Young Washington audiobook

I saw this book in the new releases section of the library, and decided to pick it up. A big reason for that is I really liked Stark’s book Astoria.This book on George Washington is quite interesting, focusing on the events of 1754 and 1755, when Washington was a 21-year-old.Stark describes our young first president as:“ambitious, temperamental, vain, thin-skinned, petulant, awkward, demanding, stubborn, annoying, hasty, passionate. This Washington has not yet learned to cultivate his image or contain his emotions. Here, instead, is a raw young man struggling toward maturity and in love with a close friend’s wife. This is the Washington of emotional neediness, personal ambition, and mistakes – many mistakes.”Stark does a good job giving us a look at Washington’s inland journey from the Tidewater region of Virginia, over the Appalachians, and into the Ohio River Valley.Here the French are expanding, and though Britain and France are in an uneasy peace, Washington’s foray into the interior changes all that.We get an excellent look at the arduous journey for Washington’s militiamen, one that saw a serious lack of food and good clothing. I thought I’d pick this book up and read a hundred pages or so, but I found myself moving through it pretty quickly and getting it done.I’d recommend getting it at your library like I did.

I have always valued George Washington as a great general. I have even visit d obscure sites to see obscure Washington letters, like the Lilly library and his letter accepting the presidency. Over all this book is wonderful.That being read, me personally, I struggled with the man I have always admired in how he was FACTUALLY portrayed in this book. It is not the fault of the author for presenting the truth as it is, and the author did. Rather it was my fault for holding Washington above all others. In short he wasn’t great. He was a self centered, whiny, greedy, jealous, envious, sensitive, immature man who happened to be the most experienced in warfare when someone was needed to fight a war. He actually started the seven year war himself, out of avarice. I will never look at him the same way. The book is good. You should read it.

It could be argued that George Washington, a young man in his early twenties, started the French and Indian War, known in Europe as the "Seven Years War",the first "world war" that involved the major European powers. It took place in 1754 at a wilderness location in what is now eastern Pennsylvania known as the Jumonville Glen when he was in charge of Virginia and Iroqois fighters who ambushed and slaughtered a sleeping French encampment at dawn. The savagery of the attack was unprecedented, and Washington lost control of the carnage. When news of this attack became known. he French were outraged and considered this attack on a diplomatic mission unprovoked and part of a British plan to control the Ohio River basin. Washington tried to justify his attack by calling the French a pack of spies "sulking about." From here, matters escalated and led to a full blown expedition against the French Fort Duquesne (now Pittsburgh) by the British army, led by General Braddock. The expedition was a disastrous failure. Braddock was killed, but Washington, at Braddock's side miraculously survived, and returned, unharmed. The rest of Stark's history recounts Washington's early career. He schemed to make a name for himself and establish himself as a member of Virginia's prestigious planter class. He had acquired some land through inheritance, but not enough to make himself wealthy. That would come in 1759 when at age 27 he married a rich heiress, Martha Custis and for the next 17 years he would live as a prosperous planter and slaveholder. But that's jumping ahead. In his early years, Washington was always scrambling to get ahead as a organizer of reluctant Virginia militias who were trying to protect growing land settlements in the western backcountry. That meant fending off Indians and allying themselves with the British in their war with the French. Washington tooted his own horn pretty loudly, writing self-promoting letters, both full of boastfulness about his accomplishments and whininess about not being promoted properly by British officials. But when Washington went into the wilderness, he was at his best, being less self-centered and more committed to the common good of trying to establish order in a frontier of chaos and neglect. Back home, he spent his time consolidating his personal fortune and glory. It paid off as on the eve of the War of Independence, he was turned to as an experienced commander. And by this point, Washington had become patient, slow to speak, and infinitely wiser than he had been in his youth. It didn't hurt that he had a testiness toward the British whom he felt had treated him shabbily by mostly ignoring his accomplishments. It's a good history and shows how the wilderness and polite society both shaped this young man and began to make him into the myth he became, the "father of our country.

