Customer Reviews

Duel of Eagles

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

This was one of several books required for my pre-statehood Texas history class at the University of Texas back in the mid '90s. The first day of class, my professor asked, "Who here took a Texas history class while in middle school or high school?" Most of the students' hands went up. He then asked, "Who here referred to your teacher as 'Coach'?" Most of the hands stayed up. His point was pretty clear--most of those that promulgate the watered-down, incomplete version of Texas history to most Texans are not well equipped to question its validity. Long's book paints a more complete, well referenced picture of the motives of the rebels and the factors that led to the rebellion. It also provides a satisfactory summary of the international political context in which the rebellion took place. The book is an interesting, easy read, and quite entertaining...so much so, I had to read it again when I stumbled across it in my library just recently.

Although it does seem that Jeff Long comes to the topic of the Alamo and other events treated by traditional Texas Hagiography with certain agenda--boy can he ever tell a good story! I have been fascinated with the Alamo since I first heard of the event 50 years ago as a boy and am happy to consider a different point of view.

The author paints a picture of Texas in the 1830s as a collection of the most degenerate racist white trash bumpkins this side of a tumble down shack. Having left their past lives back east, Anglo-American Texans were seen to start new lives out west that might have been even more deplorable than those from which they sought escape. William Travis, the commander of the Alamo, is presented as the archetype for such men. Travis deserted his family and children in Alabama to become engaged to another woman in Texas. Not limiting himself to a single indiscretion, the syphilitic Travis reserved a diary entry for each woman with whom he consorted--sometimes for the bargain price of a quarter dollar.

It must be said, however, that the author paints the Mexicans--especially in the person of their President, Santa Anna, as well matched to the Texans in myopic judgment. The Mexican Army is seen largely as a mass of conscripted Indians unable to speak Spanish--with the final assault on the Alamo as the first occasion where they were called upon to discharge their muskets. Indeed, the author conjectures that most Mexican casualties in the battle for the Alamo occurred when Mexican troops were caught in their own crossfire.

The principle criticism that I might direct against the author is in his characterization of the motives of Anglo-American Texans. In a letter of one man to his family back east, he speaks mostly of the business opportunities in Texas. The author offers up this letter as evidence that such people cared little for the hope of instilling democracy in Texas, and their only interest was that of commercial opportunity. Really though, what is some guy going to tell his wife to encourage her to bring the rest of the family to Texas? That they will stand and die for Texas Independence and freedom or that he can expect to expand his practice to a much greater extent than back east?

Although this book has the battles at San Antonio in 1835 and 1836 as its centerpiece, it covers a time span of roughly 1805 to 1876. The two eagles symbolize Mexico and the U.S., but the eagles seem to shift into the persons of Santa Anna and Houston toward the book's end.

Jeff Long obviously put considerable research and thought into his writing. And he is to be commended for superb depictions of the weather and landscapes involved in the Texas Revoluiton. However, he also had a considerable load of bias to spread.

I believe that he faithfully copied quotes from his sources, and I believe that he included enough conflicting quotes to give a good historical perspective of his subject. My complaint is that his subject isn't really the Alamo or San Antonio or the Texas Revolution, but rather "All the dirt I can find on Mexicans and Americans involved in the Texas Revolution." He mostly ignores the Texans involved in the Texas Revolution.

Most histories written in the U.S. of that war center the discussion on the views and hopes of the English-speaking civilian population of the region known as Tejas, then provide some information about the Spanish-speaking civilian population, then mention the views and goals of the U.S. and Mexican governments. Long chooses to center his discussion on the leaders of the various militias and army units, and he makes sure to highlight every defect that he can find -- even to the point of declaring some wise decisions to be defects. Then he condemns the expansionist efforts of the U.S. in the 19th century.

Please note that all individuals are not condemned in this book. Long actually finds much good in the Mexicans Jose de la Pena and Jose Urrea and the Tejano Juan Seguin. However, on balance, the book is primarily negative and focused on everyone except the lawful residents of the region which became the Republic of Texas.

This book is fun to read. It contains gossip, innuendo, and intrigue. I recommend it to historians who want a very different view of the Texas Revolution. But, I object to the author's opinion that it is the real story of that conflict.

Some revisionist points need to be made in the interest of the whole truth, but the author is one-sided to a fault. The book is glib, full of sweeping statements, a work of opinion and propaganda, not history.

In our time, people are so used to the idea of the U.S. as the great world power that they may have trouble in understanding that in the 1830s, on the world stage, the U.S. was a minor, upstart country with an uncertain future. Mexico, on the other hand, even after its disastrous War of Independence, was perceived as the heir apparent of the fabled wealth of New Spain. Hindsight is made out to be 20-20 vision, but it is not if it prevents one from understanding how things were and how they were perceived at the time. In this way, our knowledge of what was then the future can impede our understanding of the past.

