A one volume history of the Peninsular War
589174
David Gates' "The Spanish Ulcer" provides one of the very few single volume histories of the Peninsular War that attempts to address the entire conflict and not focus on, for example, the exploits of the Anglo-Portuguese Army.  Gates addresses the actions of the Imperial French, the struggles of the Spanish politicians, armies and guerillas, and the fiasco of Portugal prior to the British intervention.  That Gates manages to do in one volume what Charles Oman required seven volumes to cover is, however, both a strength and a weakness.  On the one hand, students of the era now have a single reasonably comprehensive summary of the Peninsular War phase.  On the other hand, of necessity, much of the detail of a very complex conflict is compressed, while the narrative tends to jump from place to place.  Some advance knowledge of the conflict is almost required to make sense of the many moving parts.  Unfortunately, the maps provided in the text are not well designed and more confusing than helpful.  Readers are advised to track the action on their own large map of the Iberian Peninsula.  This book is strongly recommended to those with an interest in the Peninsular War but not the time or energy to work through the longer studies.
888221
Reasonably good introduction and outline of the siege and battle of Vienna. We get a clear understanding of the forces involved as well as the political players and their battle plans. He also clearly takes us through the story of the Ottomans setting out from Istanbul and marshalling their forces. It is also interesting to hear a little more about how early rains delayed the Ottomans by a few crucial days, which probably made all the difference to whether the relieving allied army would have found a besieging Turkish army or a city already in Ottoman hands. At the end of the day, logistics played such a large role in this matter that one wonders if the campaign was already lost/won in the respective quartermasters offices!
  It might be made a little better by showing how all these forces worked together (especially in the Ottoman army, whose formations still seem to be murkily understood, as in most battles), though Vienna is something of a special case given the uneveness of the terrain and disorganised nature of the fighting. The author could have benefited from consulting some Turkish sources a little more  - the great elephant of unused Turkish archives remains firmly in this room of Ottoman history. Otherwise, even if the narrative could be improved on, we have some informative and downright beautiful drawings by Peter Dennis which make all the difference.
1193127
This short volume (only 73 pages, including more than a dozen illustrations) is a good military biography of George Washington, the Soldier.

Author David Palmer, a well known and respected Soldier and Historian, divides Washington's military career into four parts - Aspirant, Colonel, General, and Commander in Chief and concludes with a brief examination of Washington's legacy, which was considerable.

Indeed, at the end of the Revolutionary War, Britain's King George himself stated that if Washington voluntary surrendered the immense power Congress had given him during the war, he would be the greatest man of the Eighteenth Century and one of the greatest men that had ever lived.

Palmer, however, mythologizes Washington, giving him too much credit for the success of others. The reality is that the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army had to learn the business of war against the British the hard way and suffered defeat after defeat in the first two years of the war. Had it not been for the likes of brilliant general such as Benedict Arnold, Nathanael Greene, Ethan Allen and others - and the repeated bungling of battle after battle by a long line of less than competent British generals - the war might have well been lost.

There is, however, no denying that Washington evolved into an extremely effective military strategist and field commander later in the war, maintaining an army in the field under almost impossible conditions and then defeating the British (with considerable help from his French, Spanish and Dutch allies) again and again.

Still, those who know little about George Washington the Soldier and Commander and Chief will find this small and inexpensive volume a good read!
1597745
Author Michael Glover was a British Army veteran of the Second World War who turned to writing military history later in life.  "Wellington's Peninsular Victories" is a 1996 reprint of a superb short history first published in 1963.  Glover provides a concise yet remarkably insightful narrative of Wellington's campaigns in Portugal, Spain, and France during the period 1809 to 1814, with special emphasis on the key battles of Busaco, Salamanca, Victoria, and the Nivelle.

Glover wrote several studies of the British Army in the Peninsular War, and if his work in this book is derivative of older scholars such as Oman and Napier, he has also gone to some effort to find first hand accounts that flesh out the drier details of Wellington's campaign style such as logistics and siegecraft.  The key leaders get short biographical vignettes, but Glover finds space in a very tightly written 148 pages of text to work in details about the individual British soldier.  The book includes a small selection of maps and photographs.

