I have been reading 'From Cradle to Crown: British Nannies and Governesses at the World's Royal Courts' by Charlotte Zeepvat

It follows the lives of British (and Irish) women who worked caring for Royal Children from 17th c. Russia to 19th. c. India.

Child care for privileged families may not seem a particularly engaging subject on the face of it, but many of these women, often from modest backgrounds themselves, travelled alone to far-flung countries where they did not even speak the language, let alone understand local customs and protocol, in a time before aeroplanes or telephones.

I was surprised at the extent to which Royal Children, especially in Europe and Russia, but also in Asia and the Middle East, were expected to learn the English language, whilst French continued to be the language of the European and Russian Courts the 'inner circles' were often using English preferentially amongst themselves. This trend accelerated once Queen Victoria's children began marrying, as she had so many.

It also covers the development of child-care as a recognised profession, particularly at Norland college where many of these women trained.

Many of these women developed life-long relationships with their employers, they often occupied unique positions, being junior in the official hierarchies of servants, but much closer to the families than those senior to them because of their unique access to the children.

The most famous of the stories covered is that of Anna Leonowens who was a governess in 19th c. Siam/Thailand, which is the subject of the musical 'The King and I', but there are several stories included which are equally compelling.

I've been reading Indigenous Landscapes and Spanish Missions: New Perspectives from Archaeology and Ethnohistory for a series I'm writing in another history-related community. We traditionally view Spanish missions as powerful, carceral institutions intent on extinguishing Native American culture. The essays in this volume examine power, politics, and belief manifested in the context of the preexisting tensions and alliances in the indigenous landscape. The authors present a perspective of constant negotiation between various Native American populations and the mission system, trying to highlight the agency and autonomy underlying the entire tenuous mission enterprise along the northern border of the Spanish Empire. I'm only a few essays in, and I love it thus far.

I've been reading Phil Weigand's English manuscript (because I'm lazy and don't want to read Spanish) on the Rebellion of Nueva Galicia. There's more archaeology than history in it. On the plus side, I've got a bunch of new information for my thesis.

I've been reading:

1. "The First Prejudice" by Beneke and Grenda. It is an essay collection, so I focused on the two essays on religious pluralism and bigotry in the Early Republic. The first essay looked at the abandonment of the idea of legal toleration of dissenters within the framework of an established church in favor of a model of religious pluralism (outside of New England). The second, on the limits of pluralism, was interesting because it looked at a number of specific blasphemy cases, and on the legal requirement in some states that witnesses in court swear an oath that acknowledged a supreme being and a future state of rewards and punishments.

2. The Democratization of American Christianity by Nathan O. Hatch, which studies the (often self-taught and self appointed) leadership of the new denominations in the early 19th century (Methodists, Baptists, the Christian Movement, the black Church in its forms, and the Mormons). It looks like its going to analyze this as an example of authority that is derived 'democratically' from popular acclamation and appeal, rather than through expertise and gentlemanly paternalism.

3. I'm still reading Niles Weekly Register. I've gotten up from the accounts of the Battle of New Orleans to the reception of the Treaty of Ghent, and I read a very interesting letter from General Jackson to his troops. It is interesting that, very much unlike his official correspondence with the war department, in this letter Jackson embraces the idea that the battle represented the triumph of frontier virtue over the discipline of the old world. It's a far cry from cursing the Kentuckians.

I have been reading Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle by Stephen Biddle. He argues that military preponderance (national material capabilities as defined by the Correlates of War Project) and technology (whether it is based on systemic or dyadic values) is not enough to explain victory in war. He instead argues that "force employment" (the tactics used on the battlefield and how men and technology is used) produces battle results. He used force employment to explain the operational features of Operation Michael in WWI, Operation Goodwood in WWII, and Operation Desert Storm

I just read "Eye-deep in Hell" by John Ellis and I thought he gave a good understanding of what the war was like for the rank and file soldiers of the British Army, and to a lesser extent the French, on the western front. I'm not by any means a historian nor a true history buff though, so if Ellis' work is disputed or seriously outdated I wouldn't know. He also gave some glimpses of how the German troops had it (the standard rations for the men in the trenches for example), but mainly to contrast with the British experience. I was impressed by how concise the book was, while still showcasing some of the multitude of experiences along the western front during the 4 years of fighting. The Swedish translation I read (my local libraries history shelf is thin in Swedish, and so far I haven't managed to find the any History in English shelf) is only 234 pretty small pages.

I wouldn't say I particularly enjoyed it though, but that has a lot more to do than with the subject matter than with Ellis writing.

So, moving on I want to read more about 'the Great War' and I would like to learn more about the different experiences of the combatants involved in the war. Do somebody have a recommendation for further reading? Is there newer works (Eye-deep in Hell was first printed in '76) that disagree with the picture Ellis paints? I would especially be interested in reading more from the perspectives of the other major combatants, and also about the Eastern front, and the other theaters. I read English and Swedish, to narrow things down.

I'm getting through Double Cross by Ben Macintyre and I'm hooked. I was wondering if anyone had any other books they could recommend about military espionage? Any time frame, ebook or hard copy.

Thanks!