strangely-easy read for history fans like myself but also serves as a reference book that can be consulted by those looking for more details on specific events or participants in the conflict, with sketches, schematics, data, quotes, clear skirmish maps, and tables to back up the commentary.

Roosevelt smartly uses footnotes when he wants to get a tangential point across without slowing the main narrative. With many of these notes, you can tell that he is doing his best to keep the story straight in a just-the-facts-ma'am manner, and then will emphasize or point out what that story means to him with a footnote. He also uses footnotes to reference sources, of course.

With the British navy for hundreds of years essentially controlling the globe's seas with elite fleets of ships of the line, by comparison the US navy so soon after the American Revolution was made up of ocean-sailing smaller frigates designed mostly just to fight Mediterranean pirates, and clunky cheaper gun-boats that President Jefferson thought could keep our coasts safe. And yet, when it came to early single-ship action at the onset of hostilities in 1812, the US Navy was actually delivering morale-boosting victories for the people at home who by contrast only saw defeat after defeat by its land forces (until the 1815 Battle of New Orleans). Roosevelt gives detailed accounts of many (all?) of these single-ship actions and those take up about half of this book.

A few times I actually laughed out loud at some of Roosevelt's commentary when it broached that fine line of decor, seamlessly shifting from fact-relation to a summary opinion. Just remember how much of the universe you knew when you were a 23-year-old genius and you understand what I'm saying. But hey, he brought the receipts and all of these are justified. Let's just say, while Roosevelt praises a number of characters in the conflict and disparages others, my opinion only changed with regard to Roosevelt himself; the man was a hard-working intellectual. As to some examples, my favorite first:

"....having already erred either from timidity or bad judgement, Captain Carden decided to add rashness to the catalogue of his virtues."

"History has not yet done justice to the ludicrous and painful folly and stupidity of which the government founded by Jefferson, and carried on by Madison, was guilty, both in its preparations for, and its way of carrying on, this war."

"It is not very pleasant to criticize the actions of an American [Stephen Decatur] whose name is better known than that of almost any other single-ship captain of his time; but if a man is as much to be praised for doing fairly, or even badly, as for doing excellently, then there is no use in bestowing praise at all."

"But the only activity ever exhibited by Congress... had been in partially carrying out President Jefferson's ideas of having an enormous force of very worthless gun-boats - a scheme whose wisdom was about on a par with some of that statesman's political and military theories." (I wonder if either Thomas or Teddy were offended in heaven when learning they were to be placed side-by-side on Mount Rushmore - that's what cracked me up about this one)

The biting anecdotes aside, another more earnest place where the story excels is when Roosevelt leans into his clear love for America, American exceptionalism, and the self-reliance, might, and competencies or lack thereof of the common sailor he dubs the American Jack and their officers. He's got an unhidable respect and admiration for these Maryland-born and New England boys who spent time in maritime activities before going to war to stop British press gangs from enslaving their friends.

The chapters move in this sequence: an intro, a preface as to why the war happens, then three alternating years of ocean combat and three years of lake combat, then concluding thoughts, then the Battle of New Orleans. On that note, Roosevelt's thoughts towards Andrew Jackson are mixed and quite well explained. Again, Roosevelt is only 23 at the time he wrote this but he presciently states of Jackson, after calling him the greatest leader the US had between the Revolution and Civil War and was single-handedly responsible for saving New Orleans from death and destruction: "In the after-years he [Jackson] did to his country some good and more evil, but no true American can think of his deeds at New Orleans without profound and unmixed thankfulness." Roosevelt gets it. Our heroes weren't perfect. We're to learn from their successes and failures.

Finally, Roosevelt's well-researched and narrated accounts of significant naval battles like the USS Constitution, Old Ironsides, beating the HMS Guerriere, the Constitution again against the HMS Java, the USS Chesapeake being captured by the HMS Shannon, the USS United States against the HMS Macedonian, the USS Hornet sinking the HMS Peacock, and then the Battle of Lake Erie, illustrate the importance of the war's impact on later naval history, both in the US and worldwide. The War of 1812 is rightly considered something of a minor skirmish (a fact Roosevelt acknowledges here) when compared to the Napoleonic wars that sandwiched it but it definitely contained lessons for policy and naval tactics.

Verdict: Not a "must read" by any means for the uninterested reader, but you can tell above I was greatly impressed by "The Naval War of 1812" and loved it. I've been biased with my review and rating here because, honestly, this nonfiction account hits so many targets in my personal interest wheelhouse. Naval history in the Age of Sail, the larger than life author, with controversial takes on interesting contexts, descriptions of ships and commanders I was previously unfamiliar with (for fun, look up Captain Thomas Macdonough), with a smart narrative format, smooth pacing and narrative flow, a doubly-interesting illustration of how the author would later manage complex affairs on the world stage 90 years after the book's subject matter, and it makes sense that this book is widely-regarded by scholars and military historians even today.

