history of warfare

[senorpogo]

I think I may be a war nerd. What's the best way to get into this?

Any suggestions on a good introductory read on the history of warfare? From some Googling, I found and just recently started John Keegan's A History of Warfare.

I'm looking for something that'll give me a good basic history of warfare boring me too much. Actually, I don't mind something that's academic as long as it's informative. I would actually prefer it over a read that sacrifices history for bells, whistles, hulla-hoops, etc...

Suggestions?

[Gurdur]

History as in overall history, timelines et al, or a history as in terms of showing cultural evolution of warfare?

[senorpogo]

History as in overall history, timelines et al, or a history as in terms of showing cultural evolution of warfare?

I guess a little of both. They're kind of intertwined.

But yeah, I'm more interested in the way warfare itself has developed rather than TEAM 1 fought TEAM 2 on date X. A study of not the winners and losers, but the game itself.

So to answer your question - cultural rather than time lines.

[Gurdur]

... So to answer your question - cultural rather than time lines.

Then try this: Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons, and Aggression (http://www.amazon.com/Arms-Men-History-Weapons-Aggression/dp/0195053605/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217912782&sr=1-1), by Robert O'Connell. IMvHO, better than Keegan.

You could also try: Ride of the Second Horseman: The Birth and Death of War (http://www.amazon.com/Ride-Second-Horseman-Birth-Death/dp/0195119207/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217912844&sr=1-2), also by Robert O'Connell.

Or Blood Rites: Origins and History of the Passions of War (http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Rites-Origins-History-Passions/dp/0805057870/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217912920&sr=1-8), by Barbara Ehrenreich.

[senorpogo]

Have you read Keegan? Familiar with him?

I'm just curious to know if he's well regarded. Or if there's such a thing. Does the field have writer's of doctrine, so to speak?

[senorpogo]

Then try this: Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons, and Aggression (http://www.amazon.com/Arms-Men-History-Weapons-Aggression/dp/0195053605/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217912782&sr=1-1), by Robert O'Connell. IMvHO, better than Keegan.

You could also try: Ride of the Second Horseman: The Birth and Death of War (http://www.amazon.com/Ride-Second-Horseman-Birth-Death/dp/0195119207/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217912844&sr=1-2), also by Robert O'Connell.

Or Blood Rites: Origins and History of the Passions of War (http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Rites-Origins-History-Passions/dp/0805057870/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217912920&sr=1-8), by Barbara Ehrenreich.

And thanks, by the way.

Best part of JREF is pooling from all the combined knowledge.

[stilicho]

Have you read Keegan? Familiar with him?

I'm just curious to know if he's well regarded. Or if there's such a thing. Does the field have writer's of doctrine, so to speak?

Keegan was, at least until recently, a professor at Sandhurst. A well-regarded one, too.

Among his achievements in historical investigation was the restoration of the reputation of Haig and detailed analyses of tactics that spawned a renewed interest in forensic archeology.

I recommend, highly, contemporary accounts such as Froissart and Villardhouin. Theoreticians such as Jomini and Clausewitz are also very useful in understanding the military. William S Lind has discussed four generations of warfare in the age of gunpowder and has strongly suggested that there may be a way to establish rules for combat in our era of assymetrical and unconventional warfare as practiced in states or organisations that have no atomic weaponry as defences.

[AbleSugar]

I know this isnt what you were asking but Gallipoli (Great War Stories) by Alan Moorehead (I think) was a pretty good read about how a couple of mistakes can cost around 250,000 lives. About once every five years I wind up re-reading "All quite on the Western Front". Both books are still in a lot of libraries.

[senorpogo]

suggested that there may be a way to establish rules for combat in our era of assymetrical and unconventional warfare.

Rules? Outside of killing the resisting part of the population?

Lind is on the list.

[senorpogo]

I know this isnt what you were asking but Gallipoli (Great War Stories) by Alan Moorehead (I think) was a pretty good read about how a couple of mistakes can cost around 250,000 lives. About once every five years I wind up re-reading "All quite on the Western Front". Both books are still in a lot of libraries.

Actually, that's one of the battles that got me interested in warfare. I'll check it out.

[gumboot]

I don't know about generic books that cover warfare as a whole, but there's some good books that cover specific areas.

Full Circle: The Story Of Air Fighting is a good one for covering war in the air, from memory (I read it when I was about 13).

There's also a lot of nice books on such things as famous battles, or great military blunders, which give you a quick and broad overview of the changing nature of the battlefield, and these can be used to identify key areas of interest to focus on in more depth. (An example being 100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present by Paul Davis.)

I guess it's such a vast topic you could go anywhere with it... military philosophy? Weaponry? Tactics? Organisational structure?

