The Art of War

Rating:
Summary: From my review paper on this book
Review: Extended Exerpt from my review essay for my military history course of this book:
During the Renaissance, the Italian city states' main motivation for conducting warfare was not to annihilate their rivals, but to achieve security and predominance over a limited, but expanding, field of influence. In an atmosphere of growing economic development, rising civic humanism, and expanding city state authority, the Condottieri, leaders of mercenary companies, became the dominant figures in Italian Renaissance warfare. The predominance of these mercenaries spawned a hotly contested debate over their role and effectiveness in conducting warfare and protecting the city states' interests. In The Art of Warfare, Italian Renaissance humanist Nicollo Machiavelli describes these Condottieri as an extremely negative influence on Italy's military strength. Machiavelli separates his work into seven "books", in which Papal Captain Fabrizio Colonna delivers a virtual monologue on the proper method of conducting warfare. Throughout his book, Machiavelli offers detailed arguments and descriptions to inform modern military leaders on the proper way to recruit, train, arm, and encamp soldiers.
Machiavelli published The Art of War in 1521, and argues that the contemporary state of Italian armies is deplorable in comparison to both Rome's brilliant fighting force and contemporary French and Swiss armies. He argues that the Italian states can save themselves from this miserable situation by removing the vicious, selfish, and treacherous Condottieri. Machiavelli repeatedly claims that, "We shall find many things worthy of imitation" in the military methods of the ancients, and urges Italian city states to use heavily drilled and disciplined soldiers-citizen armies, and to organize these soldiers in a manner almost identical to Roman legions. He argues that such an army would be much more loyal, motivated, and religiously inspired than the ineffective and disloyal Condottieri-led forces.
Machiavelli's does not offer enough evidence to prove much of his thesis. A major reason for this lack of evidence is that Machiavelli's experience with military operations came as a secretary for two Florentine Commissioners of War, and his entire knowledge of Italian Renaissance warfare was limited to Florence. This is extremely problematic because Florence had the least permanent, the most poorly organized, and the least developed Condottieri army in Italy. As a result, Machiavelli's study of fifteenth century Italian warfare is largely unscholarly. He cites virtually no sources or examples to back up his diatribes about the ineffectiveness and backwardness of Italian armies. This lack of evidence leads him to make inaccurate claims, like his contention that contemporary Italians were unaware of many of the great military developments that the French and other European armies employed. This claim is dubious because a high proportion of the Condottieri infantry constables were foreigners, and would have known about European military techniques; and while no major foreign army invaded Italy until 1494, Italian forces clashed with Swiss, French, and Spain foes many times during the fifteenth century.
Machiavelli relies almost exclusively on classical sources for his military recommendations. For example, he copiously cites Livy and Vegetius to detail the ways in which the Romans organized their legions. These Roman sources are not reliable because these scholars wrote their works, in part, to glorify Rome, rather than simply to give an exact account of Roman warfare. Moreover, Machiavelli uses these already flawed sources very poorly. At one point, he claims that Renaissance warriors should emulate a particular model of the Roman legion, but does not take into account the evolution of the legion over the years or the reasons for this evolution. As a result of this mistake, he describes and recommends a legion that never actually excited. Machiavelli does make several astute points about the nature of the rank-in-file mercenaries soldiers, and points out that, "Those who are not your own subjects, but are willing to enter into your pay, are so far from being the best men that they are the generally the worst men in in any state." But he does not bolster these claims with any imperial evidence or research.

FINAL EVALUATION:
The overall quality of Machiavelli's The Art of War as a historical account of Italian Renaissance warfare is poor. Machiavelli is not a soldier, general, or historian, but is a political secretary with very limited first-hand military knowledge. As a result, his book is clearly politically motivated, limited in its evidence, and a product of its time and circumstances. On the other hand, Machiavelli's book is significant as a work of military theory, and as F.L. Taylor writes, Machiavelli "is the first secular writer to attempt to allot the practice of arms its places place among the collective activities of mankind, to define its aims, to regard it as a means to an ends." Machiavelli makes several important and useful recommendations- like the drilling of men, the reliance on infantry rather than cavalry, and the long-term superiority of citizen armies to mercenary armies. As a result, a reader should study the Art of War as a flawed but interesting and important theoretical work, rather than a historical account of the Condottieri and Italian Renaissance warfare.

Rating:
Summary: An interesting novel
Review: I like this book, even though, at times it was difficult for me to follow. I like the translation. I have read other translated books where I find it difficult to read the book. First, I want to say that this is the first military instruction book I have read, and second, that I read this book to find out how people fought before there were weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, I thought this book was an excellent tool in describing ancient military tactics. But even if you aren't interested in military tactics as much, this book was also interesting because I enjoy history. I thought it was going to describe how to march, train, and fight, which it did, but it also made numerous references to the actions of past military leaders. I enjoyed reading about the successes and failures of people whose names I recognized from history class. Additionally, I enjoyed the style. Niccolo uses a different style of writing then American authors, and on occasion I like to read something different. It is a good book that I would recommend to anyone who enjoys learning about history.

