Audiobooks narrated by Daniel Houle

Forgotten Terrorist Bombings in America: The History of Some of the Earliest Attacks in the United S

Bombs have been around for centuries. The military units called “Grenadiers” in European armies used throwable black powder bombs, early versions of what today are called grenades. They were heavy, so Grenadiers were tall, strong soldiers able to throw grenades for a distance. Terrorism has been around for many centuries, most infamously the period called The Terror (1793-94) in the French Revolution. However, the combination of bombs and terrorism is considerably more recent, dating to the 1870s and 1880s. Black powder had been used occasionally for terrorism before the 1800s, with the most famous incident being the Guy Fawkes gunpowder plot to blow up the English Parliament in 1605. Fawkes used barrels of gunpowder rather than a bomb in the modern sense. Terrorism was nothing new in the United States, where, for example, tarring and feathering of Loyalists during the American Revolution was a terror technique designed to quell Tory sentiments. However, terrorists using bombs to accomplish political ends in the United States goes back only about 150 years. That’s partly a result of the rise of political movements seeing violence as legitimate, and partly the result of the development of dynamite. Alfred Nobel invented dynamite in 1867, making usable a substance that had been invented years before, called nitroglycerine. The substance was known to be a powerful explosive, but it was too unstable and too dangerous to be of much use, until Nobel devised a way to make it stable and usable. Nobel also invented the blasting cap, which would ignite the dynamite, using a fuse that could be lit, and later, allow it to be ignited by an electric charge provided by a battery. Nobel would late in his life feel remorse for the harm his invention had caused, and established the Nobel Prizes as a kind of atonement.

Charles River Editors (Author), Daniel Houle (Narrator)

Audiobook

Bob Fosse: The Life and Legacy of America’s Most Decorated Choreographer

“The time to sing is when your emotional level is just too high to speak anymore, and the time to dance is when your emotions are just too strong to only sing about how you feel.” – Bob Fosse By the turn of the 20th century, American entertainment was still preoccupied with European-style operetta, as embodied in the works of cellist-composer Victor Herbert. Traditional dance forms moved from European stories to the American prairie in Oklahoma by the late 1940s, and what was once the property of Bavarian princes became the singing standards of cowboys riding through the corn fields in Oh What a Beautiful Morning and Out of My Dreams. In terms of original choreography, it was the age of Jerome Robbins that marked the first real departure from traditional dance on stage and in film. Robbins, born in 1918, became a five-time Tony winner and twice winner of an Academy Award. It was into this environment, featuring his West Side Story, Fiddler on the Roof, The King and I, and countless other productions, that an intriguing new choreographer made his entry riding the advent of American jazz. Only 10 years Robbin’s junior, Robert Louis Fosse, better known as Bob Fosse, followed his colleague’s example by mixing daring new jazz forms with virtually every traditional and popular genre to produce previously unseen modes of dance expression on Broadway and in film. In the 1960s, Fosse emerged as one of the leading dancers, actors, choreographers, directors, screenwriters and film directors on Broadway and in Hollywood. He became famous for conquering several fields on the musical stage and film simultaneously in a way that no one has before or since. It is said that “only Busby Berkeley compares” to Fosse despite the fact that Berkeley was never a dancer, and that Fosse enjoyed eight Broadway hits to Berkeley’s one.

Charles River Editors (Author), Daniel Houle (Narrator)