Jeff's Rating: 5 / 5 (Excellent)
movie rating if made into a movie: PG

[Mitch PITEO · Rating 3 out of 5]

So far, The CV of TR is such that I want to kill myself for lack of effort in life - I have done nothing...yet.
John Burroughs the Nature-Writer wrote "Roosevelt was a many-sided man and every side was like an electric battery..."

[Noah · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incredibly detailed piece of historical research that provides a great deal of insight into one of America's most fascinating historical figures.

[Dayla · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed hearing Roosevelt’s version of the Naval War of 1812 because of his efforts to “set the record straight.” Apparently the Wm. James version retold the battles through the eyes of Britain’s superior naval power, where every win is due to talent and discipline, and every loss is due to the tricks played by the rebellious colonies.

The book ends on the final naval battle of the war, one in which the US lost.

Interesting factoid: During this war, if one side captures an enemy’s vessel, one just changes the prefix (USS or HMS) and keeps the name. Example the “USS Chesapeake” became “HMS Chesapeake.” And France's Guerriere changed to HMS Guerriere.

Here are cool quotes from the book about the preparations for the War of 1812:
Our great inferiority in naval strength, does not permit us to meet them [the British] on this ground, without hazarding the precious germ of our national glory, we have however, the means of creating a powerful diversion.” Jones planned for long cruises by single warships to “draw the attention of the enemy, from the annoyance of our coast for the protection of his own rich & exposed commercial fleets.

Yet Jones did not have much to work with and could not sustain the 1812 tempo of operations, because warships needed time for repairs after grueling cruises. Moreover, replacing losses proved difficult because the Americans had no warships under construction at the start of hostilities. Though Congress had voted for the construction of several ships-of-the-line and large frigates during the last days of Hamilton’s tenure as secretary, none saw combat in the war. In early 1813 Jones did receive funding to build six large sloops, but it took approximately a year for the first three—the Wasp, Peacock, and Frolic—to become operational.

The Admiralty responded with a secret order, dated 10 July, designed to prevent another frigate defeat similar to the Guerriere, Macedonian, or Java. The document explained that the Admiralty did “not conceive that any of His Majesty's Frigates should attempt to engage, single handed, the larger Class of American Ships, which though they may be called Frigates, are of a size, Complement and weight of Metal much beyond that Class, and more resembling Line of Battle Ships.”21 This order altered the rules of engagement and acknowledged that the Royal Navy lacked frigates that could fight one-on-one with the likes of the President and Constitution. British frigates operated in pairs, and ships-of-the-line were even sent out to hunt the large American frigates.

[Phrodrick slowed his growing backlog · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bully Plus Broadsides - Wooden Ships and Iron Men

What most readers may not know is that this book was something of a standard history at the U S Navel Academy and in British universities. TR was a very much a superior historian, if still a man of his times.

This is a critical history and not for light entertainment. TR makes a serious analysis of nearly every important engagement between American units and the British. In every case he is scrupulous about praising and blaming where he believe praise and blame is appropriate. In every case he makes known his reasons. Unfortunately, he is furious at a previously published British analysis of the Naval WAR of 1812 and his often repeated damnation of the nationalistic bias of that edition bulks out this volume with too much recycled bile.

The presumption that race maters is endemic in this text. There is some admission that -for example- the French built good (better) ships and when well lead could earn victory. In the main there is an assumption that the Americans were the better race, the British , close cousins to Americans were second and all other claimants trail according to how closely their national blood line mirrored the American blood line.

For many readers this fact renders this book as unreadable. I suggest that: The Naval War of 1812 stands as document historic in its own right. And that the racism of TR makes it a case in point from which readers can document any number of personal viewpoints.

[Maxwell Thornton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well, this was an exhausting book.

To be frank, I skimmed many pages of this 1882 due to how in depth the content was and how the book was published. Nonetheless, I will cover its positives and negatives.

On the one hand, Theodore Roosevelt wrote a great research project on the naval aspect of the War of 1812. Seeing that the fights on the waters were not covered well, Roosevelt covered everything to the best of his ability, such as information on both American and British ships, their crews, training, armaments, etc. Further, backed by postwar and victorian sources, he gave it his all to cover the subject in this book, which would go on to influence the United States Navy in his time.

On the other hand, its publication was poor. Small writing, bad spacing, and poor organisation of the paragraphs made this hard to read.