[a_unique_person]

I think I may be a war nerd. What's the best way to get into this?

Any suggestions on a good introductory read on the history of warfare? From some Googling, I found and just recently started John Keegan's A History of Warfare.

I'm looking for something that'll give me a good basic history of warfare boring me too much. Actually, I don't mind something that's academic as long as it's informative. I would actually prefer it over a read that sacrifices history for bells, whistles, hulla-hoops, etc...

Suggestions?

George McDonald Fraser.

[gumboot]

Rules? Outside of killing the resisting part of the population?


Warfare has a long tradition of being governed by both formal and informal "rules". It's perhaps one of the most fascinating aspects of human warfare that in the midst of the singularly most violent and barbaric activity we partake in, we still attempt to bring order and civility.

[AbleSugar]

I think I may be a war nerd. What's the best way to get into this?

Another suggestion is to get married. You can learn a lot about battles. I have become a real master at defense but am still having problems with diplomacy.

[Tolls]

Keegans book is quite a good read, though there is much dispute about part of his thesis that certain cultures were not up to fighting face to face en masse (so to speak), which is why European warfare was so successful.

On the "old historians" front I can recommend maybe Charles Omans large work on 13th-16th century warfare "A History on the Art of War...", or Hans Delbrucks 3 (or is it 4?) volume work with much the same name. Interesting reads.

To be honest, "warfare" is such a large subject that you might want to consider narrowing it down a bit...:)

[paximperium]

I actually suggest you concentrate on specifics eras or topics because this is such a big topic. All the recommendations so far has been pretty good although I'm more into the specifics of American warfare from Revolutionary War, War of 1812, US Civil War, WW2 and Japanese medieval warfare. I also enjoy reading up on Renaissance era warfare and tactics.

There's just too much read up on and it can get overwhelming unless you find something interesting to concentrate on.

[MG1962]

I actually suggest you concentrate on specifics eras or topics because this is such a big topic. All the recommendations so far has been pretty good although I'm more into the specifics of American warfare from Revolutionary War, War of 1812, US Civil War, WW2 and Japanese medieval warfare. I also enjoy reading up on Renaissance era warfare and tactics.

There's just too much read up on and it can get overwhelming unless you find something interesting to concentrate on.

This was going to be my suggestion actually - it is a very big topic to get your head around. Films can be a reasonable way to find what might interest you. Cromwell has some nice English Civil warfare in it

Troy, 300, Alexander, Napolean are good for giving you a taste. Some elements are well done, others dont bare mentioning.

Warfare can be broken into some very broad catagories, Ancient, up too the invention of gun powder. Medieval that then leads into Napoleanic, which leads to modern, often considered to be the American Civil war onwards, which in itself has a major division from WW2 onwards

[paximperium]

This was going to be my suggestion actually - it is a very big topic to get your head around. Films can be a reasonable way to find what might interest you. Cromwell has some nice English Civil warfare in it

Troy, 300, Alexander, Napolean are good for giving you a taste. Some elements are well done, others dont bare mentioning.

Warfare can be broken into some very broad catagories, Ancient, up too the invention of gun powder. Medieval that then leads into Napoleanic, which leads to modern, often considered to be the American Civil war onwards, which in itself has a major division from WW2 onwards

Love 300 and Troy....who would've guessed Greek warriors looked like man-models or musclebuilders?

I did like the examples of the phalanx tactics used in 300 in the first battle because that's pretty close to how it occured but after that it just became kung fu with loin clothes.

[Garrette]

Rules? Outside of killing the resisting part of the population?You'd be surprised how low a priority this is in a successful counterinsurgency.

[MG1962]

Love 300 and Troy....who would've guessed Greek warriors looked like man-models or musclebuilders?

I did like the examples of the phalanx tactics used in 300 in the first battle because that's pretty close to how it occured but after that it just became kung fu with loin clothes.

Yes I was very impressed with the phalanx tactics as well. Like I said, films like that give you a taste. If the Greek era becomes of interest, even a basic book on the subject will highlight the value from dross.

Given the Spartan society and lifestyle, it is very possible most of them had such bodies though

[AgeGap]

Recommending
The face of battle-John Keegan
The World Atlas of Warfare-Richard Holmes (Broad in scope)
Wargaming but much, much more. Slingshot from the SoA http://www.soa.org.uk/
War on the mind: The military uses and abuses of psychology-Peter Watson
ETA The Scars of War-Hugh McManners

A browse in your local library may uncover some gems.

[gumboot]

Another might be to look at some of the key changing points in methods of warfare.

My knowledge is very much centred around western warfare so I can offer some key moments for that lineage of war fighting...

