What do you think?
Rate this book
The Patterns of War Since the Eighteenth Century by L H Addington (1-Oct-1994) Paperback
"This important work . . . synthesizes the evolution of warfare from 1775 to the present." —Military Review A thorough revision of a highly successful text, this new edition provides a comprehensive picture of the evolution of modern warfare. From reviews of the first "There is nothing else in print that tells so much so concisely about how war has been conducted since the days of Gen. George Washington." —Russell F. Weigley "A superior synthesis. Well written, nicely organized, remarkably comprehensive, and laced with facts." —Military Affairs
Paperback
First published December 1, 1984
12 people are currently reading
69 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
May 3, 2021
This book is a follow-up text to the author’s first text “Patterns of War Through the 18th Century”, and after reading both, this book is clearly the superior of the two. Patterns Through the 18th century read more like a standard high-school history text to me, exactly because the text sought to span the entirety of human history of warfare up to the 18th century, and the author did at best a perfunctory job at the task. My thoughts on the material can be accessed here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
In the sequel, Addington has much more room to go into some of the nuances of war, and to provide a simple socio-technical narrative that explains why certain trends in warfare gave way to others, and how some technologies informed the development of tactics and strategies in the late and post neo-classical era of Western warfare. One of the early ideas Addington forwards, though not in the exact words, is that early European innovation in warfare tended to center around a state’s or sovereign's capability to increase the “carrying capacity” of the nation to sustain larger and larger professional militaries.
To illustrate, France’s capability to deploy the levee en masse during the early Napleonic era meant that it was able to field armies of hundreds of thousands of men on it’s own. A feat matched in Europe only through a concert of armed forces. This style of warfare combined with effective use of the linear-line style of organization, and superior communications between division officers and other field staff, which Addington spends some time in the early pages of this book detailing, enabled French units to hold their opponents in the field directly, while enveloping those engaged units on exposed positions.
This tactic, eventually studied and perfected by Prussian thinkers a few decades later came to be known as the “oblique order”. Though Napoleon would deploy it (or something similar to it) to great effect in his early campaigns, ironically he would attempt to force his opponents to concede ground via direct assaults in many of his later campaigns in Russia, to his disaster in the battle of Borodino. As Addington points out throughout the book, the avoidance of the direct/frontal assault would be a theme that would come about over and over again throughout the period of the post neoclassical era towards the modern era of warfare (and we would see why this mode of assault is undesirable throughout the first world war, and later half of the Korean war). Consequences of not following this dictum would manifest in the most tragic manner during the American civil war with the deployed mass-use of the rifled musket, and was magnified towards the last few months of the war with the introduction of the early machine guns.
Though more detailed than the first book, nothing much stands out to me when looking through. The author covers the War of German Unification, which is something many “generalist” books on the history of warfare don’t always do, so that was interesting. A glaring omission on the section on the first world war was the eastern front. It just wasn't really there. Or at the very least, I don’t recall much material on it. In fact, looking through the pages, I don’t see any maps of that theater presented in the text. Which comes to a point on the maps. Almost all maps are in the 10+ mile scale, mostly in the 50+mile scale, thus they are almost all theater-level maps. Thus, if you expect to extract more detailed insights on the sequence of battle beyond very broad operational level trajectories (e.g. the general “shape” of the Schlieffen Plan etc.) , then you’ll be out of luck here.
Much of the post-WW2 conflicts are given an abbreviated treatment as the “Cold War” is sort of taken as one cohesive narrative. Interestingly enough, almost nothing on the nature of nuclear war in any detail. Though, “nuclear war” is so different from non-nuclear war it may make sense to leave that topic mostly untouched. Overall, not a bad general overview of western warfare post 1800s, Definitely above a high school level textbook treatment of these historical events, but not quite useful enough for any serious reader to engage with hopes of getting insights. Conditional recommend
In the sequel, Addington has much more room to go into some of the nuances of war, and to provide a simple socio-technical narrative that explains why certain trends in warfare gave way to others, and how some technologies informed the development of tactics and strategies in the late and post neo-classical era of Western warfare. One of the early ideas Addington forwards, though not in the exact words, is that early European innovation in warfare tended to center around a state’s or sovereign's capability to increase the “carrying capacity” of the nation to sustain larger and larger professional militaries.
To illustrate, France’s capability to deploy the levee en masse during the early Napleonic era meant that it was able to field armies of hundreds of thousands of men on it’s own. A feat matched in Europe only through a concert of armed forces. This style of warfare combined with effective use of the linear-line style of organization, and superior communications between division officers and other field staff, which Addington spends some time in the early pages of this book detailing, enabled French units to hold their opponents in the field directly, while enveloping those engaged units on exposed positions.