"Character is Key for Liberty!"This book is an oustanding work about how George Washington came to be who he was, and especially how his character was forged during his five years in the French and Indian War.The book includes very well done maps, which aid in understanding the routes of Washington’s travels. The author also did excellent background research involving camping at and hiking to various sites related to the action. He builds on this with outside research shown, for example, on page 208 when discussing exactly how chiggers attack the human body, and so how one of General Braddock’s soldiers died on the march after his leg was amputated due to infected chigger bites. The book’s descriptive style adds to the realism of the narrative by placing you in Washington’s shoes as he travels. Unfortunately I came to a glaring halt in my suspension of disbelief on page 160 when I read: “…and other officers retired to the shacklike log structure at the center of the fort or [emphasis OR] an officers’ tent to read it [the Fort Necessity surrender contract] by candlelight.” Sometime after that I noticed that the author more ably used words like “may have seen,” “might have seen,” “likely saw” or the equivalent softening words that kept up the vivid narrative but told you not to bet your life on the 100% accuracy of what happened in a scene. As well, I do wish that the author had not left me puzzled when he mentioned where Washington and his group “took rooms at Cromwell’s Head Tavern on School Street, named after the severed head of Oliver Cromwell.” (p. 300). Yes, Cromwell’s head was severed, but not mentioned is that this was after he had died and Charles II was restored to the crown. In revenge for Cromwell’s beheading his father (Charles I), Charles II had Cromwell’s body exhumed and hanged, with head chopped off and publicly displayed on a pole outside Westminster Hall for several decades. But this teasing omission is a very minor detail in a very well done book.A major take-away of the book is that Washington was highly concerned with his reputation and honor. “The concept of honor – a code of behavior existing beyond the rules of law.” (p. 192). Throughout the book and even more so at the end, the author successfully chronicles Washington’s development of high moral character by calling out aspects of his “live and learn” approach to life and how, through the events covered in Washington’s youth, “he became that person, that selfless leader, the one that is remembered as George Washington” (p. 417)Again and as a fellow author, I highly recommend this excellent book!

An excellent book highlighting our mythic founding father in a new light. And as someone who is at the same age as George Washington as he is discussed in the book, it provides a real model of behaviors that should and should not be emulated. Lots of Washington biographies can be quite fawning of the president, but this felt like a more fair and down to earth examination of him. Also wonderful insight into the French and Indian War, a subject glazed over in America do to it's proximity and sparking of the more important Revolutionary War.

OUTSTANDING History LessonI've learned so much from this book. What an incredible account of young Washington. It has answered so many questions I've always had about in my opinion the greatest President we have ever had.

With brilliant storytelling, Peter Stark’s new book Young Washington is a fascinating look at the British and Virginian aristocracy in pre-Revolutionary America. It is a vivid tale of a series of critical turning points in the career of a youthful George Washington in search of himself and his role in history. Self-centered and filled with ambition, Young Washington has the chameleon-like ability to grow-up in a fatherless family, with only a frontier education, starting out as a self-taught surveyor, eager student of the gentry, wilderness messenger and young militia officer commanding troops during French and Indian Wars. Within the span of only a few short years, that would shape Washington’s life and leadership. He would conquer his youthful fears, lay waste to his enemies and learn the art of survival and Indian fighting in the western Virginia frontier. After the war he would marry the rich widow Martha Custis. This book lays the groundwork of Washington's early adulthood, before he went on to become a wealthy tobacco plantation owner, a local politician and finally the first President of the United States. Forget the idea of a musty history offering; this is a well-researched, gripping adventure tale of George Washington’s youthful exploits in the wilderness. It is a provocative, inspiring, and informative story of how his character and talents were forged with both glorious victories and humiliating defeats. Young Washington is a good read and I can highly recommend it.Brian D. Ratty, author

What kind of a person was Young Washington? It turns out he was quite unlike the man popular imagination makes him out to be. The idea of George Washington as the impeccable moralist turns out to be false. He was vain, proud, and helplessly self - absorbed. However, as he gained some experience, Mr. Stark shows how he came to care more about the welfare of his fellow countrymen than his own, so insistent on promotion was he in his early days. Mr. Stark does a fine job of delving into the mind of young Washington: his reactions to life in the military, battling against the French and Indians in a wild landscape, what he was likely thinking and feeling. In this respect Young Washington reads more like a story than a weighty historical tome. I recommend it to anyone with an interest in U.S. History or the life of George Washington. I enjoyed it immensely, and I hope you will too.

The book covers a time in US history that is not too familiar to many and shows Washington's flaws as he struggled to establish himself. I have read some of the original letters referenced in the book that Stark skillfully brings to bare. Washington had human defects similar to those of politicians today.