"Wellington's Peninsular Victories" is very highly recommended as a concise but well-written survey of the British Army in the Peninsular War, for the general reader and for the student of Napoleonic warfare.
2595118
While Hassig's writing tends to be a bit dry, _Aztec Warfare_ has much to recommend.  Its greatest merit is the organziation.  The first 50-odd pages detail the socio-political organization of Meso-America in the 13th and 14th centuries, as well as the military organization and the various types of warfare practiced (ie. "flower wars" - wars waged exclusively by nobles against other nobles, and fought primarily to exert or maintain dominance, as opposed to political wars, fought with much larger numbers, with the direct aim of conquest.)  By providing this context, the political history of Aztec expansion - and their eventual demise at the hands of the Spanish is made clear.

The conquest of Meso-America by a handful of Europeans has long intrigued me; while disease, iron, and firearms were certainly all advantages the Spaniards possessed, it was not decisive, and I had little understanding of the political underpinnings of the region that essentially tipped the balance of power away from the Aztecs and towards the Europeans.  Hassig shows how the Aztec political system - which was decentralized, provided a huge area of control at very little cost - was also fragile, as compliance within the system was voluntary and self-generated, thereby providing an opportunity for the Spaniards to exploit it for their own aims.  The details are clearly made, and the bibliography is extensive.  Other than a rather dry recitation of Aztec emperors (and their various conquests), the only other issue I had with the book was the quality of the maps: they are neither topographical nor geographical, but an odd amalgam of both, showing the terrain types ("passable", "rugged" or "impassable") as the Aztec empire grew.  More detail in this regard would have been helpful.
196300
Most of this book is a military narrative, by a career officer (British) and it's rather good. The writing is excellent, although the recitals of who did what can get a bit tedious. The maps are so-so. One surprise for me is that while Dunkirk is the main focus, this book covers substantial numbers of troops who were also evacuated from France by sea, further south. He shows the British resisted fiercely despite lack of training and insufficient equipment. He puts blame on the French command, the French having more and better armor than the Germans did. German victory came from training and skill in leadership at all levels. Thompson also faults British government which for years had not allocated enough funding for training and equipment.

Thompson's views are interesting. He sees the retreat as the start of a respite that gave Britain time to recover and rebuild. The British never again faced the main  force of the Germans, and avoided the huge bloodletting that would have ensued if the war had gone to trenches as in the first war. There was no miracle, he writes, it was due to the power and skill of the Royal Navy.
3538163
Charles Truxillo's Crusaders in the Far East: The Moro Wars in the Philippines in the Context of the Ibero-Islamic World War (Jain Publishing, 2012) is a schematic history of Spanish reconquista and the parallel Catholic crusading efforts up to the present day. It is a very short read in the Global History framework. It is ambitious and accessible, but doesn't quite seem to live up to its subtitle--a factor which is most likely attributed to the publishing company rather than Dr. Truxillo.

  Scholars of Spanish period Philippine history are probably better served looking elsewhere as the portions of the work dedicated to the Philippines are superficial and virtually nonexistent. The Moro Wars in the southern Philippines appear in the narrative as more of a coda, as Dutch and English power begins to dominate Southeast Asian waterways and commerce. It is because of this that it doesn't appear as if Truxillo's intention was to focus on the Philippines at all. If the subtitle is not given any consideration then the reader gets an overview of the history of the conflict between Iberians and Muslims which concludes in the Philippines rather than a work with emphasis in this area. This is likely his intended purpose, based on his thesis statements in the introduction.