This tactic, eventually studied and perfected by Prussian thinkers a few decades later came to be known as the “oblique order”. Though Napoleon would deploy it (or something similar to it) to great effect in his early campaigns, ironically he would attempt to force his opponents to concede ground via direct assaults in many of his later campaigns in Russia, to his disaster in the battle of Borodino. As Addington points out throughout the book, the avoidance of the direct/frontal assault would be a theme that would come about over and over again throughout the period of the post neoclassical era towards the modern era of warfare (and we would see why this mode of assault is undesirable throughout the first world war, and later half of the Korean war). Consequences of not following this dictum would manifest in the most tragic manner during the American civil war with the deployed mass-use of the rifled musket, and was magnified towards the last few months of the war with the introduction of the early machine guns.
Though more detailed than the first book, nothing much stands out to me when looking through. The author covers the War of German Unification, which is something many “generalist” books on the history of warfare don’t always do, so that was interesting. A glaring omission on the section on the first world war was the eastern front. It just wasn't really there. Or at the very least, I don’t recall much material on it. In fact, looking through the pages, I don’t see any maps of that theater presented in the text. Which comes to a point on the maps. Almost all maps are in the 10+ mile scale, mostly in the 50+mile scale, thus they are almost all theater-level maps. Thus, if you expect to extract more detailed insights on the sequence of battle beyond very broad operational level trajectories (e.g. the general “shape” of the Schlieffen Plan etc.) , then you’ll be out of luck here.
Much of the post-WW2 conflicts are given an abbreviated treatment as the “Cold War” is sort of taken as one cohesive narrative. Interestingly enough, almost nothing on the nature of nuclear war in any detail. Though, “nuclear war” is so different from non-nuclear war it may make sense to leave that topic mostly untouched. Overall, not a bad general overview of western warfare post 1800s, Definitely above a high school level textbook treatment of these historical events, but not quite useful enough for any serious reader to engage with hopes of getting insights. Conditional recommend
June 26, 2018
Excellent Review of Conflict and War
I liked the sections on WW1 and WW2 the most. The descriptions of the political events leading to the conflict as well as the war aims of the major powers was extremely informative. I recommend this book to anyone interested in the history of modern war.
I liked the sections on WW1 and WW2 the most. The descriptions of the political events leading to the conflict as well as the war aims of the major powers was extremely informative. I recommend this book to anyone interested in the history of modern war.
March 25, 2019
An impressive tour across military developments over two and half century. Sadly, the narrative gets stuck in detail too often and misses rigorous analysis of the "patterns of war." Also rather Euro/americanocentric.
June 24, 2021
This book is a follow-up text to the author’s first text “Patterns of War Through the 18th Century”, and after reading both, this book is clearly the superior of the two. Patterns Through the 18th century read more like a standard high-school history text to me, exactly because the text sought to span the entirety of human history of warfare up to the 18th century, and the author did at best a perfunctory job at the task. My thoughts on the material can be accessed here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
In the sequel, Addington has much more room to go into some of the nuances of war, and to provide a simple socio-technical narrative that explains why certain trends in warfare gave way to others, and how some technologies informed the development of tactics and strategies in the late and post neo-classical era of Western warfare. One of the early ideas Addington forwards, though not in the exact words, is that early European innovation in warfare tended to center around a state’s or sovereign's capability to increase the “carrying capacity” of the nation to sustain larger and larger professional militaries.
To illustrate, France’s capability to deploy the levee en masse during the early Napleonic era meant that it was able to field armies of hundreds of thousands of men on it’s own. A feat matched in Europe only through a concert of armed forces. This style of warfare combined with effective use of the linear-line style of organization, and superior communications between division officers and other field staff, which Addington spends some time in the early pages of this book detailing, enabled French units to hold their opponents in the field directly, while enveloping those engaged units on exposed positions.
This tactic, eventually studied and perfected by Prussian thinkers a few decades later came to be known as the “oblique order”. Though Napoleon would deploy it (or something similar to it) to great effect in his early campaigns, ironically he would attempt to force his opponents to concede ground via direct assaults in many of his later campaigns, to his disaster. As Addington points out throughout the book, the avoidance of the direct/frontal assault would be a theme that would come about over and over again throughout the period of the post neoclassical era towards the modern era of warfare. Consequences of not following this dictum would manifest in the most tragic manner during the American civil war with the deployed mass-use of the rifled musket, and was magnified towards the last few months of the war with the introduction of the early machine guns.
Though more detailed than the first book, nothing much stands out to me when looking through. The author covers the War of German Unification, which is something many “generalist” books on the history of warfare don’t always do, so that was interesting. A glaring omission on the section on the first world war was the eastern front. It just wasn't really there. Or at the very least, I don’t recall much material on it. In fact, looking through the pages, I don’t see any maps of that theater presented in the text. Which comes to a point on the maps. Almost all maps are in the 10+ mile scale, mostly in the 50+mile scale, thus they are almost all theater-level maps. Thus, if you expect to extract more detailed insights on the sequence of battle beyond very broad operational level trajectories (e.g. the general “shape” of the Schlieffen Plan etc.) , then you’ll be out of luck here.
