History of Warfare: Art Of War: War and Military Thought

Rating:
Summary: reliable, nicely illustrated overview
Review: Certainly, for a more detailed introduction and for deeper explorations of military history, one would undoubtedly turn to other sources--preferably original works from Sun Tzu, Jomini, Mahan, and the rest. That said, however, Creveld's book provides a very decent, very solid introduction to and overview of military thought, and I do think that this was the purpose of the volume--to make the material accessible and enjoyable to a very broad audience.

The opening timeline, I thought, was extremely helpful, and the illustrations throughout were, contrary to what some others have said, quite useful and also very vivid. The maps, diagrams, paintings, and photos definitely enhanced the text. All the greats are here, and their ideas are seen in practice and also placed, if briefly, in their broader political and social perspectives.

For those already well versed in military history and strategy, you will probably want to look elsewhere (unless you're a Creveld devotee or like lots of illustrations peppered throughout your history). But if you're looking for a dependable, not-too dense overview of the history of warfare, I would certainly recommend this as a safe starting point.

Rating:
Summary: The almost perfect introduction to the theory of war
Review: I thought The Art of War was an good book - albeit slightly different than what I expected. Its literally a basic survey of military theorists, not a survey of military practice (this can be very weird in terms of structure since major conflicts are usually skipped over - everybody being too busy fighting to write much about war).

A quick read (many of its pages are devoted to large and completely irrelevant illustrations and historical paintings), I thought it was disappointingly light in articulating the core theories of the many theorists it discusses (the maps describing key battles which supposedly illustrate key principles of the various theorists are uniformly awful). Its other great weakness is the author's continual need to gloss over details "which everyone must know" despite the fact that the tone and depth of the material is clearly aimed at one who has no knowledge of the subject whatsoever (like yours truly). Thus the reader is 'spared' arguably unnecessary details such as who stole credit and back-stapped who after the Second World War, but also spared even a brief biographical sketch of Clauswitz (all the more baffling because he considers such information critical to the understanding of many other theorists).

Yet I still liked the book and thought I met my basic needs. Overall I think it presents a very balanced and necessary broad picture of the history of military theory, and I now feel completely comfortable diving into, The Art of War, On War, Strategy, etc. Knowing more or less what period of history they fit into, what those who followed thought of them, how those writings influenced actual conflicts an what conflicts they came from. In short, twenty dollars well spent to bypass a year of reading and cross-referencing just to get a good context for my studies. I really wish this book really delved into detailed explorations of the theories (with good examples and illustrations please!) in which case it would have been easily worth twice the price.

Rating:
Summary: A brief overview of Military thought
Review: Martin van Creveld is one of the better military historians of the last half-century or so. He writes clearly and intelligently, and produces books that are timely and innovative. He has at times gotten himself into controversies with various other authors over his interpretations of events, but he does at least think innovatively and ananlytically. If he has a weakness as a writer, it's that he's too scholarly for the general public, and his ideas are therefore somewhat inaccessible.

The present volume is an attempt at an overview of the progress of military theory, as opposed to the evolution of warfare itself. It is structured, therefore, as a review of each work on warfare, one after the other in turn. As another reviewer noted, this leads to the weird phenomenon of a book about warfare (indirectly anyway) which jumps right over both World Wars without a blink. The author also attempts to keep to his subjects (the works themselves) and as a result gives the lives of the writers short shrift, at some points. Also he avoids discussing several controversies much (notably the question of how much influence Liddell Hart *really* had on the German Blitzkrieg) claiming that they've been dealt with elsewhere. This is no doubt true, but since this is supposed to be an introductory volume on the subject, saying this without even directing the reader to another volume is a bit annoying.

Taking all of the above into consideration, I enjoyed this book a great deal. Why not five stars then? Well the book is peppered with illustrations that are only marginally connected to the text of the book. Some of them are portraits of military thinkers or generals, and are reasonably worthwhile, though one that is supposed to be Sherman looks more like Grant. But also there are many elaborate maps (a standout feature of the Cassell History of Warfare series) and here they have nothing to do with the text and are superfluous. The only thing they do is take up space. The last one, for instance, depicts the war in Bosnia, and that's not even mentioned in the text at all, really. So I enjoyed the book, but I would hope they would rerelease it as a monograph without the useless pretty pictures.