Audiobook

Mechanized Death: The History and Legacy of the First Machine Guns Used in War

Soon after dawn on July 1, 1916, British and Commonwealth troops climbed out of damp, muddy trenches in the Somme valley and began to advance across no-man’s land towards German positions. This was the biggest Anglo-French attack of the First World War to date, and British commanders were confident that their troops would quickly push the Germans back out of France and perhaps even begin a drive into Germany itself. The tactics they used in planning this battle had changed little since the Napoleonic Wars. After an artillery bombardment, a mass of infantry would move forward to overwhelm the defenses and then three cavalry divisions would exploit the breakthrough and drive deep into German-held territory. The British commander, Field Marshal Douglas Haig, was certain that this battle would lead to a decisive victory. The Germans had been worn down by fighting on other parts of the Western Front in 1915 and the British attacking force was one of the largest bodies of men at arms ever sent on the attack. However, by the time that night fell on that day, 57,000 British troops had become casualties, including more than 19,000 killed, the highest number of British casualties in a single day of combat. What Haig (and most other military commanders on all sides during World War I failed to grasp was that infantry tactics in use for more than a thousand years were no longer viable. That was simply because sending massed infantry formations to attack prepared enemy defensive positions could no longer succeed in the face of machine guns, which could pour a devastating stream of fire on any exposed troops. Sending troops over open ground to attack a defense that incorporated many linked machine gun positions was simply suicidal, and the outcome was carnage on an industrial scale as more and larger attacks during World War I simply caused even larger numbers of casualties.

Charles River Editors (Author), Daniel Houle (Narrator)

Audiobook

The Suebi: The History and Legacy of the Ancient Germanic Groups

The people that came to be known as Germans originally came from Scandinavia and were mainly shepherds and hunters, but they comprised a number of distinct groups. Within each group, there were separate tribes, and as their populations grew, the land they occupied in Scandinavia was unable to support them, so they began migrating south, settling outside the borders of the Roman Empire. The Germans were fierce warriors who employed rather crude but effective tactics in battle. Their main approach was one of charging directly at an enemy and fighting hand-to-hand using their long swords and shields. Body armor was unknown, and they wore only animal-skins. Most warriors wore their hair long, dyed red and greased into ponytails. Friction between Rome and the German tribes can be traced back as far as 113 BCE, and the next 500 years brought full-scale campaigns by the Romans against the various individual tribes, resulting in numerous battles and constant uprisings wherever any part of the land east of the Rhine was occupied for any length of time. The impact of this constant warfare on both sides cannot be underestimated, and all the while, the fighting and other interactions had massive cultural and political influences going in both directions. Although Caesar led two secondary campaigns across the Rhine against the Germans, both were unsuccessful. Among the Germans who stymied Caesar's plans, those who gave the Romans the most problems were the Suebi. Caesar's account of his Gallic campaign included the first documented account of the Suebi, who were described as fearless warriors, yet wholly uncivilized and barbaric in the eyes of the Romans. The Suebi lived north of the Rhine for hundreds of years, mostly unaffected by Rome's expansion, and while the Romans and the Suebi did have early contact with each other, those contacts were relatively inconsequential.

Charles River Editors (Author), Daniel Houle (Narrator)

Audiobook

Irish Americans in the Civil War: The History and Legacy of Irish Units Who Fought on Both Sides of

Americans have long been fascinated by the Civil War, marveling at the size of the battles, the leadership of the generals, and the courage of the soldiers. The Civil War was the deadliest conflict in American history, and had the two sides realized it would take four years and inflict over a million casualties, it might not have been fought. Since it did, however, historians and history buffs alike have been studying and analyzing the military and political history of the conflict ever since. Given the extent of Irish immigration in the 19th century, it should come as no surprise that the Irish played important roles in the Civil War. While exact numbers are not known, the most commonly cited figures are 150,000 Irish serving in the Union Army, 20,000 or so in the Union Navy, and 20,000 more in the Confederate military. Immigrants were 13% of the total American population in 1860, and in the 1840s alone, 780,000 immigrants came from Ireland, almost half the total immigration for that decade. In the 1850s, 914,000 immigrants came from Ireland, a third of the total. The great majority of them settled in the North’s big cities, particularly New York City, Boston, and Philadelphia, while much smaller numbers settled in Southern cities like Richmond, Charleston and New Orleans. The Irish were notoriously discriminated against when they arrived. Nativist sentiment against immigrants, and particularly the Irish, grew and peaked intensely by the mid-19th century, with the anti-Irish and anti-Catholic Know Nothing Party achieving considerable political success in the 1850s. One reason the Irish were so strongly Democratic is that the Democrats more readily accepted immigrants, and the remains of the Know Nothings migrated into the newly founded Republican Party. Irish votes gave the Democrats control of many Northern cities.