Rating:
Summary: An interesting novel
Review: I like this book, even though, at times it was difficult for me to follow. I like the translation. I have read other translated books where I find it difficult to read the book. First, I want to say that this is the first military instruction book I have read, and second, that I read this book to find out how people fought before there were weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, I thought this book was an excellent tool in describing ancient military tactics. But even if you aren't interested in military tactics as much, this book was also interesting because I enjoy history. I thought it was going to describe how to march, train, and fight, which it did, but it also made numerous references to the actions of past military leaders. I enjoyed reading about the successes and failures of people whose names I recognized from history class. Additionally, I enjoyed the style. Niccolo uses a different style of writing then American authors, and on occasion I like to read something different. It is a good book that I would recommend to anyone who enjoys learning about history.

Rating:
Summary: Get ready to love the Roman's
Review: I'm an immature college student with a deep interest in military strategy. I really enjoyed this book. Before I read it i felt that the coolest thing in the history of warfare had to be the ninja or the samurai. I thought their fighting styles were the coolest thing since sliced bread. The devotion and loyalty to the shogun, etc. etc. etc. Typical geek attitude.

But when i read this book, Machiavelli made such a good case about how the Roman's were the true badasses of history that this book changed my opinion about them completely. I never had an interest in the Roman's before this book, after reading it i consider their military strategy and way of life superlative to ours in a lot of ways.

The one thing i didn't like this book is when it gets as specific as to describe the military formations of the Roman armies. I have no problem reading about that, but i felt the translation could have given some explanation about what Machiavelli was talking about or at least some explanation of the pictures.

Rating:
Summary: How to Run a Renaissance Army
Review: Niccolo Machiavelli is commonly known as an abstract, political thinker, but this work shows an entirely different side, being a compendium of Renaissance military tactics and equipment.

If you were ever transported in time and place to 16th century Italy, this book would be an excellent guide in how to raise, train, and equip a citizen army that could fight for your city state. He also goes into some depth abvout military fortifications, as well.

Macchiavelli argues in the book for a citizen-army; given the troubles of Italy with roving mercenary armies in his day, one can see why his arguments make sense.

A profound work for a military historian to read, although a casual reader might find it too pedantic.

Rating:
Summary: How to Run a Renaissance Army
Review: Niccolo Machiavelli is commonly known as an abstract, political thinker, but this work shows an entirely different side, being a compendium of Renaissance military tactics and equipment.

If you were ever transported in time and place to 16th century Italy, this book would be an excellent guide in how to raise, train, and equip a citizen army that could fight for your city state. He also goes into some depth abvout military fortifications, as well.

Macchiavelli argues in the book for a citizen-army; given the troubles of Italy with roving mercenary armies in his day, one can see why his arguments make sense.

A profound work for a military historian to read, although a casual reader might find it too pedantic.

Rating:
Summary: REVISITING A POPULAR BOOK IN ITS TIME
Review: Today, when you mention The Art of War, people refer immediately to the book by Sun Tzu. However, the only works published for the general public during Macchiavelli's life are the Decennale Primo, the Mandragola, and this one. The work being review was published in Florence by Macchiavelli in august 1521 and it had an immediate success and many reprints.
Having completed already The Prince and the Discorsi, and not foreseeing any possibility of returning to public service, Macchiavelli decided to write a book about warfare, in part as a result of his meetings and conversations with a group of young alumni and friends at the Orti Oricellari. Some of these were involved, in 1522, in a conspiracy to kill Cardinal Giulio de'Medici,Master of Florence.
The Art of War is not a textbook, but rather a humanistic treatise on the subject, written under the form of dialogues, divided in seven books. The interlocutors are Fabrizio Colonna, Cosimo Ruccellai and the young men Buondelmonti, della Palla and Alamanni. The first book deals with recruitment, the second with the weapons of infantry and cavalry, the relationship between this corps and military exercises. Colonna and Ruccellai are the protagonists of the dialogues here, while in the III book the role of interlocutor to Colonnais vested upon the younger Alamanni. Alamanni inquires about the role of the artillery and is substance Macchiavelli's judgement (through Colonna's words) is negative. In the IV book Buondelmonti inquires about the importance of military formations and other possible combat formations (different from the traditional roman and others).
The final three books deal with logistics, accommodations, military discipline, fortifications, sieges and defensive tactics.
The language of this opus is the most polished and conventional, opposed to the one in other works by the author. Modern critics, in spite of the original success of the book, have pointed out the wrong perception that Macchiavelli had about the growing importance of artillery and the role of military reforms that were enacted in France at the time. He also wrongly criticized, as a whole, the professional army alongside the mercenaries and Compagnie di Ventura. The admiration of M. regarding roman legions and classic institutions is also questionable, in view of the evolution of warfare at the time. So why was this book so popular, until the anti-M. revisionism took a clearer look at reality, discarding abstract and moralistic propositions about warfare?
Because the treatise provided a clear and fresh (at the time) view about the intimate connection between military art, politics, war and religion, in a global context.