Customer Reviews

"A Few Acres of Snow": The Saga of the French and Indian Wars

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(27)

 

 

I just finished reading "A Few Acres of Snow" by Robert Leckie and thought I'd tell you about it, and save you all the trouble.

It purports to be a history of the French and Indian Wars. The first 30 pages are about Colombus, the next ten cover the next 100 years, and after that things get scattered and incoherent.

He repeats all the bad information you've ever heard, like the British not aiming their muskets, that the only physical requirement to join the army is having front teeth to tear open a cartridge, and that the only sensible way of fighting is taking pot-shots from behind stone walls.

He goes into some (incorrect) detail about how muskets work, and defines "rifle" and "cannon" but not "bateaux" and "pike." Claims that once infantry were invented (by Fredrick the Great, if I'm remembering correctly), siege warfare became superfluous, even though it was sometimes still done as show. Thinks the siege en forme is some weird kind of game.

Mixes time periods (from 1492 to present) rather indiscriminately, so it is sometimes difficult to tell if he's talking about ships powered by sail or by nuclear, or about assaults that took place on the Plains of Abraham or in Vietnam.

Even works in a few rude remarks on George Washington (greedy and power-hungry from a young age). But never tells the story of the "few acres of snow" quote.

The bibliography includes 2 books by himself, but no primary references. The oldest works he cites are Parkman's.

My advice: Don't waste your time. If you want to know about the French and Indian Wars, read Fred Anderson's Crucible of War or any of Francis Parkman's 12 volumes.

-Reb Manthey

There are very few well written, detail oriented books that cover the French colonization in North America or the French Indian War, and this is not one of them. Before I read this book I read Fred Anderson's The Crucible of War and that makes the flaws in this book even more painfully obvious. The first 40 pages of this book are dedicated to Christopher Colombus even though it purports to be a history of the French English wars. I understand that this is a survey but I think it can be safely assumed that most people already understand the ramifications of Christopher Colombus' discovery. Unfortunately, the section on Christopher Columbus is actually better than the rest of the book. There is no underlying organization here, chronological or otherwise. Leckie writes a chapter on Frontenac and then writes a chapter on Louish XIV and William of Orange. Obviously the politics in Europe affected and triggered the wars in North America but Leckie never actually connects this simple fact to any evidence. Speaking of evidence, a quick look at the bibliography showed me that Leckie didn't use any primary sources. There are no letters between French governors and the King, or their families, or friends. There are no letters or memoirs from the Jesuits or the average Canadian farmer or fur trapper. There are no statistics. For instance, how many furs were harvested each year? How much money did they bring? What was the daily life of a Canadian like? These are all questions of interest with no answers. On top of that, Leckie actually repeats whole paragraphs. Apparently the editor gave a red light to this book without actually reading it. The last thing about this book, which many people have pointed out, is that Leckie brings his personal, bigoted opinions into this work and makes wide transgressions from the subject he is describing. On one page he is talking about the Iroqois, and he relates them to Adolf Hitler and concentration camps, what? This book is so sloppy and poorly written I went back and looked at the reviews for his other books and was schocked to see so many 4 and 5 stars. What happened?

Lastly, I wish someone would write a good book about French colonization in North America with detail. I want Ira Berlin details. If you have read Many Thousands Gone, you know what I am talking about. I want maps, pictures, graphs, charts, statistics, and above all flawless writing. I am still waiting...

I find the conclusions Leckie draws from his research to be very interesting, sometimes very insightful, but I'm constantly balancing that against how he seems to draw a lot from little evidence.

The writing is generally very good, but when it (or the editing is) bad, it's REALLY bad. Aside from the duplication mentioned above, Leckie also gets away with absurdities such as "the sole and only credential". Also, he presents a discussion about someone's viewpoint, which I have read two dozen times and STILL cannot understand (and I don't think I'm the problem).

I'm not sure slogging through the messes is worth it to get the interesting details.

The only way to approach this book is to start with the notion that you are interviewing your grandfather about his wartime experiences. His story will be good and it will hold your interest, but a lot of his story will be filled with personal anecdotes, wide digressions, and embellishments that test the bounds of credibility. So is it with Leckie in this book.

Leckie is a good example of a successful narrative historian that has let his success cloud his ability to write good books. At times this book flows well from page to page, but it a rare thing that is flows well from chapter to chapter. If there is any underlying organisation it is not evident. I think that Leckie was conceiving a book where he could narrate the events in Europe as a counterpoint to activities in North America. I am sure that this was the case because he offers a lot of detail about the riegning monarchs of the times and their internal stuggles in the UK and Europe.

But there is little connected narrative of any of these events and what happens in North America -- the chapters seem to float independent of each other --- events are jumbled and there is no undlying chronology that Leckie is aiming at.

Do not get me wrong. I am not expecting a scholarly read here. I am expecting an exciting read that at least is historically accurate and reflects the tenor of the times. But I wonder if I got that from this book. Large chunks of the book also seem dedicated to his own personal opinions about things as diverse as the US Marines in Iraq and the role of women in the the military nowadays (in a book on the French-Indian Wars??!). His footnote on women pilots is frankly bizaare and lacks any logic whatsoever or connection with the narrative. These should be banished from the text. Shame on the editor.

Another annoyance is that his storytelling is a little too interpretive for my liking. I understand, and like, that people try to read into the feelings of people at a certain time about a certain situation. Thus we have people who can rather authoritatively state the mindset of Churchill or Washington, about a certain event. Or even, as in the case of this book, that Frontenac regarded the snow as beastly (probably a safe bet). But this conjuring goes too far in his description of the Dutch Settlers, constructing a whole dialogue in broken English with Dutch accents..... ditto at times for the French, he has them speaking in English with French accents!!). At times like these the book seems written for 13 yrs olds.

Also it is clear that Leckie knows no French (which is OK, I only have a smattering myself), he merely again lifted words out of other authors texts and then repeats them in his text. Some of the usage is plain wrong! Since the fall of Quebec is central in this history of Canada, I am sure that Mr. Leckie will not sell too many texts north of the border where basic French ability is assumed for any historian (or person).

In addition I checked Chris Hibbert's wonderful 1960 book "Wolfe At Quebec" and found that Leckie has literally lifted pages from that book and placed them in his book. Sure it is in quotes, but it shows that Leckie is really trading on his own former success to pump out garbage history and make few more bucks, a la Stephen Ambrose (may he rest in peace).


I would have to disagree with some of the comments about Leckie being either for or against the British. I think he is pretty even handed. Frontenac shines through and is a true Canadian hero. British (read American) military commanders are also taken to task and the French are quite rightly regarded as the best infantrymen and irregular fighter in North America at the time the story is told. The reason they lost having to do with the fact that French Canada was 1/6 the size of the British Colonies, and that they were run on a feudal economic model.

If you are thinking of reading this genre, do not waste time with this book. Read, "The Crucible of War" or, a lovely historical narrative from the early 60s by Thomas B Costains called, "The White and the Gold."

Having enjoyed his book on WW2, "Delivered from Evil", I was greatly disappointed with "A Few Acres of Snow". It lacked objectivity, and was unbalanced and apparently prejudiced. Some of it clearly stems from Irish Catholic animousity against the British and Protestants (esp. Calvinists).

The dedication to his book on the U.S. Civil War ("None Died in Vain") says a lot about the man. He dedicates it to his grandfather who left the Confederates to join the Unionists because of British support for the South. I regret to say his grandfather's attitude toward the British may have affected his own objectivity.

I'm sorely disappointed, Robert! You could have criticised the legitimate errors of Elizabeth, Cromwell, William III, and the Georges, etc. (which are many), if only you had shown objectivity and substantiated your claims, rather than recounting rumours as fact that any balanced historian knows are only hearsay (and possibly propaganda) or down-right lies, and ignoring the sins of your favourites (e.g. James II).

He ignores the religious persecution of the Scots-Irish Presbyterians and the abuses of the English merchants and landlords in Ireland (e.g. exhorbitant rents and unfair tariffs), which led to their emmigration to America and eventual rejection of George III, when the English elite carried out the same abuses in America. (Hence the oft-repeated claim by the Tories that the War of Independence was really an Irish war against the British Parliament). He gives the reasons for everyone else's emmigration, but not this group. This is a major ommission, given their significant population during the 18th Century and influence during the struggle for independence and thereafter; as well as the fact that many Americans are desecended from these people. (I can't comment on his book, "George Washington's War", however.)

Nevertheless, despite these failings, I couldn't help enjoying the book and learning a lot about the Colonial Wars (but how much can I trust?). I find Leckie a very engaging author and although he could state his opinions in a more winsome fashion, I admire his frankness and willingness not to ignore certain unfashionable issues (e.g. the cruelty of the Iroquois). Some may find his biographical detours irritating, but that is a question of taste. I think that it greatly enhances a mere history of military engagements and the politics surrounding them, if you are patient.

Those who criticise his lack of footnotes must realise that this is a popular work and not an academic one.

Those who criticise his discussion regarding the "First Nations" (a.k.a. American Indians) have to admit that he was balanced in criticising the Colonists' treatment of them, but honest in not beating about the bush regarding their wicked cruelty, which is too well documented to deny (however some may pretend that claims of cannibalism and torture were just made up). We can't ignore their abuses just because they were abused.