Charles River Editors (Author), Daniel Houle (Narrator)

Audiobook

The Tunisian Campaign: The History of the Decisive Battles that Ended the Fighting in North Africa d

The fighting in North Africa during World War II is commonly overlooked, aside from the famous battle at El Alamein that pitted the British under General Bernard Montgomery against the legendary “Desert Fox,” Erwin Rommel. But while the Second Battle of El Alamein would be the pivotal action in North Africa, the conflict in North Africa began all the way back in the summer of 1940 when Italian dictator Benito Mussolini declared Italy’s entrance into the war. Dealing with the Italians was one thing, but the British faced an entirely different monster in North Africa when Erwin Rommel, a German general who had gained much fame for his role in the invasions of Poland and France, was sent to North Africa in February 1941. Rommel’s directives from the German headquarters were to maneuver in a way that would allow him to hide the fact that his ultimate goal was the capture of Cairo and the Suez Canal. The ultimate plan was that Rommel would not reveal the Germans’ true intentions in North Africa until after the Germans had made headway in their invasion of the Soviet Union. ith the Axis forces trying to push through Egypt towards the Suez Canal and the British Mandate of Palestine, American forces landed to their west in North Africa, which ultimately compelled Rommel to try to break through before the Allies could build up and overwhelm them with superior numbers. Given that the combined Allied forces under Montgomery already had an advantage in manpower, Montgomery also wanted to be aggressive, and the fighting would start in late October 1942 with an Allied attack. The ensuing Tunisian Campaign was a complicated, last-ditch, cut-and-thrust effort on the part of the doomed Axis forces. The various Allied forces arriving from the west were heavily bloodied before U.S. and British airborne and commando units began to mop up key ports and landing facilities. Rommel and his army were clearly staring at defeat.

Charles River Editors (Author), Daniel Houle (Narrator)

Audiobook

The Battle of Anzio: The History of the Allies’ Controversial Amphibious Landing during the Italian

The immense difficulties Sicily's rugged terrain caused to the Allied forces, and the successful delaying actions fought by small numbers of well-led German soldiers, inspired Hitler and his generals to garrison Italy as an obstacle to British and American advance. A relatively limited number of Wehrmacht troops used the endless series of mountain ridges and defensible hilltop towns to slow the offensive to a crawl, tying down large numbers of Western troops. Under Albert Kesselring's expert leadership, the Germans fell back northward methodically, fighting a major delaying action at Volturno in mid-October 1943. The Wehrmacht then established themselves on the Reinhard Line, a temporary defensive front meant to delay the Allies until the Germans finished preparing the stronger Gustav Line, stretching from Gaeta to Ortona and anchored on the formidable strongpoint near the early medieval monastery of Monte Cassino. The Allies did not intend the attack on Cassino as a simple slogging match, understanding quite clearly the cost of such an operation. Instead, they planned a landing at Anzio by an entire army corps, the U.S. 6th Corps, to outflank the Gustav Line and force the Germans' withdrawal to avoid encirclement. It was a sound plan, but it would turn into something of a fiasco under the leadership of Major General John P. Lucas. The Anzio landing occurred on schedule on January 22, 1944, and despite achieving total tactical surprise, Lucas squandered the opportunity to run amok in the Gustav Line's rear by remaining supinely in Anzio. Winston Churchill, with his typical verve, excoriated Lucas' failure with a colorful description: “Instead of hurling a wildcat onto the shore all we got was a stranded whale.” A later German report also expressed surprise at Lucas' inaction. What followed was months of bitter fighting as the Allies struggled to break out of their beachhead and make their long-awaited push to Rome.