Much of the post-WW2 conflicts are given an abbreviated treatment as the “Cold War” is sort of taken as one cohesive narrative. Interestingly enough, almost nothing on the nature of nuclear war in any detail. Though, “nuclear war” is so different from non-nuclear war it may make sense to leave that topic mostly untouched. Overall, not a bad general overview of western warfare post 1800s, Definitely above a high school level textbook treatment of these historical events, but not quite useful enough for any serious reader to engage with hopes of getting insights. Conditional recommend
In the sequel, Addington has much more room to go into some of the nuances of war, and to provide a simple socio-technical narrative that explains why certain trends in warfare gave way to others, and how some technologies informed the development of tactics and strategies in the late and post neo-classical era of Western warfare. One of the early ideas Addington forwards, though not in the exact words, is that early European innovation in warfare tended to center around a state’s or sovereign's capability to increase the “carrying capacity” of the nation to sustain larger and larger professional militaries.
To illustrate, France’s capability to deploy the levee en masse during the early Napleonic era meant that it was able to field armies of hundreds of thousands of men on it’s own. A feat matched in Europe only through a concert of armed forces. This style of warfare combined with effective use of the linear-line style of organization, and superior communications between division officers and other field staff, which Addington spends some time in the early pages of this book detailing, enabled French units to hold their opponents in the field directly, while enveloping those engaged units on exposed positions.
This tactic, eventually studied and perfected by Prussian thinkers a few decades later came to be known as the “oblique order”. Though Napoleon would deploy it (or something similar to it) to great effect in his early campaigns, ironically he would attempt to force his opponents to concede ground via direct assaults in many of his later campaigns, to his disaster. As Addington points out throughout the book, the avoidance of the direct/frontal assault would be a theme that would come about over and over again throughout the period of the post neoclassical era towards the modern era of warfare. Consequences of not following this dictum would manifest in the most tragic manner during the American civil war with the deployed mass-use of the rifled musket, and was magnified towards the last few months of the war with the introduction of the early machine guns.
Though more detailed than the first book, nothing much stands out to me when looking through. The author covers the War of German Unification, which is something many “generalist” books on the history of warfare don’t always do, so that was interesting. A glaring omission on the section on the first world war was the eastern front. It just wasn't really there. Or at the very least, I don’t recall much material on it. In fact, looking through the pages, I don’t see any maps of that theater presented in the text. Which comes to a point on the maps. Almost all maps are in the 10+ mile scale, mostly in the 50+mile scale, thus they are almost all theater-level maps. Thus, if you expect to extract more detailed insights on the sequence of battle beyond very broad operational level trajectories (e.g. the general “shape” of the Schlieffen Plan etc.) , then you’ll be out of luck here.
Much of the post-WW2 conflicts are given an abbreviated treatment as the “Cold War” is sort of taken as one cohesive narrative. Interestingly enough, almost nothing on the nature of nuclear war in any detail. Though, “nuclear war” is so different from non-nuclear war it may make sense to leave that topic mostly untouched. Overall, not a bad general overview of western warfare post 1800s, Definitely above a high school level textbook treatment of these historical events, but not quite useful enough for any serious reader to engage with hopes of getting insights. Conditional recommend
May 14, 2016
★ - Most books with this rating I never finish and so don't make this list. This one I probably started speed-reading to get it over with.
★★ - Average. Wasn't terrible, but not a lot to recommend it. Probably skimmed parts of it.
★★★ - Decent. A few good ideas, well-written passages, interesting characters, or the like.
★★★★ - Good. This one had parts that inspired me, impressed me, made me laugh out loud, made me think - it got positive reactions and most of the rest of it was pretty decent too.
★★★★★ - Amazing. This is the best I've read of its genre, the ones I hold on to so I can re-read them and/or loan them out to people looking for a great book. The best of these change the way I look at the world and operate within it.
★★ - Average. Wasn't terrible, but not a lot to recommend it. Probably skimmed parts of it.
★★★ - Decent. A few good ideas, well-written passages, interesting characters, or the like.
★★★★ - Good. This one had parts that inspired me, impressed me, made me laugh out loud, made me think - it got positive reactions and most of the rest of it was pretty decent too.
★★★★★ - Amazing. This is the best I've read of its genre, the ones I hold on to so I can re-read them and/or loan them out to people looking for a great book. The best of these change the way I look at the world and operate within it.
January 16, 2016
Although a very thorough and comprehensive rehash of major conflicts, I liked best how the author linked major wars by summarizing revolutions in military affairs and the small wars that occurred during interwar periods. I would liked to have seen a little more on conflicts that happened in South and Latin American nations. No mention of the Tri-country wars between Peru, Chile & Bolivia or the series of Caribbean US invasions- Panama, Dominican Republic, Grenada...
September 25, 2016
Excellent overview of recent military history. I like the fact that the edition I read was published before the end the Cold War. Stealth aircraft were listed as a possible future weapon along with particle beams!
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews