What do you think?
Rate this book
Villa and Zapata: A History of the Mexican Revolution
Recounting the decade of bloody events that followed the eruption of the Mexican Revolution in 1910, Villa and Zapata explores the regional, international, cultural, racial, and economic strife that made the rebels Francisco (Pancho) Villa and Emiliano Zapata legends. Throughout this volume drama colludes with history, in a tale of two social outlaws who became legendary national heroes, yet—despite their triumph and only meeting, in 1914, in the Mexican capital—failed to make common cause and ultimately fell victim to intrigues more treacherous than their own. 16 pages of black-and-white photographs bring this gripping narrative to life. "McLynn ... tells it so well ... you can hear the strains of he Mexican patriotic standard ‘Zacatecas' as you read it."—Austin American-Statesman "An admirably clear account of the chaos of revolution, its rivalries and bloody struggles...."—The Spectator "Informative and insightful ... feels less like a history than a great story, as exciting as a Saturday serial Western."—Publishers Weekly
496 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
114 people are currently reading
1300 people want to read
About the author
Frank McLynn
39 books102 followersFrank McLynn is an English author, biographer, historian and journalist. He is noted for critically acclaimed biographies of Napoleon Bonaparte, Robert Louis Stevenson, Carl Jung, Richard Francis Burton and Henry Morton Stanley.
McLynn was educated at Wadham College, Oxford and the University of London. He was Alistair Horne Research Fellow at St Antony's College, Oxford (1987–88) and was visiting professor in the Department of Literature at the University of Strathclyde (1996–2001) and professorial fellow at Goldsmiths College London (2000 - 2002) before becoming a full-time writer.
McLynn was educated at Wadham College, Oxford and the University of London. He was Alistair Horne Research Fellow at St Antony's College, Oxford (1987–88) and was visiting professor in the Department of Literature at the University of Strathclyde (1996–2001) and professorial fellow at Goldsmiths College London (2000 - 2002) before becoming a full-time writer.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews
December 31, 2022
“The Mexican Revolution was a ten-year Iliad, in which [Francisco] Villa, [Emiliano] Zapata, [Alvaro] Obregon, [Venustiano] Carranza and the others played the roles in fact which were played in myth by Agamemnon, Achilles, Hector and Aeneas. The loss of life was frightful as the ever-widening spirals of bloodshed sucked in more and more people. Historians estimate the death toll at anything between a low of 350,000 and a high of 1,000,000, but this excludes the victims of the 1918 flu epidemic, which adds another 300,000 to the list of fatalities. Civilization’s thin veneer was never thinner…and the moral is surely that even in advanced societies we skate at all times on the thinnest of ice. A seemingly trivial political crisis can open up the ravening maw of an underworld of chaos…”
- Frank McLynn, Villa and Zapata: A History of the Mexican Revolution
The Mexican Revolution probably does not get as much attention as it deserves. Partly this is a function of occurring in the midst of a very crowded twentieth century. Indeed, because it stretched from 1910 to 1920, a good part of it dovetailed with the far-larger catastrophe of the First World War.
Another reason is that it is hard to gauge the revolutionary-ness of this particular revolution, with some historians arguing that very little change actually occurred. Whether or not this is true – and it is a debatable point – the Mexican Revolution is half-hidden in the shadows of the far larger, bloodier, and unquestionably world-altering uprisings that took place in Russia and China.
Whatever the cause, the Mexican Revolution is worthy of study, if only as a grand human drama, peopled with outsized and unforgettable characters like Francisco “Pancho” Villa and Emiliano Zapata.
In Villa and Zapata, Frank McLynn attempts to corral this hugely complex and sprawling saga by anchoring it to these two men, extruding the biography of a revolution through their rising and falling fortunes. He succeeds in a way that far surpassed my expectations.
***
McLynn writes from the premise that you might not know a whole lot about the Mexican Revolution. He structures the book methodically, using each chapter as a building block to be placed carefully, one atop another.
By way of example, Villa and Zapata starts in 1910, with an overview of Mexico under the presidency of Porfirio Diaz. Having served roughly thirty years in that position, Diaz might be better described as a dictator, in fact if not in name. An extremely polarizing figure, his reign had stabilized politics and grown the economy, but those gains accrued to a select circle, including foreign investors and the owners of large estates, known as hacendados. Not surprisingly, this situation led to unrest among the many, who spent years watching the benefits go to the few.
After laying this groundwork, McLynn moves onto a chapter on Zapata, a land-reformer from the state of Morelos. Once Zapata has been introduced, he moves the spotlight to Villa, a prominent player in northern Mexico, and then to Francisco Madero, who challenged Diaz for the presidency.
McLynn pays close attention to each of these figures – and many others – diving into their backgrounds, exploits, and even their psychological profiles. This is important, because the Mexican Revolution was a crowded stage of ambitious – sometimes ruthless – men whose motivations were often opaque, and whose allegiances were often shifting.
***
McLynn’s biographical finesse is Villa and Zapata’s calling card, and the memorable sketches helped me keep everyone straight. Even so, I kept a running list as the dramatis personae grew and grew, and everyone’s loyalties changed and changed.
The framework here might sound a bit pedantic, but in my opinion, it’s absolutely necessary, especially if you’re reading about the Mexican Revolution for the first time. There’s just a lot to keep straight. As is often the case in revolutions, the Mexican Revolution soon donned the garb of civil war. However, unlike the Union and Confederacy of the American Civil War, or the Reds and Whites of the Russian Civil War, the belligerents here are much harder to define.
Even a short summary gets confusing.
Madero wins the presidency, and Diaz goes into exile. Zapata, who had joined with Madero against Diaz, suddenly decides to revolt against Madero. Then, some of Diaz’s former generals, including Victoriano Huerta, stage a counter revolution by initiating a coup d’état that disposed of Madero. A coalition of northerners, among them Villa and Venustiano Carranza (the so-called “supreme chief of the revolution”), act as a counter-counter revolution, eventually defeating the federal armies. Before anyone can catch their breath – including students of this period – the various revolutionary armies begin fighting each other.
And that only gets us halfway through.
***
At just over four-hundred pages of text, McLynn is crowding a lot into relatively few pages. This makes for rather dense reading. McLynn attempts a mixed approach to the material, sometimes relying on narrative storytelling, other times stepping back to analyze a situation or weigh evidence.
While there are plenty of battles, this is definitely not a military history. Some engagements are described tactically, though most are only given the briefest of overviews. Mostly, McLynn is concerned with the shifting political grounds, and he describes those through the eyes of his characters. If you want a “people’s history” of the Mexican Revolution, this is not it.
***
McLynn is an extremely prolific author, and has tackled a wide variety of topics, from the Jacobites to Jung. This means that he is definitely – and admittedly – not an expert. Not being an expert myself, it’s therefore hard for me to judge the veracity of the research that went into this. There are a huge number of sources listed, but beyond that, I can offer very little.
Still, Villa and Zapata does not feel like the work of a dilletante, pretending towards expertise, or of a hummingbird-historian taking a shallow stab at a deep subject. There is real thought put into this, as demonstrated by McLynn’s concluding chapter, in which he meditates on the meanings of the revolution. Even if McLynn has not devoted his entire professional life to this single historical occurrence, he has clearly committed a substantial amount of time and energy in trying to comprehend it.
***
Sometimes I think of historians as salesmen trying to sell me on their particular slice of history. It’s up to them to explain why it matters; to establish its impact both locally, nationally, and globally; and to convince me that it’s worth learning about.