  In addition to this, the work suffers from a few basic problems. First, though he states in the intro that he uses some of the most up-to-date source material for his work, at times he doesn't seem to agree with Jonathan Riley-Smith (one of the foremost experts in the Crusades, author of The Crusades: A History. Yale 1987) or Edgar Wickberg (arguably one of the most studied researchers of the Chinese population in the Philippines, author of The Chinese in Philippine Life. Yale 1965). Wickberg obviously falls beyond his scope, but only a single work of Riley-Smith's was found in the bibliography. Furthermore, for a few of his statements concerning the native Filipino susceptibility to Old-World diseases and Spanish brutality compared to the Native Americans lean on John Leddy Phelan's 1959 work The Hispanization of the Philippines: Spanish Aims and Filipino Responses: 1565-1700 which was disproven by Linda Newson's Conquest and Pestilence in the Early Spanish Philippines. University of Hawaii Press, 2009. These discrepancies highlight the fact that the Philippines wasn't the true focus of this work, but rather the Ibero-Islamic World War as a whole. And there is nothing wrong with that, aside from the subtitle.

  Truxillo's work is a great entry-level portal for someone looking to study the Reconquista/Crusades, Spanish Colonialism, the Colonial Period, or Southeast Asian colonial history. Unfortunately, it seems like all of the strands that he tried to weave together were never fully realized. As a schematic of what he admits is a topic far too broad in scope for any one scholar to master, it is a decent resource, and while the index is lacking, his bibliography is healthy.
322344
At the Battle of Williamsburg, as the Army of Potomac crept up the Peninsula toward Richmond, Virginia, General Winfield Scott Hancock attempted an aggressive flank attack on Confederate positions.  At a moment when serious damage could have been wrought against the Confederate forces, a timid Union commander recalled him.  Even at that, he was able to deliver one last serious sting to the southern forces.  General George McClellan noted that "Hancock was superb yesterday."  Hence, the nickname "Hancock the Superb."

This is a serviceable book on this talented Union general.  There is not enough detail on the battles in which Hancock was engaged; much of the book is "underdetailed."  Nonetheless, one gets a sense of why Hancock was held in such great respect.

The book covers his early years, his time in West Point, his service in the "Old Army" (with the capstone being the lugubrious final meeting after the firing on Fort Sumter among him and future Confederate generals Lewis Armistead and Albert Sidney Johnston in California).

Briefly, he was consigned to a desk job.  Soon, however, McClellan got him a brigade command.  Then, his service where he earned the sobriquet "The Superb." He did good service at one point at Second Manassas/Bull Run; he served well at Antietam, where he advanced to division command.  Then, the dreary battles at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville where, once more, he served the Union well.  After Chancellorsville, he earned command of the Second Corps.

It is at Gettysburg, though, where he may have had the best three days of generalship of almost any commander in the Civil War.  He brought order out of chaos at the end of the First Day; he shuffled troops all over the place on the Second Day, providing "Hairsbreadth Harry" narrow escapes (think his ordering of the First Minnesota into a suicidal attack against vastly superior forces to buy a few moments time for reinforcements to get to the scene); his command of the center of the Union line on the Third Day, where he commanded the troops who destroyed the charge by Pickett's, Pettigrew's, and Trimble's attacking forces.  He was also seriously injured, and the damage done to him hindered his physical ability throughout the rest of the war.

After a convalescence, he did well at the Wilderness (his flank was rolled up by Longstreet, but he rallied his troops and led them well); he led a massive in depth attack at the Muleshoe at Spotsylvania.  Eventually, his Second Corps bled down and he gave up his command in front of Petersburg.

After the war, he served in the South, against the Indians, and had a long career as a general officer.  He even ran for President of the United States.  This book introduces us to Hancock; I wish that there had been more exploration of his character and more detail in a number of the chapters.  But for those who want to learn more about "Hancock the Superb," this is a good starting point.
873136
A summary of the review on StrategyPage. COM:

