In 1690; a dramatic account of piracy was published in Mexico City. The Misfortunes of Alonso RamÃrez described the incredible adventures of a poor Spanish American carpenter who was taken captive by British pirates near the Philippines and forced to work for them for two years. After circumnavigating the world; he was freed and managed to return to Mexico; where the Spanish viceroy commissioned the well-known Mexican scholar Carlos de Sigüenza y Góngora to write down RamÃrez's account as part of an imperial propaganda campaign against pirates.The Misfortunes of Alonso RamÃrez has long been regarded as a work of fiction—in fact; as Latin America's first novel—but Fabio López Lázaro makes a convincing case that the book is a historical account of real events; albeit full of distortions and lies. Using contemporary published accounts; as well as newly discovered documents from Spanish; English; French; Portuguese; and Dutch archives; he proves that RamÃrez voyaged with one of the most famous pirates of all time; William Dampier. López Lázaro's critical translation of The Misfortunes provides the only extensive Spanish eyewitness account of pirates during the period in world history (1650–1750) when they became key agents of the European powers jockeying for international political and economic dominance. An extensive introduction places The Misfortunes within the worldwide struggle that Spain; England; and Holland waged against the ambitious Louis XIV of France; which some historians consider to be the first world war.
#1156922 in Books University of Texas Press 2004-10-01Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.00 x .50 x 6.00l; .85 #File Name: 0292705948288 pagesISBN13: 9780292705944Condition: NewNotes: BRAND NEW FROM PUBLISHER! 100% Satisfaction Guarantee. Tracking provided on most orders. Buy with Confidence! Millions of books sold!
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Definitely 5 Stars!By justin glennThis book is a gem--well researched and well written. It helps to resurrect from obscurity one of the most amazing military feats of all time--truly "the Confederacy's Thermopylae."Justin Glenn; author of "The Washingtons: A Family History"0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Five StarsBy MisterTGreat service and value.3 of 6 people found the following review helpful. The Confederacy’s Wagon Box FightBy WALWhile the battles at Sabine Pass are of interest as combined operations in the Civil War; this book appears to have been written primarily to support Texas Civil War mythology. This is reflected by the inclusion of “the Confederacy’s Thermopylaeâ€; Jefferson Davis’s bombastic description; in the title. To make sure the reader gets the point and to maintain the theme of the gloriousness of the defense of Fort Griffin on 8 September; 1863 throughout the book; the author uses the descriptor; “disasterâ€; almost every time he discusses the Union side; every few pages or so.However; the battle of Sabine Pass was hardly a “disaster†for the Union. Two marginally important gunboats were lost; but there was no strategic consequence; since the main reason for the operation; to deter French encroachment into Texas (which the Confederacy was willing to risk if it meant recognition by France) did not develop. Texas was recognized as a secondary theater (even by General Banks); and its value for blockade running was minor; given that the Mississippi was effectively in Federal control. Thermopylae is not the right comparison; if Fort Griffin had held off the Army of the Tennessee for a time; perhaps. A better comparison would be to the “Wagon Box Fight†in 1867; where ineffective tactics by the attacking Sioux and superior firepower and a strong position allowed an outnumbered detachment of the 27th US infantry to triumph.Chapter 13 of the book describes the actual battle pretty well; providing the main reason to read the book. Read objectively; however; it tends not to support the contention that the battle; not as it was planned but as it actually occurred; was a triumph against long odds. Fort Griffin actually outgunned the gunboats in terms of cannon that could be brought to bear; the gunboats were not armored; and both ran aground during the action. Although not discussed; for naval vessels to be successful against fortifications in the Civil war required either mobility (the ability to “run†the fort) or heavily armored vessels (sufficient to protect their powerplant); neither was a factor at Sabine Pass. Since the army troops on the board the transports didn’t land; they could just as well have been in New Orleans with regard to the action at Fort Griffin.A thorough analysis of the Union army’s decisions at Sabine Pass remains of interest. Why was a landing at another site not pursued? Why did Wietzel’s force not land?