In all honesty, I picked up Villa and Zapata out of a sense of obligation. Despite living in the United States, I know very little about Mexico, and much of what I do know is gained from a very specific perspective. I wanted to change that.
Villa and Zapata did much more than teach me a few things. It got me excited. It sold me on the topic. It convinced me – among other things – to purchase a 1,000 page biography of Pancho Villa. To me, that’s a sign of history done right.
- Frank McLynn, Villa and Zapata: A History of the Mexican Revolution
The Mexican Revolution probably does not get as much attention as it deserves. Partly this is a function of occurring in the midst of a very crowded twentieth century. Indeed, because it stretched from 1910 to 1920, a good part of it dovetailed with the far-larger catastrophe of the First World War.
Another reason is that it is hard to gauge the revolutionary-ness of this particular revolution, with some historians arguing that very little change actually occurred. Whether or not this is true – and it is a debatable point – the Mexican Revolution is half-hidden in the shadows of the far larger, bloodier, and unquestionably world-altering uprisings that took place in Russia and China.
Whatever the cause, the Mexican Revolution is worthy of study, if only as a grand human drama, peopled with outsized and unforgettable characters like Francisco “Pancho” Villa and Emiliano Zapata.
In Villa and Zapata, Frank McLynn attempts to corral this hugely complex and sprawling saga by anchoring it to these two men, extruding the biography of a revolution through their rising and falling fortunes. He succeeds in a way that far surpassed my expectations.
***
McLynn writes from the premise that you might not know a whole lot about the Mexican Revolution. He structures the book methodically, using each chapter as a building block to be placed carefully, one atop another.
By way of example, Villa and Zapata starts in 1910, with an overview of Mexico under the presidency of Porfirio Diaz. Having served roughly thirty years in that position, Diaz might be better described as a dictator, in fact if not in name. An extremely polarizing figure, his reign had stabilized politics and grown the economy, but those gains accrued to a select circle, including foreign investors and the owners of large estates, known as hacendados. Not surprisingly, this situation led to unrest among the many, who spent years watching the benefits go to the few.
After laying this groundwork, McLynn moves onto a chapter on Zapata, a land-reformer from the state of Morelos. Once Zapata has been introduced, he moves the spotlight to Villa, a prominent player in northern Mexico, and then to Francisco Madero, who challenged Diaz for the presidency.
McLynn pays close attention to each of these figures – and many others – diving into their backgrounds, exploits, and even their psychological profiles. This is important, because the Mexican Revolution was a crowded stage of ambitious – sometimes ruthless – men whose motivations were often opaque, and whose allegiances were often shifting.
***
McLynn’s biographical finesse is Villa and Zapata’s calling card, and the memorable sketches helped me keep everyone straight. Even so, I kept a running list as the dramatis personae grew and grew, and everyone’s loyalties changed and changed.
The framework here might sound a bit pedantic, but in my opinion, it’s absolutely necessary, especially if you’re reading about the Mexican Revolution for the first time. There’s just a lot to keep straight. As is often the case in revolutions, the Mexican Revolution soon donned the garb of civil war. However, unlike the Union and Confederacy of the American Civil War, or the Reds and Whites of the Russian Civil War, the belligerents here are much harder to define.
Even a short summary gets confusing.
Madero wins the presidency, and Diaz goes into exile. Zapata, who had joined with Madero against Diaz, suddenly decides to revolt against Madero. Then, some of Diaz’s former generals, including Victoriano Huerta, stage a counter revolution by initiating a coup d’état that disposed of Madero. A coalition of northerners, among them Villa and Venustiano Carranza (the so-called “supreme chief of the revolution”), act as a counter-counter revolution, eventually defeating the federal armies. Before anyone can catch their breath – including students of this period – the various revolutionary armies begin fighting each other.
And that only gets us halfway through.
***
At just over four-hundred pages of text, McLynn is crowding a lot into relatively few pages. This makes for rather dense reading. McLynn attempts a mixed approach to the material, sometimes relying on narrative storytelling, other times stepping back to analyze a situation or weigh evidence.
While there are plenty of battles, this is definitely not a military history. Some engagements are described tactically, though most are only given the briefest of overviews. Mostly, McLynn is concerned with the shifting political grounds, and he describes those through the eyes of his characters. If you want a “people’s history” of the Mexican Revolution, this is not it.
***
McLynn is an extremely prolific author, and has tackled a wide variety of topics, from the Jacobites to Jung. This means that he is definitely – and admittedly – not an expert. Not being an expert myself, it’s therefore hard for me to judge the veracity of the research that went into this. There are a huge number of sources listed, but beyond that, I can offer very little.
Still, Villa and Zapata does not feel like the work of a dilletante, pretending towards expertise, or of a hummingbird-historian taking a shallow stab at a deep subject. There is real thought put into this, as demonstrated by McLynn’s concluding chapter, in which he meditates on the meanings of the revolution. Even if McLynn has not devoted his entire professional life to this single historical occurrence, he has clearly committed a substantial amount of time and energy in trying to comprehend it.
***
Sometimes I think of historians as salesmen trying to sell me on their particular slice of history. It’s up to them to explain why it matters; to establish its impact both locally, nationally, and globally; and to convince me that it’s worth learning about.
In all honesty, I picked up Villa and Zapata out of a sense of obligation. Despite living in the United States, I know very little about Mexico, and much of what I do know is gained from a very specific perspective. I wanted to change that.
Villa and Zapata did much more than teach me a few things. It got me excited. It sold me on the topic. It convinced me – among other things – to purchase a 1,000 page biography of Pancho Villa. To me, that’s a sign of history done right.
March 10, 2018
I blithely started reading ‘Villa and Zapata’ thinking it would be fun to learn about a revolution I had no familiarity with at all. As I got into it I realised that, a) when you know practically nothing about the history of a country, much more concentration is required to understand what was going on, and b) Mexico’s revolution could just as accurately be described as a decade of bloody and unremitting civil war. As a consequence, I found this book very interesting and informative, as well as hard work and depressing. McFlynn manages to clarify the complex dynamics of the various factions, however the majority of the book reads as a military history. A succession of battles with escalating death tolls characterises the events of 1910 to 1920 and all the major figures ended their lives with multiple massacres under their belts. As the title suggests, Villa and Zapata are the focus and their extraordinary lives are vividly evoked.
This is not just a ‘Great Man’ history, though. McFlynn also explores the relationship between America and Mexico at the time (fraught), the impacts of WWI on Mexico (surprisingly economically positive), and the political philosophy of Zapatismo (Zapata being the only figure who really had such a thing). It may sound silly, but one particularly strong aspect of the book was conveying just how huge and diverse a country Mexico is. For someone like me who is familiar with reading about revolutions in much smaller Western European countries, this was a striking aspect of the Mexican Revolution. McFlynn comes to the conclusion that Villa and Zapata's movements ultimately failed because neither wanted to rule Mexico, alone or together. Each was ultimately most concerned with his own region. In some ways I was surprised that neither turned around and declared regional independence, however I assume there were reasons in the earlier history of Mexico why this was not considered an option.
One aspect of the revolution that I felt wasn't given its due in ‘Villa and Zapata’ was the role of women. The fact that a lot of women fought in the factional armies comes up several times, however the only women who merit actually being named in the narrative are relatives and mistresses of the major male figures. All the leaders of factions either raped and murdered women themselves, or encouraged their soldiers to do so, or both. I felt that the female fighters deserved more attention, although I assume less documentary evidence of who they were and what they did probably survived. That always seems to be the way. Nonetheless, the book does do justice to the impact of the revolution on the population at large and their waxing and waning loyalties to various figures. It is not a happy tale, though. At the end, McFlynn has to specifically explain what changed as a result of the revolution, as superficially it exchanged one autocrat for another after a decade of vicious war that absolutely devastated the whole country and killed up to a million people. I wouldn’t call the whole thing enjoyable, however once I worked out who was who it was fascinating.
