Wanted to get your thoughts on this kind of niche history book and if you thought it is effective: the dual biographies of two people, like Hitler and Stalin.
As you know, I'm kicking around new ideas for a book and it hit me that two of my favorite historical people have somewhat similar, yet a little different biographies. It's not a perfect fit, but that's fine, I think their lives illustrate some broader themes about life and how to overcome adversity. But before I pursue the idea further, I wanted to get some thoughts you guys might have on a. books like this that have worked, and b. who some folks you thought could be compared (or contrasted) effectively this way.

My only experience with this is Brand's book on Lincoln and John Brown. I found it an interesting way to discuss both men and how they viewed the country and issue of slavery.

Historian Stephen Kotkin published a trilogy on Stalin, and the second book is titled "Stalin: Waiting for Hitler," so there may be some overlap with what you're proposing.

That's a good one and so is William C. Davis, Three Roads to the Alamo about Crockett, Bowie and Travis. Travis is a pretty late entry in what one of my friends calls a triography.

Lots of Lincoln books like that with both Douglases. Lee and Grant, there are many effective books that use this technique.

Maximillian and Juarez would be an interesting contrast as would Houston and Lamar, especially on the Indian question.

One I came across recently would be a Joe Johnston and George McClellan dual biography. I was unaware of their deep friendship and voluminous correspondence in the ante bellum years. Their personalities were completely different with the exception of no moral courage and rubbing their superiors the wrong way. But after perusing their correspondence, they were closer friends than I realized. Although I think Joe had more affection for George than the other way around. But they both shared a deep affection for George .

Winston Groom did three biographies that had three people featured in each of these biographies. The Allies, The Aviators and The Patriots. I enjoyed all three.

How about Sam Houston and Davy Crockett?

Both grew up poor in Tennessee, lacked much formal education, served in the Tennessee militia in the War of 1812 under Andrew Jackson, lost their first wives due to divorce/early death, elected to the United States Congress, moved to Texas after 1830 and fought in the Texas Revolution. Probably the namesakes for as many schools and geographical sites as anyone in Texas.

Of course, there are many differences, too.

The original is still the best - Parallel Lives by Plutarch.

Custer and Crazy Horse - Stephen Ambrose

I swear I thought there some book about the Raven - Sam Houston and ?? Something concerning Santa Anna

The Raven and The Eagle - that a Michener novel I haven't read

I think the two person biography could be interesting
Opposite sides of a battle or campaign

Good thoughts. I kind of like the Three Roads to the Alamo, but I'm going to engage in a little heresy here: Davy Crockett was not particularly relevant.

I know, lightning bolts coming down from the sky. But if you look at how the Alamo battle unfolded, and you imagine it without Davy, almost nothing changes. Part of this was by his own decision to be a "high private" but really the story is about Travis and Bowie. And I know that Davy fought well, but take him out and maybe a few Mexicans live, but the battle outcome is the same. His greatest effect, if anything, was to make the war more front page news in America, driving more volunteers, but most of the ones who came after Crockett's death were late to San Jacinto and just showed up and wanted land for doing nothing.

No, my crazy idea (and I'm starting to think it's more crazy than realistic) was a comparative bio of Sam Houston and Theodore Roosevelt. They both had devastating blows in their personal lives that shook their worlds and caused them to move out West to rediscover themselves. TR lost his wife and mother to disease on the same day (Valentines Day) and was so heartbroken that he gave up his promising political career to go to South Dakota. Sam Houston had a blowup of his newlywed life when his wife of 3 months abandoned him and fled to her parents. He in turn abandoned his governorship of Tennessee and fled west to go live with the Cherokees.
In the end, TR came back and got involved with Politics before finding himself on the Battlefield with the Rough Riders. Sam Houston established himself in Texas politics and found himself at the Battle of San Jacinto.
It's not really a perfect match, and the real question is, outside of the coincidences, why do anything on it. I don't know, maybe it could be a story about redemption and how to embrace the future after seemingly losing everything valuable.
Again, the more I think about it, I'm leaning against it, but if I have an insight that makes it more interesting (or if I found maybe another example or two matching the faliure to redemption narrative) maybe it would work.

I haven't read it, but my dad really enjoyed the Raven and the Eagle (Houston & Santa Anna)

I think dual biographies work best when the two characters come into a conflict that you are building toward

Like a Grant and Lee dual bio would be compelling.
Marius and Sulla.
The Kennedy's vs the Cabot's. (It's far from Texas, but a multi-generational history on the rise of the Kennedy's vs the fall of the Cabot's would be fun political history)

Is there a dual biography of Sam Rayburn and Lyndon B. Johnson?

Once an Eagle by Anton Meyer is a novel but was once required reading in the Army War College. It follows 2 officer's careers from enlistment to GO.

How about a dual biography of James Wilkinson and Aaron Burr? Two of the most unlikable, treasonous people in United States history. And as unsavory people are prone to do, Wilkinson betrayed his "friend" Burr to save his own skin.

Honestly, the comparisons and themes you're talking about sound more like an article or maybe chapter(s) in a larger book with multiple examples of leaders overcoming personal adversity - which might be interesting if you want to write something more commercially accessible.

When addressing famous subjects, you have to consider how much your potentially niche audience has already read about them, and see what's really left when you strip away well known biographical details. Citations alone could be time consuming on your part. I did a paper on TR once for a course on the presidency, and it was one of the easiest papers I ever had to write because it was so easy to find relevant articles to strip mine sources and citations from.

Speaking of "dual biographies", I read a review of this new book, "The Fate of the Generals: MacArthur, Wainwright, and the Epic Battle for the Philippines", about Generals Douglas MacArthur and Jonathan Wainwright. Both attended West Point and were awarded the MOH for the defense of the Philippines, but little else in common.

https://a.co/d/f8kqoHm