In the annals of Texas hisory there is much that needs to be revised and re-evaluated, and there are many authors out there doing an excellent job of just that, Jeff Long is NOT one of them. He uses his sources to pass what seems to be a personal agenda quoting De La Pena and others when it suits his needs yet ignoring direct quotes from these same sources to put forth totally twisted versions of an event. One case in point and there are many is his version of the death of David Crockett claiming the "GO AHEAD" man begged and pleaded for mercy while De La Pena clearly states the captives died WITHOUT humiliating themselves before their captors. A historian should be unbiased and accurate Long is neither. As for me I'll take DR. Stephen Hardin and "A Texian Illiad" anytime

This book is the most insidious type of agitprop, a heated stew of folklore, myths, rumors and speculations, much of them from highly dubious sources, with a fact stirred in here and there for the sake of credibility. As other readers have noted, the author definitely has an agenda. One can only guess what it may be. Does he truly despise those who had the audacity to take arms against a monster who had already established a long record of genocide in Mexico's interior, or has he sought to peddle his brand of vitriolic revisionism on the basis of its controversial tone and appeal to hardcore America bashers? In either case, his ad nauseum attacks on the characters of individuals who can no longer defend themselves undermine the historical value of his work and place it in the same category with post-mortem trashographies of Frank Sinatra, Jackie Kennedy and Princess Di. Throughout the text Long refers to the Texian rebels who defied Santa Anna's bloodthirsty regime as mercenaries. Since the rebels hardly ever got fed, much less paid for their services, the most derogatory fact about them that comes out of this essay is that they were indeed very poor businesspersons.

The book provides a nice in-depth overview of the origins of the conflict between the Mexicans and the Texans. The description of the conflict and the Alamo Battle itself, are also well done. Unfortunately, the revisionism is written from one of the most cynical perspectives I have ever read in my entire life, and detracts from the quality of the work. To the reader, it seems that author casts most every person in the History of this conflict as overly self-serving in their motives, and contemptuous of everyone else. Any source of human conflict -- even between the various races of people within the Mexican Army -- is amplified as overly divisive. One can forget any hint of Crockett, Bowie or Travis possessing even a scintilla of idealism or purity in motive. In fact, with little exception, hardly any person within the book seems to possess many mentionable good qualities, according to the author. Long seemingly strives to debunk the myths, but in my view he is too harsh in trying to eviscerate people's characters. If you are searching for a work which validates your most cynical view not only of the Alamo but of most of the entire human race, this book will not disappoint you.

"The Duel of Eagles" is an excellent history of the Alamo and the Texas revolution. It clears away the myth and gives a perspective of the events for both the Mexican and the Texian viewpoints. If you are interested in the history of Texas, this is your book. It is a great pre-read if you plan to visit the Alamo, which every American should.

You know it's well written when James A. Michner endorses it on the dust cover.

From first to last page Jeff Long pulls his reader in. I knew it was an historical account, but it read like an adventure novel. It also undid all the myths I had grown up with. No longer were the defenders of the Alamo a group of semi divine characters, but a collection of greedy, misguided people much like the picture of stereotypical Mexican besiegers that my books and teachers had presented me while a student. In reality the major characters on both sides were generally despicable. Santa Anna continues as a truly vile creature, but Bowie, Crockett, and Travis certainly challenge him. The most surprising thing is that the average American immigrant that had been settling Texas since the 1820s was largely indifferent to the attempts of American revolutionaries to ignite a war with Mexico. They tried to remain neutral but were buffeted by the hoards of land speculators and confidence men from the states who anticipated fortunes to be made in Texas land. Only near the end--just before the final battle at San Jacinto--did the average Texan become involved, and then when threatened by the barbarism of the Mexican Army.

As an historian myself I recognize the extent of Long's research and analysis. He does not, "stretch" his interpretations of the sources. There will be much to anger Texans and Mexicans alike.

It is easy to dismiss Jeff Long as a fiction writer taking a stab at historical non-fiction after reading Duel of Eagles but that would miss the whole point of the book. If we are to believe the author, people in the 19th century were just plain bad because they don't have late 20th century moral values and they took drugs, had lots of sex, drank a lot and didn't recycle. The true story of the Alamo is a tangle of conflicting contemporary accounts, lack of unambiguous data and yet, a wealth of often biased first hand documents. Long's lack of basic historical sensitivity to the 19th century zeitgeist kills this book in the cradle and when he confuses conjecture with fact he does a disservice to historians and readers alike.

Despite his ability to propel the narrative as well as any good detective novelist, the book adopts a scathing tone and does not stray for its entire length. It's not bad writing, but it's bad history. Alamo scholarship is under no threat from this lightweight tome as the research here is non-existent, having obviously culled both his facts and mis-facts from previously published works. The only thing new here is page after page of the authors opinions which may delight some and horrify others. Ultimately he has more in common with Rush Limbaugh than with David McCullough. If you want a more even handed, fact based book, try William Davis' Three Roads to the Alamo or the classic "A Time to Stand" by Walter Lord.

Having re-read this book and afterwards the reviews here, it is remarkable how the passage of time has brought out the inherent flaws in not the subjects of the book but the author. Jeff Long is clearly no historian and more at home with the fiction genre, and his cast of characters here suffer from his politically correct myopia even more as the years pass. To judge 19th century people by 20th century standards (and politically correct standards no less) is more the stuff of romance writers and page after page of this ranting prose has only grown more strident with time. Political correctness as a tool used by both liberals and conservatives to advance their pet causes has long since served whatever useful purpose it might have had and this work is a prime example of it's worst excesses.

The cringeworthy Duel of Eagles is a document on how NOT to write a work of history.