This is not just a ‘Great Man’ history, though. McFlynn also explores the relationship between America and Mexico at the time (fraught), the impacts of WWI on Mexico (surprisingly economically positive), and the political philosophy of Zapatismo (Zapata being the only figure who really had such a thing). It may sound silly, but one particularly strong aspect of the book was conveying just how huge and diverse a country Mexico is. For someone like me who is familiar with reading about revolutions in much smaller Western European countries, this was a striking aspect of the Mexican Revolution. McFlynn comes to the conclusion that Villa and Zapata's movements ultimately failed because neither wanted to rule Mexico, alone or together. Each was ultimately most concerned with his own region. In some ways I was surprised that neither turned around and declared regional independence, however I assume there were reasons in the earlier history of Mexico why this was not considered an option.
One aspect of the revolution that I felt wasn't given its due in ‘Villa and Zapata’ was the role of women. The fact that a lot of women fought in the factional armies comes up several times, however the only women who merit actually being named in the narrative are relatives and mistresses of the major male figures. All the leaders of factions either raped and murdered women themselves, or encouraged their soldiers to do so, or both. I felt that the female fighters deserved more attention, although I assume less documentary evidence of who they were and what they did probably survived. That always seems to be the way. Nonetheless, the book does do justice to the impact of the revolution on the population at large and their waxing and waning loyalties to various figures. It is not a happy tale, though. At the end, McFlynn has to specifically explain what changed as a result of the revolution, as superficially it exchanged one autocrat for another after a decade of vicious war that absolutely devastated the whole country and killed up to a million people. I wouldn’t call the whole thing enjoyable, however once I worked out who was who it was fascinating.
October 9, 2015
The Mexican Revolution is a subject I knew very little about before I picked up this tome. Therefore the challenge of the book was to give me a detailed account whilst never underestimating the depths of my ignorance. Undoubtedly it was successful on both counts.
Focusing on the dual stories of the passionate rogue Villa (who fought in the North) and the humourless son of the soil Zapata (who fought in the South), McLynn takes the readers through the many twists and turns of the Mexican Revolution. This is a history of big characters – indeed a lot of the less famous players in the revolution are also incredibly memorable – spreading violence through a wide landscape. (Be warned this us a bloody book, with the number of fatalities seeming head spinning at points.) It is though a human story and McLynn brings to life the worlds these men lived in, and shows why they felt the need to do what they did.
Villa and Zapata only met twice, and that over a three day period. The book charts how they got to that moment, with the whole of Mexico there for the taking, before falling back to banditry and guerrilla warfare in the hills. It is a snapshot of history, one which doesn’t really offer any hints as to the legacy the revolution has on Mexico today, but as snapshots go it is vivid and alive.
(Of course one shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, but my edition is illustrated by a very expressive photo of the two men. Villa looks ebullient, with Zapata withdrawn and somewhat suspicious. Obviously there weren’t many shots they could choose from, but the cover does seem an excellent summing up the men’s personalities.)
Focusing on the dual stories of the passionate rogue Villa (who fought in the North) and the humourless son of the soil Zapata (who fought in the South), McLynn takes the readers through the many twists and turns of the Mexican Revolution. This is a history of big characters – indeed a lot of the less famous players in the revolution are also incredibly memorable – spreading violence through a wide landscape. (Be warned this us a bloody book, with the number of fatalities seeming head spinning at points.) It is though a human story and McLynn brings to life the worlds these men lived in, and shows why they felt the need to do what they did.
Villa and Zapata only met twice, and that over a three day period. The book charts how they got to that moment, with the whole of Mexico there for the taking, before falling back to banditry and guerrilla warfare in the hills. It is a snapshot of history, one which doesn’t really offer any hints as to the legacy the revolution has on Mexico today, but as snapshots go it is vivid and alive.
(Of course one shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, but my edition is illustrated by a very expressive photo of the two men. Villa looks ebullient, with Zapata withdrawn and somewhat suspicious. Obviously there weren’t many shots they could choose from, but the cover does seem an excellent summing up the men’s personalities.)
May 2, 2021
This was a very comprehensive and thorough account of Emiliano Zapata, Pancho Villa, and the Mexican revolution. The author does a superb job in the first chapter by laying the ground work to include post-colonial Mexico, the agrarian society (village vs. hacienda), the political climate, and the Juarez/Diaz regimes. The book follows with Zapata, Villa, Modero, and whole all the people and events fall into place. Well written and well documented. The writing was not boring and kept me engaged.
July 24, 2024
Frank McLynn's Villa and Zapata provides a generalist overview of the Mexican Revolution, the fraught, multi-sided conflagration that wracked Mexico from 1910 to 1923, and in some places beyond. McLynn (a generalist pop historian) does a fair job sketching the inequities of Mexico under Porifirio Diaz's dictatorship, from the caste and class divides, to the racial disconnect between Spaniards, mestizos and Indians, heavy foreign investment and massive corruption at all levels, which occasionally burst into small, mostly regional uprisings before things came to a head in 1910. McLynn competently narrates the war's battles and ever-shifting allegiances that, to a lay person, can seem hard to follow (is Villa fighting with or against Carranza at a given moment? Why does Huerta betray Madero?). He's quite good at sketching the Revolution's main leaders, from Pancho Villa, an apolitical "social bandit" who became a revolutionary in spite at himself; Francisco Madero, the spiritualist liberal who alternated between striking idealism and Kerensky-ian indecision; Victoriano Huerta, the brutal general who served, then betrayed Madero before becoming the most brutal of caudillos; Emiliano Zapata, the much-lionized peasant guerrilla leader; the shifty Venustiano Carranza and the brave, crafty Alvaro Obregon. McLynn's book often takes a debunking tone (he disposes of the idea that Zapata was an ideological Marxist) and makes some unfortunate comments that border on racial insensitivity. He also provides somewhat debatable analyses of the church's role in Mexico, arguing they were more sinned against than sinning during the anti-clerical purges of Carranza and Obregon, and downplays the degree of foreign, and particularly American intervention (bizarrely praising Woodrow Wilson's ever-vacillating policy as "nuanced"). These flaws, and a tendency to reach for historical analogies to explain Mexico's political and cultural fissures, show the limits of McLynn's approach; an able writer and a fair historian, he is not an expert on the subject; readers better-versed in Mexican history will quarrel with both his conclusions and presentations. But as a reader who confesses a relatively basic understanding of this dense, difficult subject, I found McLynn a perfectly fine introduction that makes me want to read more.
September 19, 2013
TIERRA Y LIBERTAD
I presume Frank McLynn is a workaholic of Stakhanovite proportions. The range of subjects, both historical and biographical, and the number of books he has written is astonishingly large. Nor is he limited to a particular period, or place, as is testified by the diversity of his output which includes books on the Norman Conquest, the Young Pretender, Napoleon, the 1756-63 Franco-British War, the opening of the American West and Henry Morton Stanley. In "Villa and Zapata" he sets himself the task of telling the history of the Mexican Revolution with the focus on two of its principal participants, Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata.