The Greek Phalanx - Classical Greece
The Macedonian Phalanx and Companion Cavalry of Alexander the Great - 4th C BC
The Roman Legion - The Marian Reforms of the 2nd C BC
The Stirrup - appeared in Europe from 5th to 8th Century
The Armoured Knight - developed in Europe as a result of Charlemagne and the use of armoured and mounted Frankish warriors who were granted land as reward for deeds in battle.
The Longbow - 12th C onwards - of Welsh origin but employed by the English. It wasn't so much the weapon itself that was significant (although it was indeed an impressive weapon) but the way the country orientated itself to exploit the weapon - for example Edward I banning all sports except archery on Sundays to ensure that he had a large crop of experienced and skilled archers to call on. The indiscriminate killing of the longbow - in which a rabble of peasants could easily kill (rather than just disable and hold hostage) noblemen - saw the beginning of the end for the mounted knight and the medieval codes of chivalry.
The Musket - from 15th C onwards in Europe - continued the process that was started by weapons such as the longbow and crossbow.
Combined Force Warfare - Napoleonic Wars (18th - 19th C), utilisation of Infantry, Cavalry, and Artillery together in coordinated attacks (particularly use of artillery by Napoleon as an offensive weapon)
The Machine Gun (for an example of how one weapon can totally upend the entire way in which military forces fight, just look at WWI and the Machine Gun) (late 19th C onwards)
The Tank (WWI)
The Aircraft (WWI)
The Wehrmacht (particularly how they trained officers) (1930s)
Conditioning of Soldiers (post WW2) (Korea/Vietnam)

There's some (though not all) of the most important turning points in the evolution of western war fighting.

[Hutch]

Probably no longer in print, but you may find it at your library or local used book store....

WAR by Gwynne Dyer. Nice general work that covers warfare from it's beginnings to the near present (book was written in 1985 to accompany a like-named PBS Series). Good if you don't want to dive in too deeply with Keegan to start, but something that may lead to deeper and more purposeful books.

IMHO of course.

[BigAl]

I recommend "Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism"
by Richard Franks. It's new and incorporates the decrypts of all the Japanese communications that show that Japan was fully prepared to give an invasion force
a very hard time.

In addition to the other good suggestions, the US Marine Corps has an official reading list that I have read some of and recommend. I don't have a link but I'm sure google will find it. The books are listed by appropriate rank. Because of this list, I read Battlefield Earth by Heinlein, recommended for the lowest ranks.

Reading everything is good but remember the aphorism, "amateurs study strategy, Generals study logistics", or something like that. I came to reading military history from the fascination with "how did they do that", supplying the millions of troops overseas with nothing more sophisticated than keypunch cards and related equipment. One of the large branches of the NY Public library has official histories in the non-circulating section. These were produced at the request of the Pentagon after WWII to document what happened. One of the books was on how the troops in Europe were supplied, in hread detail with endless statistics and the most boring book in the world. I loved it.

[Loss Leader]

Here's a very easy, enjoyable and offbeat way to get into the topic:

Bill Fawcett's How to Lose a Battle (http://www.amazon.com/How-Lose-Battle-Military-Blunders/dp/0060760249/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218028838&sr=1-5).

It's an easy read that gives a great overview of how military victories turn into humiliating losses. Then you can research any of the battles or wars that catch your interest.

[quarky]

Histories of technology will certainly over-lap with histories of warfare. Faster boats; sharper arrows; metal shields, etc.

[plumjam]

Another suggestion is to get married. You can learn a lot about battles. I have become a real master at defense but am still having problems with diplomacy.

And you'll get quite an insight into the lot of the common soldier, given the amount of time you'll spend poking about in a cold trench, with your mind on beer and football.

[senorpogo]

Thanks for all the advice. Once I get through Keegan, I'll check out some of the recs. I'm actually most interested in the Mongols and the Huns, the horse warriors of the steppes. You know, the guys who gave the Muslim and Christian world the business.

Reading everything is good but remember the aphorism, "amateurs study strategy, Generals study logistics", or something like that. I came to reading military history from the fascination with "how did they do that", supplying the millions of troops overseas with nothing more sophisticated than keypunch cards and related equipment. One of the large branches of the NY Public library has official histories in the non-circulating section. These were produced at the request of the Pentagon after WWII to document what happened. One of the books was on how the troops in Europe were supplied, in hread detail with endless statistics and the most boring book in the world. I loved it.

To me, war time logistics are like World Cup soccer. They're both objectively boring as sin, but so much is riding on them that it's hard not to find it completely engrossing.

Your mileage may vary.

[ingoa]

B.H. Liddel Hart (His book "Strategy" for example)
That we read (among many others) in the German Course for Senior Officers.
Keegan is a good and an easy read.

But soon one has to go into the details. An army marches on its stomach. Logistic is whats counts. You cannot shoot without cartridges. You cannot shoot without food. Actually you can, but only for a short period.