This biography concentrates on Young Washington prior to and during the French and Indian War. Mr. Stark portrays a young man learning to be soldier, commander and growing into manhood in the aristocratic Virginia society. Several little known, or shared, episodes are presented.

4.5 stars. A good history should be:1. Well-written. Poorly written history is the bane of the world! Fortunately, Mr. Stark writes very, very well.2. Help the reader see a historical subject in a new way. Again, Mr. Stark delivers very well. It's not like there is a dearth of information about George Washington, so to write a book and take a fresh look at his young and formative years and help the reader understand Mr. Washington in a new light? Kudos to you, Mr. Stark.I've read a lot about George Washington, and still Mr. Stark managed to recount his formative years in a fresh and original way. Some interesting takeaways:1. George Washington was the spark that set the war between France and England off. Mr. Stark makes this claim and I suppose it's somewhat true. One wonders if he doesn't reach just a little bit here. I'm not enough of a historian to know if this claim is really valid, or if its just made because it's convenient to Mr. Stark's thesis. At any rate, it is a fascinating little fact of Washington's life. He was leading a party which encountered a French/Indian party who were supposedly coming to talk to the English. Washington's men fired on them and killed the leader of the French party. Washington tried to justify this attack, but neither Mr. Stark, nor I, agree with his actions.2. We tend to think that Mr. Washington sprung, fully-formed as an excellent battle leader almost from his mother's womb, but of course this isn't true. He had formative years. He made mistakes. He suffered. His leadership was questioned more than once, and rightly so. Mr. Stark does a good job of following Mr. Washington's development as a man, and perhaps even more so, as a military leader.3. Mr. Stark points out that Mr. Washington had this sense of himself that he was both an actor in history and a spectator of his own actions, as if he knew that he would be an important person in history (which he certainly was). It's an interesting fact that great persons of history often have this sense that they will be great. Churchill certainly had this feeling, as did Napoleon. George Washington did as well. 4. Most of the book follows Washington and his military efforts from the time he is about 20 to 27. Mr. Stark points out that in his younger years, Mr. Washington was not necessarily a man of compassion, but when he was given responsibility for the protection of the settlers on the frontiers during the deprivations of the French and indians, he developed compassion as he heard and witnessed story after story of torture, destruction, and murder of these settlers. It was this experience that made him the man he became during the period leading up to and through the Revolution.5. Without question, one thing that Mr. Washington always seemed to have was a sense of his own personal honor, and a deep and abiding courage. He was in several battles and scrapes with the French and indians and while he didn't always make the right decisions, he was always personally courageous. I really enjoyed this book.

Finished listening to "Young Washington" by Peter Stark and read my Malcolm Hillgartner. This is a book about the Washington you don't hear much about: vain, impatient, short-tempered, and frequently clueless. It covers the period from his late teens until his marriage to Martha Custis when he was 27. In that decade he lived a surprisingly full life and was given an astonishing amount of responsibility (wilderness message carrier and diplomat, scout, aide de camp, head of the defense of Virginia and finally acting Brigadier during the march on Fort Duquesne). During this time he displayed as much tact and insight as just about any 20 something. But the experiences, the responsibilities, the suffering and the death that surrounded him during these years, seems to have burned out the childishness and refined his character.This book also focuses on that era when the Ohio Country, and specifically the forks of the Ohio, were central to the fate of North America and the world. Jumonville Glen, Fort Necessity, Braddock's Defeat at the Battle of the Monongahela and Forbes' Ohio Expedition are all covered in detail. What struck me in this telling is not only the arrogance of the British in evaluating the situation before them, but also the actual myopia in almost literally refusing to see what was right in front of their eyes. From the effectiveness of Native American fighting techniques to the lack of supplies that were taken for granted in European Wars. The inability to understand the land they were literally standing on. It is a wonder at times that anyone survived.A downside of the book is the authors tendency to occasionally wander into attempts at florid description bordering on poetry. As an audiobook, this leads to long stretches of strange and pointless narrative. There is also a tendency to wander off in the footnotes. Malcom Hillgartner is a skilled and powerful reader, with a voice filled with gravitas, but the effect can be rather vainglorious when coupled with the author's digressions.