The Revolution kicked off in 1910 with an insurrection by the high-pitched, vegetarian theosophist Francesco Madero. Madero was essentially a Liberal, and aimed to over-throw Porfirio Diaz, the dictatorial ruler of Mexico since 1876. Having achieved this, not least with the military efforts of Pancho Villa, Madero turned out to be a remarkably weak ruler, and before long was assassinated by the deeply unpleasant General Huerta, and Mexico was plunged into a decade long war motivated in part by ideals, and in part by personal ambitions.
McLynn strikes a good balance between telling the story of the Revolution and the story of his two main protagonists. Zapata is by the far the more impressive of the two, his peasant revolution in his home state of Morelos is described by McLynn and the constant pressure, and the many dilemmas Zapata faced, in trying to ensure it's survival are evocatively detailed. Villa is a much more volatile character, often brutal, then compassionate, a remarkably versatile guerrilla fighter who went on to fight large scale battles in a crude and crass manner.
The regional diversity, and the accompanying pressures they exerted on events, are well detailed. McLynn also covers the international context, in particular that of the United States, and it's many interventions, including the landing in Vera Cruz and the invasion of Northern Mexico in order to hunt Villa down; the many battles fought in the course of the Revolution, including the campaigns of pacification, and some of the singular aspects to the fighting including the use of dynamite and locomotives as weapons of war. McLynn has also included some remarkable photographs of the era, in particular those of Emiliano Zapata, which are eerily haunting. The maps unfortunately, despite a thank-you in the preface for his map-man, are far from brilliant.
Frank McLynn tells the story of the Mexican Revolution in an energetic prose, that is always readable, and hard to put down. Out the handful of McLynn books I've read this is the most satisfactory; if it has a fault, it is probably that he appears a little over confident of his opinions, though he does lays the evidence before the reader when he is giving those, and in general they seem reasonable. Well recommend for those interested in Revolutions, or Latin America.
I presume Frank McLynn is a workaholic of Stakhanovite proportions. The range of subjects, both historical and biographical, and the number of books he has written is astonishingly large. Nor is he limited to a particular period, or place, as is testified by the diversity of his output which includes books on the Norman Conquest, the Young Pretender, Napoleon, the 1756-63 Franco-British War, the opening of the American West and Henry Morton Stanley. In "Villa and Zapata" he sets himself the task of telling the history of the Mexican Revolution with the focus on two of its principal participants, Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata.
The Revolution kicked off in 1910 with an insurrection by the high-pitched, vegetarian theosophist Francesco Madero. Madero was essentially a Liberal, and aimed to over-throw Porfirio Diaz, the dictatorial ruler of Mexico since 1876. Having achieved this, not least with the military efforts of Pancho Villa, Madero turned out to be a remarkably weak ruler, and before long was assassinated by the deeply unpleasant General Huerta, and Mexico was plunged into a decade long war motivated in part by ideals, and in part by personal ambitions.
McLynn strikes a good balance between telling the story of the Revolution and the story of his two main protagonists. Zapata is by the far the more impressive of the two, his peasant revolution in his home state of Morelos is described by McLynn and the constant pressure, and the many dilemmas Zapata faced, in trying to ensure it's survival are evocatively detailed. Villa is a much more volatile character, often brutal, then compassionate, a remarkably versatile guerrilla fighter who went on to fight large scale battles in a crude and crass manner.
The regional diversity, and the accompanying pressures they exerted on events, are well detailed. McLynn also covers the international context, in particular that of the United States, and it's many interventions, including the landing in Vera Cruz and the invasion of Northern Mexico in order to hunt Villa down; the many battles fought in the course of the Revolution, including the campaigns of pacification, and some of the singular aspects to the fighting including the use of dynamite and locomotives as weapons of war. McLynn has also included some remarkable photographs of the era, in particular those of Emiliano Zapata, which are eerily haunting. The maps unfortunately, despite a thank-you in the preface for his map-man, are far from brilliant.
Frank McLynn tells the story of the Mexican Revolution in an energetic prose, that is always readable, and hard to put down. Out the handful of McLynn books I've read this is the most satisfactory; if it has a fault, it is probably that he appears a little over confident of his opinions, though he does lays the evidence before the reader when he is giving those, and in general they seem reasonable. Well recommend for those interested in Revolutions, or Latin America.
July 23, 2020
Mexico City’s elevation is 7,350 ft. One half of Mexico is above 3,000 ft. Three of Mexico’s mountains are taller than 17,000 ft. Agave is native to the Yucatan and is also used to make rope and string. Haciendas made food for local consumption. Mexico’s problem was the “disharmony” between international capitalism and the local hacienda system. The time of autocrat Porfirio Diaz was the age of the Railways. The Americans and the British were Mexico’s chief economic predators. In 1910, Revolution breaks out partly because 80-year-old Diaz had no succession plan. By that time, one-half of rural Mexico depended on the hacienda system. Children were inheriting their parent’s debt. Peons were those who lived on the hacienda grounds, as opposed to day laborers. Diaz sold off public lands to big capitalists instead of small farmers.
Zapata represented the agrarian peasantry (those who suffered under the hacienda). Pancho Villa fought for the way the land had been divided up. Artisans were also deeply involved in the city riots that shook the moneyed classes. Mexican xenophobia targeted Chinese and the Spanish. The Mexican Revolution was never “an all-consuming war”. Madero’s presidency resembled that of Diaz. He though the revolution ended when he had taken power; Zapata thought it would only end when there was real agrarian reform. Zapata’s was always running out of ammunition before his opponent (there also was a US arms embargo). Madero is murdered, Huerta takes over. Huerta’s problem was that Woodrow Wilson wouldn’t recognize him. Villa avenges the murder of Madero. Villa had a personal harem of women and yet was known as a champion of women, occasionally dispensing justice for wronged women. He protected US property and executed bandits. Geography kept Zapata from having more than 50 men fighting with him at a time. He couldn’t field large armies.
Villa never slept in the same location twice, and would prowl for sleeping guards and execute them on the spot. He was called “a man-pistol”. He would eavesdrop on his soldiers then sometimes eat their food in feigned camaraderie so he would know he wasn’t being poisoned. He never smoked or drank. He would execute a soldier for stealing a pair of boots. He was huge on education because he didn’t think he knew much. Villa later found when his army was on the move that letting soldiers bring their women dramatically stopped the desertion rate (they could also cook, forage and nurse). Villa was always ambivalent about the church. Zapata himself was neither a capitalist nor an anti-capitalist but believed in local government and never wavered from agrarian reform. Villa and Zapata met only once (see the cover picture). One of the tragedies of the Mexican Revolution was that Villa and Zapata did not cooperate together – that pretty much led to their defeat. Carranza wins the Civil War, Obregon becomes the most important man in Mexico. Villa fought on too many fronts at once and loses in 1915.
US General Pershing takes 5,000 men into Mexico to take out Villa. What a logistical nightmare that was – a 200 truck supply line! No real roads, spending all day in first gear with canteens freezing solid at night. And they were made to carry heavy regulation sabres. A nice touch. Six years of non-stop warfare and “Mexico was in chaos.” The railways were ripped up for all sides, the crops were unharvested. “For much of 1916-19 Mexico was a hungry land.” Famine, Pestilence and disease. The Spanish Flu killed 300,000 Mexicans. Zapata is shot dead. Villa’s fortunes turn – he’s loses hearts and minds and guns and bullets. Carranza is murdered. Villa surrenders. The Revolution is over with Villa later on killed by dum dum bullets entering his car (probably by Obregon). Obregon get his, five bullets are pumped into his face ending the story. Figure 350,000 to 1,000,000 for the death toll of the Mexican Revolution which ended up not changing much except teach elites how to work together to screw the people with a one-party state. And it did make Mexico safe for capitalism. A good book, really glad I finally learned about Villa and Zapata. They live huge in folk memory while Obregon and Carrenza clearly do not.