Napoleon perished in Moscow because of the lack of supplies. Hitler followed his example.

[Hans]

I would suggest

Lawrence H Keeley, War before Civilization, the myth of the peaceful savage. ISBN 0-19-511912-6

[SirPhilip]

I think I may be a war nerd. What's the best way to get into this? There are basically two sides of war, the front and back. At the front are the people fighting them, and at the back, those starting the trouble. In rare situations, someone actually qualified to do this gets into the chain of command, writes about it, and produces something worth reading.

[gumboot]

If you want to look at the psychology behind the regular soldier I recommend On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Lt Col Dave Grossman. The initial sections, and the section on atrocity are particularly interesting.

[zigaretten]

You might check out the works of Theodore Ayrault Dodge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Ayrault_Dodge

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-5743075-0921504?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Theodore+Ayrault+Dodge&x=11&y=16

I have only read Alexander and Hannibal, but I recommend both. These are rather long and detailed works, but highly readable. Also, both works begin with some very useful introductary sections. Alexander begins with the evolution of the individual soldiers, the phalanx formation and the tactics which Alexander was to use.

The section in Hannibal dealing with exactly why the Romans were the best infantry up to that time is excellent. But what I liked best was that these books filled some real voids in my own knowledge of history. I "always" knew that Alexander had marched east and conquered a lot of territory, but if you asked for details I'd have been lost. And my knowledge of Rome pre-Caesar was similarly lacking.

These books also give considerable weight to the diplomatic side of the wars in question.

[SDC]

In addition to the other good suggestions, the US Marine Corps has an official reading list that I have read some of and recommend. I don't have a link but I'm sure google will find it. The books are listed by appropriate rank. Because of this list, I read Battlefield Earth by Heinlein, recommended for the lowest ranks.



Big Al, first let me compliment you on your avatar. From Pogo, right?

Battlefield Earth is L.Ron Hubbard's... Which Heinlein did you really mean? Starship Troopers or something like that? Good book, one of the worst movies in the history of the universe.

[BigAl]

Big Al, first let me compliment you on your avatar. From Pogo, right?

Battlefield Earth is L.Ron Hubbard's... Which Heinlein did you really mean? Starship Troopers or something like that? Good book, one of the worst movies in the history of the universe.

Yup, Pogo, and I confused my SciFi authors.

Pogo For President!

[Garrette]

It's not the area in which you have expressed interest, but if you want to get a feel for the proper mix of strategic/logistical thinking and tactical execution, and you want it to be an eloquent read, then I suggest Churchill's The River War. It is about Britain's retaking of Sudan (with Khartoum as the goal) after the death of Chinese Gordon.

Churchill brilliantly recounts Kitchener's operations, including reasons for his decisions and how logistics and geography affected them, and provides a truly thrilling account of the Battle of Omdurman.

[dudalb]

Big Al, first let me compliment you on your avatar. From Pogo, right?

Battlefield Earth is L.Ron Hubbard's... Which Heinlein did you really mean? Starship Troopers or something like that? Good book, one of the worst movies in the history of the universe.

Beat me to it. I was about to beat Big Al to a pulp for comparing Heinlein as a writer withe the uber hack Hubbard.
"Starship Troopers" is certainly an interesting book. I would not say it is Heinlein's best (his tendacy to preach really hurts the book) but it is full of interesting ideas, which were totally mispresented in the wreched movie.(And I don't agree with all of them myself).
ANd the MI without powered armor...blasphemy!

Perhaps the single best work of Military History I have read is "Battle Cry Of Freedom" by James MacPherson. Brilliant on every level, and easily the best single volume history of the American Civil War I have read.
I have not read yet, but have just ordered, "Hiroshima In History" . I suspect it will not tell me much I did not know before, but it will be nice to have agood volume to refute the amount of nonsense about the topic that is so widespread.

[Gurdur]

.... Perhaps the single best work of Military History I have read is "Battle Cry Of Freedom" by James MacPherson. Brilliant on every level, and easily the best single volume history of the American Civil War I have read.



It's not the best I've read, but it certainly is a great book, and the very best single book on the American Civil War.

Here's some more good reads (http://www.librarything.com/catalog/Gurdur&tag=World%2BWar%2BOne) on a very different war.

[jimbob]

John Keegans book is certainly interesting: It is a very broad approach, including comparing hunter-gatherers, agrarians and pastoralists (clue: the Mongol horde were pasotralists).

[BigAl]

Speaking of ol' Winston, I recommend The Story of the Malakand Field Force

His first published book, it detailed an 1897 military campaign on the Northwest Frontier (an area now part of Pakistan and Afghanistan).

It's online and free from Project Gutenberg.

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/9404