'The seemingly endless flow of Civil War books has one serious flaw; they all pretty much presume familiarity with the subject, often a deep familiarity.  In Land Campaigns of the Civil War, originally published over a decade ago, Calore, who has also written&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/Naval-Campaigns-of-the-Civil-War/dp/0786412178/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">Naval Campaigns of the Civil War</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a data-hook="product-link-linked" class="a-link-normal" href="/CAUSES-OF-THE-CIVIL-WAR-The-Political-Cultural-Economic-and-Territorial-Disputes-Between-the-North-and-South/dp/0786433043/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_txt?ie=UTF8">CAUSES OF THE CIVIL WAR: The Political, Cultural, Economic and Territorial Disputes Between the North and South</a>, sought to write a book for those lacking such familiarity.  And he succeeds rather well.  Calore opens with an introduction that concisely summarizes the causes of the war.  Then, in the subsequent 20 chapters, he takes a look at a distinct theatre, campaign, or period of the war.  He interweaves these in such a way that all theatres are covered in a more or less chronological fashion, while touching on political developments.  This gives the reader a good summary overview of the war.  While seasoned Civil War scholars and buffs may readily pick nits, Land Campaigns of the Civil War does what it is intended to do, provide an introduction for the novice, and would be an ideal first book for a younger person.'

For the full review, see StrategyPage. COM
127885
The strength and weakness of this volume is summed up by the author (Page  13): "As in the previous two volumes, it has not been my intention to dig up new facts but rather to gain understanding by arranging them in chronological order across the entire spectrum of events related to the progress of the war." The coverage stretches from the beginning of the Wilderness Campaign by Ulysses Grant and concludes with the end of the Civil War. Lowry's four volumes cover roughly three month stretches at a time.

While the chronological ordering of events captures something important, as he himself notes, there is little new here. The works are largely a reshuffling of familiar events. That itself is, of course, a nice contribution.

This volume explores a number of key events from September to December, 1864. The presidential election, in which Abraham Lincoln was re-elected, is an important moment here. Also considered--the final part of Sheridan's Shenandoah Valley campaign against the forces under Jubal Early's command; Sherman's movement toward the sea after his capture of Atlanta; Grant's continuing stranglehold around Petersburg; Ben Butler's not particularly effective generalship in Virginia; John Bell Hood's foolish march toward Franklin and then Nashville; the Missouri Campaign begun by the luckless Sterling Price against Union General Curtis and others; and so on.

The book is functionally written (not a great read, but not bad). I do like the chronological ordering. Again, one might not necessarily learn something new, but the approach does have considerable merit.
3972412
Excellent account of a Peninsular War Battle which was a close call for the British and their Allies>
1685063
This is a fine book: clear, concise, well-reasoned and well-argued.  If you're looking for a detailed, minute-by-minute account of what happened at Waterloo, look elsewhere, but if you're in the market for an excellent overview of what happened, supported with some key details, then this is the book for you.

I had not read about Waterloo since I was a kid growing up in the South when I was fascinated by the battle and by Napoleon, who met his downfall there.  Rather than seek out a detailed blow-by-blow account, I was more in the mood for a summary that would re-introduce me to the broad parameters of the campaign and the battle in an interesting, intelligent, well-crafted approach.  This book, the first in a new series of "small books" from HarperCollins entitled "Making History", about key turning points in history, served my purposes extremely well.

Roberts wrote "Napoleon and Wellington" and clearly knows the field--not only the broad field of Napoleonic War but also the Waterloo battlefield itself, having walked and studied it on site on several occasions.  This equipped him with useful first-hand knowledge of why certain attacks by the French were handicapped from the start and why many of Wellington's defensive tactics worked so well.  Roberts also makes great use of first-hand accounts of the fighting from troops on both sides, which adds the right amount of color and detail to flesh out the big picture.

It is difficult for some historians to write an objective account of events in the Napoleonic Wars, choosing either to lionize or excoriate the French emperor.  Roberts seems quite even-handed, handing out criticism and praise in measured amounts on both sides.  As Wellington himself pointed out, the battle was a very closely run affair that could have gone either way so an account of Waterloo that overly criticizes Napoleon and his marshals is probably suspect from the start.  Fortunately, this book does not suffer from that fault.