Zapata represented the agrarian peasantry (those who suffered under the hacienda). Pancho Villa fought for the way the land had been divided up. Artisans were also deeply involved in the city riots that shook the moneyed classes. Mexican xenophobia targeted Chinese and the Spanish. The Mexican Revolution was never “an all-consuming war”. Madero’s presidency resembled that of Diaz. He though the revolution ended when he had taken power; Zapata thought it would only end when there was real agrarian reform. Zapata’s was always running out of ammunition before his opponent (there also was a US arms embargo). Madero is murdered, Huerta takes over. Huerta’s problem was that Woodrow Wilson wouldn’t recognize him. Villa avenges the murder of Madero. Villa had a personal harem of women and yet was known as a champion of women, occasionally dispensing justice for wronged women. He protected US property and executed bandits. Geography kept Zapata from having more than 50 men fighting with him at a time. He couldn’t field large armies.
Villa never slept in the same location twice, and would prowl for sleeping guards and execute them on the spot. He was called “a man-pistol”. He would eavesdrop on his soldiers then sometimes eat their food in feigned camaraderie so he would know he wasn’t being poisoned. He never smoked or drank. He would execute a soldier for stealing a pair of boots. He was huge on education because he didn’t think he knew much. Villa later found when his army was on the move that letting soldiers bring their women dramatically stopped the desertion rate (they could also cook, forage and nurse). Villa was always ambivalent about the church. Zapata himself was neither a capitalist nor an anti-capitalist but believed in local government and never wavered from agrarian reform. Villa and Zapata met only once (see the cover picture). One of the tragedies of the Mexican Revolution was that Villa and Zapata did not cooperate together – that pretty much led to their defeat. Carranza wins the Civil War, Obregon becomes the most important man in Mexico. Villa fought on too many fronts at once and loses in 1915.
US General Pershing takes 5,000 men into Mexico to take out Villa. What a logistical nightmare that was – a 200 truck supply line! No real roads, spending all day in first gear with canteens freezing solid at night. And they were made to carry heavy regulation sabres. A nice touch. Six years of non-stop warfare and “Mexico was in chaos.” The railways were ripped up for all sides, the crops were unharvested. “For much of 1916-19 Mexico was a hungry land.” Famine, Pestilence and disease. The Spanish Flu killed 300,000 Mexicans. Zapata is shot dead. Villa’s fortunes turn – he’s loses hearts and minds and guns and bullets. Carranza is murdered. Villa surrenders. The Revolution is over with Villa later on killed by dum dum bullets entering his car (probably by Obregon). Obregon get his, five bullets are pumped into his face ending the story. Figure 350,000 to 1,000,000 for the death toll of the Mexican Revolution which ended up not changing much except teach elites how to work together to screw the people with a one-party state. And it did make Mexico safe for capitalism. A good book, really glad I finally learned about Villa and Zapata. They live huge in folk memory while Obregon and Carrenza clearly do not.
June 20, 2020
No longer using this website, but I'm leaving up old reviews. Fuck Jeff Bezos. Find me on LibraryThing: https://www.librarything.com/profile/...
with barely any mention of Ricardo Flores Magon or his PLM (save for one or two paragraphs), I found this history to be sorely lacking. But it was fascinating to learn about these two figureheads of the Mexican Revolution of 1910.
with barely any mention of Ricardo Flores Magon or his PLM (save for one or two paragraphs), I found this history to be sorely lacking. But it was fascinating to learn about these two figureheads of the Mexican Revolution of 1910.
July 22, 2019
What was the Mexican Revolution? It was the larger-than-life antics of the brash Pancho Villa, the incorruptible Emiliano Zapata, and the death-seeking Álvaro Obregón, who make for a narrative more entertaining than Hollywood. But most of all, it was years of misery, of firing squads and starvation, impressment and expropriation, internal and external displacement. The Revolution made the downtrodden less deferential, it bound the different social classes into a common culture, and it kicked off an artistic effervescence. But on the more tangible plain, Frank McLynn's assessment is grim. The people traded one set of masters for another, with the dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz giving way to a single-party state.
The prolific author wears his erudition lightly; his narrative is thoroughly engrossing, comprehending the small and large scale by turns. His is a warts-and-all account, for the main protagonists often come across as violent, philandering, and stupid. Even the principled Zapata is often shown to be ideologically rigid and politically naive. McLynn prefers competence to scruples, and intellectual advisors to their warlord bosses. The closest the book has to a hero is Felipe Ángeles, the long-suffering mentor to Villa, perhaps the most violent, philandering, and stupid of his peers. Ángeles' wise counsel was rarely followed, but he was almost always right and he died a brave death worthy of Socrates.
I wasn't surprised that all the main protagonists were eventually killed (even though it took years for cristeros to assassinate Obregón.) — this wasn't the first revolution to eat its young. But I was left with a single question at the close: what accounts for the rise and success of Venustiano Carranza? Why would anyone sacrifice for such an arrogant control freak, particularly when other potential leaders were present and successful? What was decisive in his ability to outlast predecessors like the conciliatory Madero and the vengeful Huerta? Was his single-minded endurance or the foibles and divisiveness of his rivals decisive?
The prolific author wears his erudition lightly; his narrative is thoroughly engrossing, comprehending the small and large scale by turns. His is a warts-and-all account, for the main protagonists often come across as violent, philandering, and stupid. Even the principled Zapata is often shown to be ideologically rigid and politically naive. McLynn prefers competence to scruples, and intellectual advisors to their warlord bosses. The closest the book has to a hero is Felipe Ángeles, the long-suffering mentor to Villa, perhaps the most violent, philandering, and stupid of his peers. Ángeles' wise counsel was rarely followed, but he was almost always right and he died a brave death worthy of Socrates.
I wasn't surprised that all the main protagonists were eventually killed (even though it took years for cristeros to assassinate Obregón.) — this wasn't the first revolution to eat its young. But I was left with a single question at the close: what accounts for the rise and success of Venustiano Carranza? Why would anyone sacrifice for such an arrogant control freak, particularly when other potential leaders were present and successful? What was decisive in his ability to outlast predecessors like the conciliatory Madero and the vengeful Huerta? Was his single-minded endurance or the foibles and divisiveness of his rivals decisive?
January 29, 2024
There were definitely some areas that felt like a drag to read early on, but that could just be an adjustment to the style of writing. The entire history is captivating, depressing, and really showcases the lack of humanity. Incredible amounts of suffering which by the end, Makes you question what it was even all for
July 13, 2025
Reading this felt like experiencing a conflict in Game of Thrones, but it’s all real. The ten or so years this book covers is characterized by unexpected developments, heartbreaks and betrayals at every turn, and the way McLynn frames it through the stories of Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata makes for a truly riveting read.
April 7, 2019
I mean, it's INFORMATIVE. It just didn't make me want to pick it up, which is a shame because the subject matter itself is far from dull. The dry toast of the history section.
June 14, 2023
a fascinating topic, and this is a good place to start. Maybe there are better, more comprehenslve books out there, and more balanced ones. This is the first I've read though, so I don't have anything to compare it with. It was very well written and pacy too
March 24, 2016
It was a bit of a challenging read for me. Mexican history, written by a Brit with occasional British slang or colloquialisms—e.g. cocked a snook—and the fact that I know very little about Mexican history. The Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920 was brought about primarily by the fact that President Porfirio Diaz, ruling from 1876-1911 could not come up with a succession plan. Approaching 84 he was exiled to Paris one year into the revolution, and a chain of Presidential changes that would last for twenty years was on.