In conclusion, this book is full of worthwhile information despite its antiquated language and how it was published. If you are interested in the War of 1812, naval history, and American military history, then I recommend this book to you.

[Eric S · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting read but not for someone who isn't into history and doesn't have at least a passing knowledge of how sailing ships operate. The language is very much 19th Century. The author does a very good job of presenting both sides. The descriptions of vessel weight, tonnage, crew strength and armament are as complete as existing documents allow and are very careful to give both the British and American differences in how ships were rated.
A major drawback is the author is very repetitive in his denouncement of previous works that are so biased as to be useless. He does a good job the first few times to prove how biased previous authors were but after awhile it gets old.
The book shows that after 200 years some things don't change. From the War Department to today's Department of Defense here's a very apt quote,
"and the administration of the War Department continued to be a triumph of imbecility to the very last."

[Lynne Marrs · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant! If anyone needed reaffirmation of Roosevelt's genius, this is the proof. He parsed an unintelligible war perfectly, including all the naval navigation. All of this and more when he was 22 and writing the book while on his honeymoon! What a guy, what a book!

[Mer · Rating 3 out of 5]

David McCollough mentioned this book during an interview at the 2017 National Book Festival.
I don't recommend it as a light read as it goes into incredible detail of each ship on the various sizes and explains why one ship type, combination of fire power, or crew did better than the others.

[Joseph Spuckler · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Naval War of 1812: A Complete History by Theodore Roosevelt is a history of the US naval battles in the War of 1812. Roosevelt was the twenty-sixth President of the United States, and a leader of the Republican Party and of the Progressive Movement. He became the youngest President in United States history at the age of 42. He served in many roles including Governor of New York, historian, naturalist, explorer, author, and soldier (posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor in 2001 for his role at the Battle of San Juan Hill in the Spanish-American War).

A few things I remember about the battles of War of 1812. From school: The Battle of Lake Erie, the burning of the White House, impressment, and the Treaty of Ghent. From Johnny Horton, I learned of The Battle of New Orleans. Mostly, I learned it was the final test of American independence. America earned its place at the table of nations and like many wars, it one that diplomacy could have handled better.

Roosevelt presents a dissertation on the naval war written at the age of 23. This book was carried on naval ships and used as a text book at the naval academy.  Roosevelt chooses to concentrate on the naval warfare as the land war was pretty disastrous. Although there was a national army most of the forces remained in states as militias. The navy had a more centralized command and with privateers was far more successful although woefully unprepared for war.

Roosevelt provides more of a study of the naval battles than a history. Histories are readable in almost a story form. Here the information is more a debriefing or after action review. Ship tonnage, guns, crew and officers, and battle drawings are given. It is more of a study of tactics and how numerical superiority, strategy, and training play a role in victory and defeat. This was the height of British sea power, yet the unprepared United States had plenty of fight.

Primary source material from both sides is used and text is heavily cited showing the depth of the work.  Roosevelt had a great interest in the navy and its role in US power projection and defense.   He served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy from 1897 -1898. He resigned to fight in the Spanish-American War.  In his short service, he was responsible reading the navy for war and as president responsible for the "Great White Fleet" tour of the world.  Perhaps, one of America's first role in power projection.  A well-written research project by a man responsible for the modernization of the US Navy and full-time Amerian naval power.  An excellent reference. 

[Keith · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are anticipating a “light read”, find another book. If you are anticipating a quick overview of the 1812 war, find another book. If you are into the absolute minutiae of naval strategy, naval construction, naval ordinance and what appears to be a major deconstruction of Messr. James works; I believe that you will love this book. The amount of research and cross referencing is astounding. As a lover of American military and naval enterprises, I absolutely recommend this book. If you are just looking for a book to blow through, this isn’t your best choice. In my opinion, great book by a fairly amazing man.

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a work that deserves to be read (or listened to, in my case) on two levels. The first is simply as a piece of naval history, and on that front it is simultaneously thorough, rigorous, and a touch pedantic. Only the most ardent of naval history buffs or Patrick O'Brian enthusiasts will enjoy the detailed battle descriptions (I count myself among at least the latter camp, and I found my attention waning at multiple points). And yet Roosevelt manages to keep a narrative moving forward, and has moments of gripping military history combined with a mastery of his sources and even-handed evaluation that is remarkable.

The second level at which this book should be read is as a window into the mind of TR, one of our most fascinating presidents. That he could produce such a work of first-rate history at a young age (if I remember Edmund Morris' biography correctly, he was working on this while serving in New York politics) and in the midst of a separate career is remarkable. Like reading Winston Churchill's historiography, the reader is treated to a bit of "history as autobiography," in which TR projects his own values on leaders from the past - yet that does not diminish the book's value as quality history, nor the remarkable gifting of the historian-statesman-leader who produced it.