Charles River Editors (Author), Daniel Houle (Narrator)

Audiobook

The Roman Diet: The History of Eating and Drinking in Ancient Rome

Indulgence is at the heart of modern perceptions of eating and drinking for the ancient Romans. The majority of primary sources depicting food and drink that have survived show rich patricians reclining at a table loaded with exotic foods, and Roman diners are often depicted as gorging themselves over numerous courses served over many hours. Of course, the history of eating and drinking for the wider population within the more than 1,000-year span of the empire was somewhat different. These feasts depicted in the images of Roman dining were relevant to only the very elite and ignore the fact that Roman society was rigidly hierarchical. What the richest ate was markedly different from the fare on offer to their slaves, and between these two extremes, there were numerous socioeconomic groups whose eating and drinking habits varied enormously. Moreover, since the Roman Empire encompassed much of Europe and the Middle East, the different kinds of food and drinks available in Rome were vast. While there are several sources of evidence to help determine what Romans ate and drank, tangible evidence of the Romans’ diets can be found in one particular source: human waste. The cities of Herculaneum and Pompeii, in particular, have left intact sewers and rubbish heaps packed with digested food that scientists and archaeologists have been able to analyze, and which have revealed details of what the ordinary Romans consumed. Literature and art also provide some information. For example, Petronius’ Satyricon is probably the inspiration for the modern concept of the decadent Roman banquet, while the poets Horace and Juvenal included detailed information in their Satires. Perhaps the most significant written source is a large cookbook, Apicius’s De re coquinaria, which was written in the 4th century CE. Pliny the Elder’s Natural History is also a valuable source on the edible plants used in Roman cooking.

Charles River Editors (Author), Daniel Houle (Narrator)

Audiobook

The Battle of the Golden Spurs: The History of the Franco-Flemish War’s Most Famous Battle

In the time period between the fall of Rome and the spread of the Renaissance across the European continent, many of today’s European nations were formed, the Catholic Church rose to great prominence, some of history’s most famous wars occurred, and a social class system was instituted that lasted over 1,000 years. A lot of activity took place during a period frequently labeled derogatively as the “Dark Ages,” and while that period of time is mostly referred to as the “Middle Ages” instead of the Dark Ages today, it has still retained the stigma of being a sort of lost period of time in which Western civilization made no worthwhile progress after the advances of the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome. Somewhat ironically, the one aspect of the Middle Ages that has been romanticized is medieval warfare. The Middle Ages have long sparked people’s imaginations thanks to imagery of armored knights battling on horseback and armies of men trying to breach the walls of formidable castles, but what is generally forgotten is that medieval warfare was constantly adapting to the times as leaders adopted new techniques and technology, and common infantry became increasingly important throughout the period. The changes became most evident at the beginning of the 14th century, when the French army fought rebellious forces from Flanders in the Battle of the Golden Spurs on July 11, 1302. Though the battle is mostly forgotten today, it was one of medieval Europe’s most important battles because the Flemish army, consisting almost entirely of infantry, defeated the French forces and their heavily armored cavalry. The battle marked the end of the feudal era and shifted the military focus to infantry armed with pikes or spears. Over 700 years later, the date of the battle is a national holiday in Belgium, and though it did not establish an independent state, the victory certainly set the Flemish people on the road to independence.

Charles River Editors (Author), Daniel Houle (Narrator)

Audiobook

The Suebi: The History and Legacy of the Ancient Germanic Groups

The people that came to be known as Germans originally came from Scandinavia and were mainly shepherds and hunters, but they comprised a number of distinct groups. Within each group, there were separate tribes, and as their populations grew, the land they occupied in Scandinavia was unable to support them, so they began migrating south, settling outside the borders of the Roman Empire. The Germans were fierce warriors who employed rather crude but effective tactics in battle. Their main approach was one of charging directly at an enemy and fighting hand-to-hand using their long swords and shields. Body armor was unknown, and they wore only animal-skins. Most warriors wore their hair long, dyed red and greased into ponytails. Friction between Rome and the German tribes can be traced back as far as 113 BCE, and the next 500 years brought full-scale campaigns by the Romans against the various individual tribes, resulting in numerous battles and constant uprisings wherever any part of the land east of the Rhine was occupied for any length of time. The impact of this constant warfare on both sides cannot be underestimated, and all the while, the fighting and other interactions had massive cultural and political influences going in both directions. Although Caesar led two secondary campaigns across the Rhine against the Germans, both were unsuccessful. Among the Germans who stymied Caesar’s plans, those who gave the Romans the most problems were the Suebi. Caesar’s account of his Gallic campaign included the first documented account of the Suebi, who were described as fearless warriors, yet wholly uncivilized and barbaric in the eyes of the Romans. The Suebi lived north of the Rhine for hundreds of years, mostly unaffected by Rome’s expansion, and while the Romans and the Suebi did have early contact with each other, those contacts were relatively inconsequential.