The story is told through the point of view of the guerilla fighters, who were from the rural areas, with emphasis on Pancho Villa and Emiliano Zapata, who were considered "Social Bandits". They were very colorful characters, had little military training or formal education, but they were cunning, bold and at times ruthless. They were the right people for the right time in Mexico's checkered history. Neither one ever commanded more than 20,000 troops at a time, and they spent the bulk of their time recruiting fresh troops, as the attrition rate was quite high. Machineguns were finally going into mass production, their technology had been greatly improved, and they were playing a very significant role in modern warfare. Villa and Zapata were two of the early adapters of dynamite for warfare. Hand grenades, barbed wire, accurate rifles, and even a few airplanes were seen in this primitive area.
Mexico was a very Macho country in the first decades of the twentieth century. Men ruled, especially in the countryside where the guerillas fought. Women followed the troops, primarily for companionship. Evening sounds were frequently punctuated by sounds of childbirth, as well as loud sounds of conception. Villa and Zapata were judged to be "Serial Polygamists"—getting married on a Friday night and walking away on Monday morning as bachelors.
The war did not affect everyone in Mexico. The Urban areas, which had only 20% of the population at the time, was relatively untouched. And though the court system and the constitution did enjoy some enhancements, the major accomplishment was that of significant agrarian land reform.
The American Expeditionary Force that invaded Mexico in May of 1916 was an interesting episode. General Pershing took a force of 7000 troops 350 miles into Mexico, ostensibly to capture Pancho Villa, who was inexplicably conducting raids against American border towns. He received worldwide attention for these daring and foolish acts. Hollywood was even making movies about him, in which he enthusiastically participated. The search lasted for 7 months with no success and 500 American deaths. When the US pulled the last man from Mexico in January 1917, it was time to send the seasoned troops off to Europe for our entry into the Great War. Germany was not too worried about the US entry into the war, for they were a force that couldn't even defeat a Mexican bandit, according to German commanders
There were never more than 100,000 troops in uniform at any one time, but because of the high attrition rate it has been estimated that more than 1.5M troops died. Firing squads were a daily occurrence. Summary killing at point blank range on village streets was routine. It was common practice to "take no prisoners"—thus killing all captives. Those that were released were let go with the understanding that they must not return to battle. To ensure that this didn't happen one of their ears was cut off, making them marked men. I had to keep reminding myself that this was taking place in the Western Hemisphere in the 20th century, and yet it was so savage. Very few of the leading characters died in bed. Assassinations were de rigueur for most of them.
The book was too long in my opinion. My review of the events of the book took me to Wikipedia, which was much more clear as it was not cluttered with so many place names and personalities.
July 26, 2017
The Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920 is one of those events in history that I'd heard about vaguely but never with much detail, despite Mexico being next-door neighbors with the United States. Somehow still, despite being interested in the modern Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) indigenous movement, I never knew anything about its namesake, Emiliano Zapata. I picked up Villa and Zapata: A History of the Mexican Revolution hoping to change that and learn more about the man who inspired this movement that I very much support today.
Against the backdrop of the Mexican Revolution, Zapata and his equally infamous pseud0-partner-in-crime Pancho Villa became legends for the feats of guerilla warfare and resistance they championed during that tumultuous ten-year period. Frank McLynn's book uses these two men as the main players (along with Madero, Obregon, Carranza, etc.) who were constant presences throughout the years of the war and strife caused by the uprisings. Both Villa and Zapata had strong influences in their years of activity, for wildly different reasons: Villa was a fairytale hero of sorts, a swashbuckling adventurer with a charismatic appeal and a taste for action; Zapata was a more reserved, calculated man determined to fight for his ancestral home and the peasants who lived there.
Knowing that I support the EZLN, it's not difficult to deduce that I was a fan of McLynn's portrayal of Zapata, for the most part; I found his character and personality to be much more compelling than Villa's. Although both men were similar in certain ways, in particular many of their vices for womanizing and violence, and how they became somewhat paranoid, delusional cult of personality leaders toward the end of their lives, Zapata's narrative seemed much more in tune with the ideals of the revolution. However, McLynn seemed to favor Villa in his own book, focusing more on Villa than he did on Zapata. I realize that both of these men are surrounded by myth and legend, so some of the true events and stories of their lives might not be the most reliable, and information is limited. But I was disappointed that Zapata was put on the backburner when his movement seemed to be the stronger of the two men's.
Still, Zapata is just one man of many in the story of the Mexican Revolution, and McLynn does a fine job in detailing the chronology of that decade-long event. From the initial overthrow of the Diaz dictatorship to the disappointment of Madero's policies to the brutal regimes of Huerta, Carranzo and Obregon, McLynn tells a captivating story of the chaos that Mexico was plunged into during this period in time. I had no idea that Mexico was filled with so many different ideologies, topographies and economies, all of which contributed greatly to the upheaval in that decade—of course all large countries are diverse, but McLynn described the differences from one region of the country (for instance, Sonora or Chihuahua to Morelos and Veracruz) so adeptly that it put the setting into much more context for me.
Villa and Zapata was certainly a good primer for basic information about the Revolution. There were many people, places and events to follow, but even as someone barely in the know about the Mexican Revolution at all, it was a fairly simple and interesting read. I found myself shocked by some of the things McLynn describes, not only the barbarism from the guerilla warriors, but also some of the actions of the U.S. military when the violence and war came too close to the U.S.-Mexico border. It's a subject rich with information and what-if possibilities in history, and I feel much more knowledgeable about the history of Mexican politics and revolution, especially as a backdrop for the entire 20th and 21st centuries.
Against the backdrop of the Mexican Revolution, Zapata and his equally infamous pseud0-partner-in-crime Pancho Villa became legends for the feats of guerilla warfare and resistance they championed during that tumultuous ten-year period. Frank McLynn's book uses these two men as the main players (along with Madero, Obregon, Carranza, etc.) who were constant presences throughout the years of the war and strife caused by the uprisings. Both Villa and Zapata had strong influences in their years of activity, for wildly different reasons: Villa was a fairytale hero of sorts, a swashbuckling adventurer with a charismatic appeal and a taste for action; Zapata was a more reserved, calculated man determined to fight for his ancestral home and the peasants who lived there.
Knowing that I support the EZLN, it's not difficult to deduce that I was a fan of McLynn's portrayal of Zapata, for the most part; I found his character and personality to be much more compelling than Villa's. Although both men were similar in certain ways, in particular many of their vices for womanizing and violence, and how they became somewhat paranoid, delusional cult of personality leaders toward the end of their lives, Zapata's narrative seemed much more in tune with the ideals of the revolution. However, McLynn seemed to favor Villa in his own book, focusing more on Villa than he did on Zapata. I realize that both of these men are surrounded by myth and legend, so some of the true events and stories of their lives might not be the most reliable, and information is limited. But I was disappointed that Zapata was put on the backburner when his movement seemed to be the stronger of the two men's.
Still, Zapata is just one man of many in the story of the Mexican Revolution, and McLynn does a fine job in detailing the chronology of that decade-long event. From the initial overthrow of the Diaz dictatorship to the disappointment of Madero's policies to the brutal regimes of Huerta, Carranzo and Obregon, McLynn tells a captivating story of the chaos that Mexico was plunged into during this period in time. I had no idea that Mexico was filled with so many different ideologies, topographies and economies, all of which contributed greatly to the upheaval in that decade—of course all large countries are diverse, but McLynn described the differences from one region of the country (for instance, Sonora or Chihuahua to Morelos and Veracruz) so adeptly that it put the setting into much more context for me.