This book provides as background to the French and Indian Wars a history of the (re)discovery of the New World by Christopher Columbus and its subsequent colonization by Spain, France, and England. By emphasizing the different ways in which the colonizing powers treated their possessions, and providing histories of many of the major personalities involved in the growth of the colonies, Leckie does provide insight, as the jacket says, into "why we speak English today instead of French-and reminds us how easily things might have gone the other way."

However, there are some irritating aspects. First, on at least two occasions material is repeated, sometimes word-for-word, in different chapters (compare the final three paragraphs on page 100 with the last two paragraphs on page 158 and the first paragraph on page 159, and also page 126 and pages 165 to 166). This appears to be at least rather sloppy editing, and gives the reader some problems in keeping the succession of events straight.

Second, Leckie seems to be somewhat prejudiced against women. He names Queen Elizabeth I "the Pirate Queen," as if England alone engaged in somewhat less than legal behavior on the seas, and he devotes one of the few footnotes in the book to the following tirade:

"Permit the author a single digression on this subject [women in combat]: In World War II the chief German ace, Erich Hartmann, shot down no less than 352 enemy planes. Our chief ace, Richard Bong, had 40 kills. What would happen to an American female fighter pilot challenging either one of these superior gentlemen of the skies? Obviously, she would lose her life, and the U.S. Air Force would lose not only the time and money wasted in training her as well, but also an aircraft valued at $36 million." I translate this argument as: "An average female fighter pilot challenging the best aces of WWII would 'obviously' lose. Therefore, it is ridiculous to think of using women as combat pilots." One could equally well argue that an average male fighter pilot challenging one of these aces would also probably lose-but this does not cause Leckie to suggest that men should not be allowed into combat.

These two characteristics of the book kept me wondering what other prejudices and padding I might have missed.

I was drawn to this book because I enjoy learning about the colonization of America and I find that most history books remind me too much of college textbooks. They contain straight facts and are dull reading material. This book on the other hand almost makes one feel as though they are part of the historical events. The author adds embellishments, which, whether factual or not, keep one's interest in the story. The author does tend to jump forward along the historical timeline and leaves no explanations for the gaps, but the interesting details of all the events is enough for the reader to overlook the gaps in the storyline. I look forward to reading more books by this author.

Unfortunately, most of the books I read these days have obvious mistakes that cause me to wonder if an editor's job is one of overwork or under pay so I was able to overlook the mistakes in yet another book.

On paper, the concept for this book was decent. Discuss the founding and early colonization of America, discuss the relations of the French and English colonists with the American Indians, discuss the tensions leading up to the French-Indian War, etc. But, it is so long and drawn out that you begin to just jump to the specific parts that you're interested in: King Philip's War, Braddock, etc. It's especially bad for the biographies within the book: Columbus, Frontenac, etc.

The author seems to be knowledgeable, but the presentation style in the book turns this subject into a long, boring lecture hall. My next goal is to find a better, more interesting book about this subject matter. I suggest that others should just bypass this one.

I was looking for a nice, one-volume overview of the F&I Wars. This ain't it.

While I'm not well enough acquainted with colonial history to point out errors, I don't doubt the other reviewers when they say they're there. But even assuming the history is correct, this book is a mess!

How exactly does Columbus rate THOUSANDS of words of biography in a book about events occuring several hundred years later? Why give all that space to the Discovery and Spain's involvement in it only to shortly thereafter drop the Spanish altogether? The narrative jumps time periods back and forth without apparent reason, he repeats entire passages within 20 or 30 pages of each other, refers to events and characters not yet introduced, and he belabors points to the brink of nauseum. It takes Leckie four repetative sentences to elucidate ideas that any competant writer can dispense with in one or two.

My only conclusion is that some horrible accident befell his editor before the book was completed...

Having been an avid student of colonial American history since my undergraduate days, I was really looking forward to Leckie's book. Now, having reached page 169, all I'm looking forward to is returning this book to the library. Leckie's scholarship in this work is atrocious. Although numerous thoughts, sayings and actions are ascribed to various characters and groups, not a single footnote can be found to document the truth of Leckie's writing. Having worked on a Ojibwe reservation during graduate school, I found his anti-Indian diatribes disturbing, and his understanding of Indian customs and culture profoundly poor. The description of the Iroquois nation as a bunch of savage, mindless cannibals is ridiculous, and to portray it as factual unconsciable. Likewise, his bias regarding the English and women, in concert with his tendency to drift off into irrelevant topics, makes the book virtually unreadable for anyone wishing to read a scholarly, unbiased account of the French and Indian Wars. As others have noted, a good editor would have perhaps made this book readable, or at the very least prevented it from being published in the first place. If you really must read this book, find it at the library before you spend your hard-earned money on it.