Charles River Editors (Author), Daniel Houle (Narrator)

Audiobook

The Irish Confederate Wars: The History and Legacy of Ireland’s Deadliest Conflict

During the 12th century, the people of Ireland came under the sway of the English, who had extended into their domain. With every subsequent century, English dominion in the land gradually expanded, leading to the exceedingly harsh treatment of native Irish populations at the hands of English settlers. The Tudor period was especially tumultuous, with Elizabeth I waging a notoriously expensive conquest against the Irish in the waning years of her reign. By the time of the Bishops’ War, the majority of native Irish people were Catholic. Discrimination against native Irelanders had, at that point, come to encompass both ethnic and religious elements. English colonists brought Protestantism with them, leading to intense theological friction between the natives - who followed the teachings of the Vatican - and the settlers - who followed the teachings of Luther, Calvin, Knox, and the like. Plantation of the natives took place where property owned by Irish Catholics was seized by the newcomers with the support of the English controlled Irish Privy Council. Tensions began to come to a head during the Second Bishops’ War, when the Irish Parliament was called upon to garner funds for Charles I’s fight against Scottish insurrectionists. In March of 1640, the speaker of the Commons, Maurice Eustace, delivered an overtly pro-English speech in the Irish Parliament. He praised Wentworth for his rule over the island and insisted to his fellow Irishmen that they put the past of Irish-English animosity behind them. Bitter irony would strike the island following Eustace’s optimism. Ethnic and religious oppression, three failed harvests, and the Covenanters' military success had sufficiently stirred an anti-English spirit amongst the Irish The stage was now set for a new conflict that would make the Bishops’ Wars pale in comparison. All it took was for someone to light the fuse.

Charles River Editors (Author), Daniel Houle (Narrator)

Audiobook

Animals in Ancient Rome: The History of the Roles that Different Animals Played across the Roman Emp

Rome's complex relationship with animals goes right back to its foundation myth, and even today, the wolf remains a symbol of the Eternal City, forming part of the logo for the capital's football team, A. S. Roma. According to tradition, the city of Rome was founded by Romulus, who, with his brother Remus, was nursed and sheltered by a she-wolf. That tale, widely believed as a historical fact by ancient Romans, had a profound influence on Roman culture, and in part that shaped Roman attitudes toward their animals. The actual cave where Romulus and Remus were said to have been raised, the Lupercal, is thought to have been situated on the Palatine Hill in the very heart of Rome, and there was a claim by some archaeologists it had been found in 2007. True or not, the story of the wolf and its link to the beginnings of Rome continues to intrigue modern citizens, and the recent return of a family of wolves to the outskirts of Rome was greeted with wild enthusiasm. Other than the tale of the she-wolf with Romulus and Remus, the overriding images and stories of Roman animals that have come down through popular culture to modern times largely concern the vicious animal fights put on in the Colosseum, stories of Christians being thrown to the lions, and Hannibal's invasion of Italy with elephants. Indeed, the widely accepted view is that Romans were uncommonly brutal to their animals and had little empathy for them, and in terms of the Romans' scientific knowledge about animals, it appears much of it came to them from the Greeks.

Charles River Editors (Author), Daniel Houle (Narrator)

Audiobook

Audiobooks Narrated by Daniel Houle