Villa and Zapata was certainly a good primer for basic information about the Revolution. There were many people, places and events to follow, but even as someone barely in the know about the Mexican Revolution at all, it was a fairly simple and interesting read. I found myself shocked by some of the things McLynn describes, not only the barbarism from the guerilla warriors, but also some of the actions of the U.S. military when the violence and war came too close to the U.S.-Mexico border. It's a subject rich with information and what-if possibilities in history, and I feel much more knowledgeable about the history of Mexican politics and revolution, especially as a backdrop for the entire 20th and 21st centuries.
December 27, 2014
Francisco "Pancho" Villa and Emiliano Zapata were two of the most colorful revolutionaries of their time. They both were impressive horsemen, military strategists and womanizers. But they took on the establishment to improve the lot of their countrymen. Mexico back in 1910 under strongman Porfirio Diaz was backward almost to the point of medieval Europe. Debt peonage still existed, where poor workers were forced to work to repay debts that ever could be repaid. The hacienda system prevented the rest of the country from moving forward economically, and the haciendas' rivalries with communities over land threatened to remove all independent collective ownership. Author Frank McLynn uses Villa and Zapata to tell the tale of the Mexican Revolution, which stretched a decade and tore up the country and made heroes and villains of a lot of its leaders. The tale is much like a telenovella. McLynn writes the stories not like a stodgy academic but more like he's telling the story around a campfire. It's an adventure novel. The main characters are tragic heroes. We know they die at the end. But Zapata and Villa are truly amazing in their ability to survive. Zapata wanted rural land reform and created the Plan of Ayala, explaining his vision. He wanted to end the inability of the common man and woman to better themselves. Villa wanted land reform as well. He wanted a place to settle down and make a living, perhaps as a butcher. In 1915, had the two a better idea of how to work together, they could have run the country. But neither wanted ultimate power. They just wanted change. In the end, both were betrayed. Both got exceedingly paranoid and more savage in their battles. But the book makes it clear how far Mexico had to go and why now it's still trailing other countries. Neither of these two won the war.
August 28, 2010
This is a historical non-fiction book packed with an incredible amount of detail, but it reads like a novel. It is clear that the author spent a significant amount of time researching his subject, and was able to mold those details into a fascinating read. In the Conclusion Frank McLynn compares the Mexican Revolution to the Iliad, and it really was an epic tale!
March 25, 2011
Brilliant! Before I started this book, I had a general working understanding of the Mexican Revolution and a basic idea of both Villa and Zapata. For 400 pages, this was a page turner. The descriptions and revelations of both Zapata and Villa and how their lives played out in the context of the Mexican Revolution were terrific. Highly regaded for anyone interested in the Mexican Revolution.
April 15, 2009
As usual with McLynn an excellently written book - the details of the Mexican revolution are themselves quite depressing - endless slaughter of innocents and prisoners. Senseless carnage all round but still very much worth a read.
December 30, 2009
ten very tumultuous years in Mexico's history whose effect lasted well into the twentieth century... Very interesting read... I may go back and read it again...
May 31, 2012
one of the best books i've read on the mexican revolution. one of those hard to put down books. alas the ending is all too familiar in mexican history; treachery and betrayal.
March 26, 2016
I learned from this book. I came to respect Zapata more and Villa less. Interesting read.
April 9, 2020
For a guy who has spent the vast majority of his life in what used to be Mexico and has had many Mexican-American friends, I am woefully ignorant of Mexican history. Taking steps to remedy that, I pick up this book.
The Mexican Revolution was a terrifying ten-year period of upheaval and shifting alliances, with constant backstabbing and betrayals. Originally a revolt against the autocratic rule of Porfirio Díaz, the revolution continued as dissatisfaction with the subsequent presidents grew.
By far the best know participants in the revolution were Francisco "Pancho" Villa and Emiliano Zapata. Both legends, the two men could be more different. Villa was the "Centaur of the North," a nearly-illiterate peasant who, prior to becoming a revolutionary, had been a butcher, run mule trains, and operated as a bandit. Possessing incredible personal charisma and a cunning, strategic mind, he fought for land reform in the North. Zapata, operating mainly in the Southern state of Morelos, was an anarchist who demanded the end of the hacienda system. He also led by personal charisma.
Two fascinating men and the tale of the revolution is a bloody one, a war to the knife with very little mercy shown on any side. But what makes this such an interesting read is how two men of very little education or training, could come to lead well-organized armies over a period of years with little more than personal magnetism going for them. Their rise, zenith, and eventual falls are meticulously documented.
So were Villa and Zapata heroes? Were they great leaders or bandits writ large? Neither man was without faults, and both made horrendously costly errors. But they were both powers in the Mexican Revolution and I'm happy to have learned about them.
Note that this is a dense book. The author uses many obscure words and frequently references people or ideas that assume a good knowledge of political history. I had to stop and look things up a few times to understand what was being said. Also, this is a book in dire need of some maps. Not having the geography of Mexico memorized, having maps showing the situation at various times would have been very useful in keeping the picture straight in my head.
Really good book, very happy I picked it up.
The Mexican Revolution was a terrifying ten-year period of upheaval and shifting alliances, with constant backstabbing and betrayals. Originally a revolt against the autocratic rule of Porfirio Díaz, the revolution continued as dissatisfaction with the subsequent presidents grew.
By far the best know participants in the revolution were Francisco "Pancho" Villa and Emiliano Zapata. Both legends, the two men could be more different. Villa was the "Centaur of the North," a nearly-illiterate peasant who, prior to becoming a revolutionary, had been a butcher, run mule trains, and operated as a bandit. Possessing incredible personal charisma and a cunning, strategic mind, he fought for land reform in the North. Zapata, operating mainly in the Southern state of Morelos, was an anarchist who demanded the end of the hacienda system. He also led by personal charisma.
Two fascinating men and the tale of the revolution is a bloody one, a war to the knife with very little mercy shown on any side. But what makes this such an interesting read is how two men of very little education or training, could come to lead well-organized armies over a period of years with little more than personal magnetism going for them. Their rise, zenith, and eventual falls are meticulously documented.
So were Villa and Zapata heroes? Were they great leaders or bandits writ large? Neither man was without faults, and both made horrendously costly errors. But they were both powers in the Mexican Revolution and I'm happy to have learned about them.
Note that this is a dense book. The author uses many obscure words and frequently references people or ideas that assume a good knowledge of political history. I had to stop and look things up a few times to understand what was being said. Also, this is a book in dire need of some maps. Not having the geography of Mexico memorized, having maps showing the situation at various times would have been very useful in keeping the picture straight in my head.
Really good book, very happy I picked it up.
December 31, 2025
I want to say I was thoroughly surprised by this book. The book focuses on the two Homeric figures of the Mexican Revolution Francisco "Pancho" Villa and Emiliano Zapata, the author attempts to create a overall "biography" of the revolution by examining the two revolutionary leaders motivation and exploits in Mexican revolution. Like Homer this is a story of tragedy, both Villa and Zapata ultimately fail in their goals, one through a string of military defeats and the other through attrition and trickery. Throughout the book I couldn't help but admire the two figures of Villa and Zapata and I was surprised that they would eventually become allies as there were opposites in character and in politics their goals did not necessarily align. Villa was a man prone to emotional outbursts who was full of bravado and courage. Zapata was the opposite a man who thought things through and was entirely humourless. In politics Zapata was a provincialist, entirely focused on land reform in his state of Morelos and ousting the hacendados who held significant power over the peasants in the state. Villa expropriated land from the hacendados, but land reform was not his focus, rather he focused on ousting the tyrants of his state (s) Porfirio Diaz, Victoriano Huerta and later Venustiano Carranza. The two revolutionaries would triumphantly meet in the Mexico City in late 1914 at their zenith, the outcome meeting although important ultimately saw the decline of Zapata and Villa as national revolutionaries. This book did a great job at outlining the causes and the ultimate outcomes of the Mexican Revolution. The only criticism I have of the book is that it is riddled with grammatical errors, normally I wouldn't have an issue with that but the errors are prevalent through every chapter and disrupt the flow of the book.