[Jeffrey Margolis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Theodore Roosevelt was the most prolific of all of the US Presidents who wrote books. He was the author of over forty works that transcended his life from his years at college to his post presidency life. The Naval War of 1812 was Roosevelt's first book. It started as his senior thesis while at Harvard and was published after his graduation. The book goes into meticulous detail of the naval engagements during the war, including the names of the captains and officers, ship types and size as well as the nature of armaments on board. Roosevelt does not hide his disdain for Thomas Jefferson, on whom he places blame for not having an adequately prepared navy. The book was so successful that at one time a copy was required to be on board every American naval vessel. Over the years The Naval War of 1812 was required reading at the United States Naval Academy. The irony of this work is that Roosevelt became Assistant Secretary of the Navy and was able to have input into the development of the American fleet. Ultimately, when he became President of the United States, Roosevelt, as Commander-in Chief, would be able to add his own imprint 'The Great White Fleet."

[Mark Mears · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Naval War of 1812 is a classic of American literature.

Theodore Roosevelt goes into great detail regarding the battles and decisions made during the war which was largely responsible for making the US Navy a significant force in the world.

He also completed a very confident analysis of how the war had been covered by other historians on both sides of the Atlantic. He was quite critical of their biases for their own nations, and was rightly lauded for his efforts to be neutral.

When reading the book it has to be remembered the author wrote the narrative in 1882. Remember what he could not have known then. Also remember he was a 22-year-old college student who completed the work while at Harvard.

The book goes into sometimes excruciating detail. Anyone can enjoy it, but at this point it is probably more the venue of history fans. It is brilliant, but not a swashbuckler.

Its foresight would become required reading for Naval officers of the time.

[James B. Friderici · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fascinating book by a president whom you do not think of as being a writer. Reading the book one understand why Roosevelt became Assistant Secretary of the Navy before getting into presidential politics.

One appreciates the book more if you have some knowledge of sailng warships and how they fought.

Roosevelt pulls no punches and is fair to both sides on their performance in battle. The Great Lakes portion is the first detailed book I have read about that aspect of the War of 1812. Some knowledge of the Great Lakes and the lake geographics helps to understand those portions of the book.

It is well worth the time spent to read this book.

[Mark Fallon · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's amazing that Roosevelt wrote this when he was only 23 years old. His language foreshadows his actions as Undersecretary of the Navy and later as Commander In Chief.

This was a difficult book to read, as I have no experience with ships or naval terms. However, it was enjoyable to read TR's castigation of the British historian William James. But he doesn't only tackle the Brits, but has some choice words for some American leaders, including Thomas Jefferson.

[Tim Murphy · Rating 3 out of 5]

A disappointing offering from the larger-than-life Teddy Roosevelt who is normally an excellent writer.

In this book, Roosevelt writes the history indicated in his wordy title (hard even to fit on a decent cover), but writes it as a recorder of operational reports and captains journals. Most of the book is detailed and plodding recounts of the numbers of sailors, tonnage of ships and guns arrayed on each side of a particular naval engagement, then a minute-by-minute recounting of the engagement. It makes for very plodding reading. Had I wanted to read this detail, I’d have been a naval historian and read the ops reports myself.

The typical Teddy Roosevelt does shine through on occasion. Speaking of one fort on the edge of Lake Ontario, Roosevelt recounts, “General Drummond, in his official letter, reports that ‘the fort being everywhere almost open, the whole of the garrison effected their escape, except about 60 men, half of them wounded.’ No doubt the fort’s being ‘everywhere almost open’ afforded excellent opportunities for retreat; but it was not much of a recommendation of it as a structure intended for defence.” But those occasions are far too infrequent to rescue the work.

In the last chapter, apparently relieved of a self-imposed target of gruesome detail about naval engagements, Roosevelt tells the story of The Battle of New Orleans. Here he is more the witty and creative Roosevelt of his other works. An long introductory paragraph is brutal—but at the same time almost humorous—in his criticism of the “House of Virginia” (Jefferson, Madison, Monroe), their conception and management of the nation’s army. He ends the paragraph this way: “Until near the end, the generals were as bad as the armies they commanded, and the administration of the War Department continued to be a triumph of imbecility to the very last.”

Perhaps it was at this point Roosevelt created his famous quote, “It is not the critic who counts…”

But the last chapter was far too little and too late to save the book. It was a tedious read.