However, it's not a perfect book either.  There are two maps, one a large scale view of the campaign and the other a detailed map of just the main events of June 18, 1815.  Unfortunately, the author often refers to important locations on the battlefield that are not shown on the detailed map--e.g., Papelotte and the Sandpit, among others.  This may be a function of the small size of the book's pages but it was annoying nevertheless.  The only other criticism I had cropped up on the last page, where Roberts dates the Louisiana Purchase in 1804, rather than 1803.  You may wonder why a short history of Waterloo morphs into a discussion of the Louisiana Purchase but, for the answer to that, you'll have to read the book and I hope you do.
4143780
The approach of the bicentennial of the Battle of Waterloo has increased interest in the preliminary battles of Quatre Bras and Ligny.  Napoleon's plan to separate the Allied armies of Wellington and Blucher, and to defeat them in detail, hung in the balance on the morning of 16 June 1815.  Marshall Ney, newly appointed commander of the Left Wing of the French Armee du Nord, moved toward the vital crossroads of Quatre Bras. Napoleon himself accompanied the Right Wing toward the Prussian position around the village of Ligny.

"Waterloo 1815 (1)" is an Osprey Campaign Series book, the first of three on the Waterloo Campaign.  The author of the trilogy is historian John Franklin; illustrations are by Gerry Embleton.  Franklin methodically walks the reader up through the preliminaries of Napoleon's return from Elba and the Allied strategy against him.  The narrative addresses the opposing commanders and their forces and plans before diving into the Battle of Quatre Bras itself.  Franklin avoids the still lingering controversies in favor of a straightforward dissection of the battle.  The text is accompanied by an excellent selection of maps and diagrams explaining the battle, along with some choice period and modern illustrations.

At the end, the stage is set for the movement of Wellington's forces from Quatre Bras to Mont St. Jean.  Ligny is addressed only in a limited way; that story for the next volume.  The author does discuss the wanderings of D'Erlon's Corps on the afternoon of the 16th, and its failure to weigh in effectively on either battle.  Well recommended as a solid introduction to the Battle of Quatre Bras and the Campaign of Waterloo.
3084361
Military history is despised nowadays, so I hope that the author deliberately tried to appear as someone who has a very basic understanding of the medieval warfare. The title is misleading: about 3/4 of the book is simply a brief history of the Wars of the Roses with special attention to Tudor family. It is not better or worse than other short narratives. The most interesting part is the Bosworth campaign itself, but not the military part. It is a collection of personal stories about noblemen who stood on one side or the other for different reasons. The whole book is an example of why the focus is important. Write about warfare, or politics, or family fortunes, or culture, whatever, but choose one topic, not everything.
3100711
An interesting book. . . . This is a work that explores what led up to the dramatic battle at Trafalgar where Lord Nelson wrecked the combined French and Spanish Fleet. But as this book notes, the prelude was also important to understand. It made Nelson's victory at Trafalgar possible.

In the prior two years, there was a challenge to Great Britain from France. Napoleon threatened an invasion of the island, which would depend upon the role of his navy to protect the many ships that would have to transport French troops across the narrow band of water. He gathered a host of troops and built many transports (how good they were is somewhat open to question, according to this volume).

But the English used its superiority at sea to frustrate the French. And a key actor? Admiral Sir William Cornwallis. The brother of the general who surrendered his forces at Yorktown, to--in essence--lose the Revolutionary War for Great Britain. Sir William Cornwallis managed blockading French and Spanish and other ships in the two years preceding Trafalgar. And faced difficulties. Ships would deteriorate over time and would need to be drydocked to get them fit once more. The book does a nice job of describing the logistical difficulties facing Cornwallis and his fleets.

Cornwallis, although a focus of this book, is not headlined or spotlighted as much as one might imagine. But his role is apparent.

And the book concludes with Lord Nelson's demolition of the combined French/Spanish fleet.

All in all, a worthwhile volume to peruse. . . .
2925057
A useful overview and history, a good explanation.  Not a great read.
3644320
How can any reader take seriously a book on the history of modern military strategy without devoting a single chapter to the military revolution initiated by Spain in the early XVI century. It was the Spanish tercios commanded by El Gran Capitn in Garignano the ones that changed the art of making war in Europe and the ones that dominated European battlefields until the mid XVII century. The Spanish system of fleets was another fundamental instrument in Spanish supremacy and its amazing capacity to hold together the first modern global empire for more than three centuries. How can anyone pretending to be an expert on strategy ignore those basic facts of history?