January 21, 2019
This is a very good popular history of the Mexican Revolution. Ostensibly it is well researched based on the thirty two pages of sources. It would have earned five stars except for the following failings.
* It's 400 pages contain not one footnote.
* The use of hyperbolic descriptions: "By the beginning of 1917 the revolutionary energy in Morelos was on surge power." P. 88.
* Bizarre author opinion or unreferenced comment by a source: "This psychological peculiarly of many despots... is in fact more indicative of a fragmenting personality in an uneasy relationship with outer reality. "
* Frequent use of idiom that may be incomprehensible to some readers: "Magaña finally ran Villa to earth in November.... P. 246. Based on the context I believe that the author tried to communicate that Magaña was finally able to meet Villa in November.
* Frequent use of Latin and French words and phrases and obscure literary references.
* The occasional use of cheap devices that attempt to retain the reader's attention like the following line that ends one chapter and, ostensibly, encourages the reader to continue reading (p. 312): "Nobody would have guessed that he [Villa] was about to launch an endeavor that would make him front-page news across the world."
* It's 400 pages contain not one footnote.
* The use of hyperbolic descriptions: "By the beginning of 1917 the revolutionary energy in Morelos was on surge power." P. 88.
* Bizarre author opinion or unreferenced comment by a source: "This psychological peculiarly of many despots... is in fact more indicative of a fragmenting personality in an uneasy relationship with outer reality. "
* Frequent use of idiom that may be incomprehensible to some readers: "Magaña finally ran Villa to earth in November.... P. 246. Based on the context I believe that the author tried to communicate that Magaña was finally able to meet Villa in November.
* Frequent use of Latin and French words and phrases and obscure literary references.
* The occasional use of cheap devices that attempt to retain the reader's attention like the following line that ends one chapter and, ostensibly, encourages the reader to continue reading (p. 312): "Nobody would have guessed that he [Villa] was about to launch an endeavor that would make him front-page news across the world."
August 28, 2020
This is an excellent introduction to the Mexican Revolution. McLynn is well read in Mexican historiography and provides an excellent summary of many of the historiographical debates. I would highly recommend this to anyone wanting to be introduced to the Mexican Revolution.
Although a historical narrative through biography has it's problems, McLynn uses this approach to summarize the events of the revolution in satisfactory detail. I disagree with a few of his statements concerning the causes and impacts of the revolution, but these are finer points and do not take away from the overall narrative construction or historical accuracy. It is obvious McLynn is not a devotee of Villa or Zapata, and provides rounded analysis of their participation in the revolution. McLynn dislikes Carranza, (but who doesn't) and is obviously a fan of Obregon. I would have given this five stars, but I find it totally deplorable to not use foodnotes or endnotes, especially when quoting historical figures or historians.
Based on this work, and my own knowledge re: the Mexican Revolution, I am very interested in reading some of McLynn's other work. Hopefully it will be as well researched and dynamically written as this.
Although a historical narrative through biography has it's problems, McLynn uses this approach to summarize the events of the revolution in satisfactory detail. I disagree with a few of his statements concerning the causes and impacts of the revolution, but these are finer points and do not take away from the overall narrative construction or historical accuracy. It is obvious McLynn is not a devotee of Villa or Zapata, and provides rounded analysis of their participation in the revolution. McLynn dislikes Carranza, (but who doesn't) and is obviously a fan of Obregon. I would have given this five stars, but I find it totally deplorable to not use foodnotes or endnotes, especially when quoting historical figures or historians.
Based on this work, and my own knowledge re: the Mexican Revolution, I am very interested in reading some of McLynn's other work. Hopefully it will be as well researched and dynamically written as this.
August 6, 2025
Frank McLynn knows very well that he is operating under the shadow of Freidrich Katz, whose volume THE LIFE AND TIMES OF PANCHO VILLA remains the definitive biography of the colorful revolutionary. But he is a solid chronicler of history and wisely opts to focus on how Villa and Emiliano Zapata attempted to negotiate -- in quite different ways -- the rotating and frequently corrupt Presidents in Mexico in the early 20th century. It's astonishing how Villa was underestimated and how close Villa was to being implicated for assassinations not long after his release. Villa remains fascinating for his simultaneous ability to charm and infuriate. McLynn thankfully isn't willing to declare any absolutes on Pancho without solid evidence (although the book's arcane approach to sourcing is quite frustrating). But this is a good overview of Mexican history, which I read for research for a script featuring Pancho Villa.
January 1, 2023
Almost two entire months of an on-again, off-again relationship with this book. Some portions of the book were a breeze and were gripping in every sense — others not so much. I do recommend McLynn’s book to anyone that seeks out a larger, more broad understanding of the Mexican Revolution. There are so many avenues that one can dive into in regards to the Revolution, but Villa and Zapata is a great place to start.
As I mentioned, it’s an incredibly dense read with a lot of characters to keep track of (it’s history so) but it makes for a good story. It’s seems that so far, McLynn’s book is the only authoritative, encompassing book on the Revolution. Sure, there are a plethora of books that focus on specific aspects of the Revolution itself, but it can be assumed that McLynn’s is the umbrella.
7.0/10
As I mentioned, it’s an incredibly dense read with a lot of characters to keep track of (it’s history so) but it makes for a good story. It’s seems that so far, McLynn’s book is the only authoritative, encompassing book on the Revolution. Sure, there are a plethora of books that focus on specific aspects of the Revolution itself, but it can be assumed that McLynn’s is the umbrella.
7.0/10
December 27, 2024
Well-researched history by a prolific British historian who says his main debt is to Alan Knight’s two-volume The Mexican Revolution and John Womack’s biography of Zapata. It’s very much history from above, chapters structured around the political rise and fall of the big players in Mexico 1910-20 (esp. Villa and Zapata, but also the president who provoked the Revolution, Porfiro Díaz, and those who succeeded him, notably Francisco Madero and Venustiano Carranza). Mexicans and even Mexico are hard to see in it, just twenty long years of political games, military tactics, duplicity, and violence. But that might not be entirely McLynn’s fault.
My main take-away is that the armed stage of Mexican Revolution was over by January 1915: after that, it wasn’t a revolution but a civil war between the “winners.”
October 18, 2025
The Mexican Revolution is one of the more convoluted events I have studied in history. Frank McLynn does a fabulous job of hitting on the salient points while focusing in on two of the main participants. Pancho Villa and Emilio Zapata. Villa is one of the most studied participants with Frank Katz nearly 2000 page biography the definitive work. This book gets to the heart of Villa without being exhausting. I especially appreciated his portrait of Zapata who was the intellectual heart of the revolution. While also looking at Diaz, Obregon, and Carranza and the interference of Wilson this book provides an overarching assessment of the revolution. This book will give you a great overview with a deep look at these two men and how they shaped the course of events in Mexico. Overall another great book from this author.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 55 reviews