Rating:
Summary: VERY GOOD INTRODUCTION
Review: This book by Van Creveld might disappoint his hard core followers. But not me, or the general public, to the broader audience for which it was intended.
So here we have a very good description of the evolution of military theory and strategy. The basic outline of chinese military thought, of Onasander, Frontinus, Asclepiodotus and others from antiquity util the middle ages, puts things in perspective. Then the author takes us on a excursion through the Middle ages,Machiavelli, Guibert, and some others until Clausewitz.
The importance of Jomini, Liddel Hart, Mahan, Ludendorff and many others is briefly outlined due to the nature and purpose of the book. At the end, for those that want to further explore, the author also has basic suggestions. Those that criticize this book for the brevity of the exploration of certain periods or authors, miss the point. Not everybody can read the direct sources and not everyone is involved in waging war.
For those who seek an understanding of how military thought evolved to the present stage, this is the right book to start with ( or to end, if you are not seriously committed to the matter at hand)

Rating:
Summary: A decent introduction to the subject
Review: This book is visually impressive, but too brief and light to get a reccomendation from me. Van Creveld and Keegan are real heavyweights, and two of my favourites. Perhaps it is only because I consider their standards so high that this volume is a disappointment.

Rating:
Summary: A good broad review of a complex topic
Review: This work by van Creveld is part of the History of War series from Cassell and is edited by notable historian John Keegan. It attempts to cover in single readable volume the development of military thought from ancient to modern times. Such a broad "Military Theory Survey 101" is necessarily shallow in depth. It is notable for several points: 1. It discusses Eastern theories of warfare from the ancient Chinense and other non-European viewpoints. 2. It discusses naval (Mahan, Corbett) and air power theories (Mitchell, Duhuet). 3. It gives proper credit of the concept of "total war", that is a whole nation or peoples in a struggle, to early civilization, such as the Romans.

Unfortunately because of the shallowness, it has occasionally, a "if it is chapter 5, it must be Clausewitz" feeling of hurrying along. It drops tantilizing clues about some controversies - i.e. was Liddel Hart really an proto-theorist of maneuver warfare or was it a post-WWII creation? Were air power theorists of the 1920's predicating the effectiveness of strategic bombing on the use of mass destruction weapons? (for their time, 1920's, gas bombs)Finally though there is a wonderful map showing how the campaigns of the One Hundred Year's War were fought not just along political/geographic lines, but also along available areas for plunder and forage, much more could have been said about the rising importance of military logistics, especially as van Creveld is an expert in this area.

In short, an excellent survey of the major ideas in military thought. All of the usual suspects are there, Sun Tzu, Clauswitz, and Mahan along with those thinkers more usually associated with the world of politics. If you have to blitz through 2,500 years of theory in one night, this is the book.

Rating:
Summary: War-Lite
Review: To echo the comments of reviewers "wanchob" and "a reader from Israel," Martin Van Creveld has done exactly what he stated he would in presenting "The Art of War." Long on breadth and short on depth, this work touches on the ideas of the most well-known military theorists in history. It is a good starting point for new students of military history, and a convenient reference. I was pleased to see a listing of notable military thinkers at the end of the book, as I was a list of suggested further reading.

Once the reader has absorbed what Creveld has to say, they may seek a more detailed analysis of war in, for example, Donald Kagan's "On the Origins of War" (Anchor Books, 1995). For a discussion on a true theory of combat, a good companion work is Trevor Dupuy's "Understanding War: History and Theory of Combat" (Paragon House, 1987).

Rating:
Summary: War-Lite
Review: To echo the comments of reviewers "wanchob" and "a reader from Israel," Martin Van Creveld has done exactly what he stated he would in presenting "The Art of War." Long on breadth and short on depth, this work touches on the ideas of the most well-known military theorists in history. It is a good starting point for new students of military history, and a convenient reference. I was pleased to see a listing of notable military thinkers at the end of the book, as I was a list of suggested further reading.

Once the reader has absorbed what Creveld has to say, they may seek a more detailed analysis of war in, for example, Donald Kagan's "On the Origins of War" (Anchor Books, 1995). For a discussion on a true theory of combat, a good companion work is Trevor Dupuy's "Understanding War: History and Theory of Combat" (Paragon House, 1987).