[Carol · Rating 3 out of 5]

This rating has more to do with the version of the book that I read (Kindle) than the book itself. The Kindle edition had no readable charts (all lumped together & hard to read) or diagrams, which made understanding what was going on more difficult.

It seems that the issue of the book was the historical accounts which had been written up til this book was written. There is constant commentary throughout the book on previous authors & their accuracy, based on government records. The British historian James was constantly rebuked! Just because an historian is closer in time to the occurrence doesn't mean he has all his facts straight! This took me too long to read, maybe because I don't understand nautical terminology all that well & have to keep looking things up...like I said, the diagrams would have been a great help!

[Bobby · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a amazing book utterly impossible to accurately rate simply with stars. The writing is technically methodical and surprisingly eloquent but sophomoric compared to Teddy's later writings (something that will be obvious if you read the version with his additional chapter on the Battle of New Orleans written a decade or two after the first edition.) This is entirely excusable as he was 23 when it was published and all the more amazing considering he did not have significant navel experience before beginning research for the book. Additionally, the obvious axe that the author had with William James becomes repetitive quickly.

Those shortcomings aside, the book absolutely grabbed me. It made me want to read more about the great age of sailing ships. It caused me to spend an amazing amount of time pouring over old battle maps and looking up navel terminology. It has given me a new love, and that is a great compliment for any book.

[Lincoln · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very hard to read, especially in the Kindle edition. Scholarly, in the sense that every fact given is footnoted with its source, and Roosevelt's reason for choosing one source over another is clearly stated. Unfortunately, the criticism of one prior author is extremely repetitious - and the casual racism throughout is hard to take, although probably typical for the time and his age when written - but he makes very clear throughout that he believed the Anglo-Saxon race to be the epitome of development, particularly as compared to the French and Spanish "races". He strongly criticizes the Blacks of New Orleans for fighting for the United States "in favor of slavery", even though British slavery wasn't totally abolished until 1835.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very detailed, somewhat of a rebuttal to Sir James’ misstatements and misrepresentations in his particular account of the war, very scholarly ( for the most part) account of the war. His recounting of the battle of New Orleans however, is very colorful and literary, but nonetheless factual.

Where he is not going by one particular set of facts or another, he is careful to explain his reasoning for presenting the information he does choose for these chronicles.

This is a book with a ton of technical detail about the ships, the number type and length of cannon, the amount of weight each ship could throw, the number of men the number of casualty and what type of casualties.

[Robin Banks · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderfully engaging book about naval warfare. Most naval books are all great men doing great deeds on the high seas. In this book Roosevelt explains why the battles are won, and what the victory means, politically and militarily. An example, he says about several battles that hey show nothing more than that, when more people or cannons meet fewer, the more almost always wins. As an exception to this, he describes Andrew Jackson's victory at New Orleans by noting that he laid out his battlements particularly well. My one complaint is that some aspects of naval gunnery and maneuvers are dull to the modern reader.

[Brian Manville]

Theodore Roosevelt was a former assistant Secretary of the Navy, so he should know what he's talking about when it comes to naval history and ships. Unfortunately, the prose in this book 1) is somewhat archaic and 2) filled with numerous sailing terms and types of ships that I spend most of my time trying to figure out what TR is talking about. Thus, I gave up. It may be a good study of the topic, but I was too lost in the weeds to enjoy or learn from it.

No stars = did not finish.

[Dylan Frendlich · Rating 2 out of 5]

As someone who isn’t a naval history buff this was a very difficult read not because the topic was not interesting but because of how poorly this was written don’t get me wrong it’s very well researched and sourced but it is very clunky. Honestly only read this if you are into Naval history or else you are just punishing yourself.

[Quinn · Rating 3 out of 5]

loved reading it. Great entertainment. I think there was a smaller, but still similar amount of intellectual dishonesty involved in writing it. I can't imagine on a whole that the RN drilled less than the USN, but maybe the less favored sailors and ships were sent our way during such a critical period on the European continent.

[Robert Marshall · Rating 3 out of 5]

it was very specific on the ships and weapons, it goes into great detail about how the history was told from both sides but id does nothing to express how the feel of the war is. I guess its really good for a certain type of audiance but unless you have extensive interest in 1800 naval ships and tactics its not for everyone. I did enjoy it though just have to bee in the mood for it

[Stephen Masri · Rating 4 out of 5]

not this version

[Jack Laschenski · Rating 5 out of 5]

A literary and and scholarly triumph, written when Roosevelt was 23 years old.

Britain had 1,100 warships.

The U.S. had 15, including Old Ironsides.

We won!!!

[C. William]

Theodore Roosevelt is one of my heroes, But I just could not get into this book. Down the road Ill try again