Young Washington is a vivid and eye-opening account of George Washington's early military career as a British officer during the seven-year French and Indian War. I'm a big fan of historical accounts that set out to "de-mythologize" famous historical figures, and you probably can't pick a more famous historical (and mythologized) historical figure in American history than George Washington. Far from a "character assassination," however, Young Washington attempts to reconstruct the immature, entitled, and brash Washington and show how his early failures humbled him into the well-renowned leader we know today. Author Peter Stark excels at his descriptive passages of wilderness survival and chaotic battlefield recreations. The French and Indian War introduced a new style of warfare to the British army (that would later be emulated by the colonists during the Revolutionary War), and Stark pulls no punches in his brutal depictions of wilderness combat. Of particular note is Stark's account of Washington's ill-advised ambush at Jumonville Glen, his failed defense of Fort Necessity, and the slaughter at the Battle of the Monogahela (or Braddock's defeat).Some other things I learned about Washington are that most historians believe that he ignited the French-Indian War, he was obsessed with his best friend's wife (and wrote the whiniest love letters to her), and he hadn't won a single battle prior to becoming leader of the Continental Army.George Washington obviously leaves behind a complicated legacy, but Stark's humanizing portrait of him in his mid-20s reveals a young leader unsure of himself and his destiny, but slowly growing in humility, integrity, and confidence. Highly recommended to anyone who wants to peek into the life of America's "founding father." My only complaint, ironically, is that Stark's vivid writing in the wilderness and battle scenes is so good, that other parts of the story drag a bit.

Young Washington is an entertaining, reasonably complete biography of Washington through the end of the French and Indian War. I had to take a star away for all the attempts to fill in possibilities--"he surely...", "possibly...", "does not seem to have occurred...", "appears to have...". While there is always a need to fill in lacunae from the probable context, Stark uses this technique to excess. As well, a lot of the fill-ins support his opinions about Washington's state of mind rather than just the facts on the ground, which I think is not appropriate for a history. I would take these opinions about Washington's pride and immaturity with a grain of salt or two. I also missed any reference to Washington's adoption of Stoic principles, which is a primary characteristic of his personality from an early age, nor is there much discussion of his education (self-taught or otherwise). For example, there is almost a page on the play "Cato", but no mention that the play represents Stoic principles and was his favorite play throughout his life because of that; instead, Stark focuses on the love story in the play and ties it to Sally Fairfax. The references and notes are excellent, great bibliography, and Stark has clearly done his research well. The color pictures are pretty relevant, though quirky in what's there and what isn't. Overall, an excellent read and worthwhile for anyone interested in Washington.

Young Washington, by Peter StarkFirst Thoughts:Great book. A well researched historical novel based on facts and some extrapolation of the life of young Washington as a colonial man of 23, who, Stark says, started the French & Indian War which then led eventually to the American Revolution. Story & Plot:It was fascinating how Stark wove the pattern of a man who made rash decisions, who later regretted wiping out a French band of soldiers just wanting some parlay. Story of Washington’s passions, having the “hots” for a married woman and not a lot of info on how he met Martha, though she’s in this too.Really enjoyed the parts of Washington’s personality, how he became more measured and mature in dealing with the war effort with the French. Washington, who had slaves and a negative feeling about the Indians of the time. Hard to read how the Indians were playing their part to keep the Ohio Valley and dealt with English settlers through scalping and murder. This didn’t scare the British, they just brought in more men from across the sea. Braddock’s Defeat was well detailed and tells what happens when a disciplined military men complete with drums and fifes, marching in rows, bringing wagons filled with good and luxuries, get cut down to nothing from the bush fighting French and Indians. Was quite a tale! Final Thoughts:The description of Washington’

Peter Stark is not a professional historian but he has written a definitive account of Washington's first 27 years. He covers all of the military campaigns that Washington was involved in during the 1750s including the Jumonville Affair, the fall of Fort Necessity, the defeat of Braddock at Fort Duquesne, the regrouping of a Virginia colonial regiment in Winchester, and the Forbes March to Fort Duquesne. Interspersed in these narratives are the afflictions, both mental and physical, that Washington suffered. He matured from a petulant young aristocrat in colonial Virginia to a leader of men who took part in many wartime engagements in his 20s. Washington had deep depressions when his aspirations were not met by the British military hierarchy but these grew into a full resentment of the manner in which the British treated their colonial counterparts. By doing this, they made Washington into a revolutionary intent on securing American independence. He also suffered from physical maladies such as smallpox which he survived during a short stay in Barbados and the bloody flux which was an 18th century form of dysentery. All of this made the man that he became. Stark captures this all in a book a tad over 400 pages alternating between historical narrative and a novel like style to his character. Very good reading!