From an esteemed military historian, a sweeping history of the revolutions in war-fighting that have shaped the modern world
Heraclitus wrote that “war is the father of all,” and it has formed much of the modern world. Although the fundamental nature of war has not altered over the centuries, constant change, innovation, and adaptation have repeatedly reshaped how wars are fought in the West.
In The Dark Path , Williamson Murray examines the social and military revolutions that led the West to global dominance by tracing five revolutions in military • the advent of the modern state, which formed bureaucracies and professional militaries; • the Industrial Revolution, which produced the financial and industrial means to sustain and equip large armies; • the French Revolution, which provided the ideological basis needed to sustain armies through continent-sized wars; • the merging of the Industrial and French Revolutions in the U.S. Civil War; • the accelerating integration of technological advancement, financial capacity, ideology, and government that unleashed the modern capacity for total warfare.
In explaining the forces behind the scale and lethality of warfare in the twenty-first century, Murray shows how the world continually re-creates war—and how war, in turn, continually re-creates the world.
Williamson "Wick" Murray was an American historian and author. He authored numerous works on history and strategic studies, and served as an editor on other projects extensively. He was professor emeritus of history at Ohio State University from 2012 until his death.
Don't waste your time with this book. He basically wrote it using Wikipedia and Reddit posts. A bit appalling he was a professor at a military war college.
He lost me at the very beginning when he glazed the English Longbow but somehow didn't mention the crossbow as the really revolutionary development in military technology.
Williamson Murray’s “The Dark Path: The Structure of War and the Rise of the West” is less a conventional survey of Western warfare than a culminating statement about how violence, institutions, and ideas have co‑evolved to produce—and now destabilize—Western primacy. It is an ambitious work of synthesis that fuses operational history with state formation, political economy, and ideology into a single argument about war as a structuring force in world history, not merely an instrument of policy. Murray organizes five centuries of conflict around five “military revolutions”: the advent of the modern state, the French and Industrial Revolutions, their fusion in the U.S. Civil War, and the subsequent convergence of mass politics, industrial capacity, and technology into total war. Each revolution is treated as both a product of underlying social and economic change and a causal driver that reconfigured those very structures, yielding a genuinely reciprocal model of war and society. The book pushes beyond Clausewitz by insisting that war does not simply extend policy but also generates new policy frameworks, ideologies, and institutional orders. This is most persuasive where Murray shows how sustained interstate competition in early modern Europe made bureaucratic states and professional militaries not optional add‑ons but survival requirements, setting the West on a divergent developmental track from much of Asia and Africa. Two features make the book particularly valuable. - First, Murray’s long‑range perspective links Bismarck, the world wars, and contemporary great‑power rivalry through a common logic of adaptation under fiscal, technological, and societal constraints. - Second, his treatment of notes and historiography is substantive rather than decorative, inviting the reader into an ongoing scholarly argument about revolutions in military affairs. The Western‑centric frame, while analytically coherent, inevitably underplays non‑Western strategic cultures and feedback loops, making “the rest” appear too static relative to Europe’s hyper‑competitive ecology. Yet this bias is partly redeemed by Murray’s final warning that the very technological and bureaucratic systems that once anchored Western dominance—industrial mass, digital networks, and complex alliances—now constitute critical vulnerabilities in an era of cyber threats and authoritarian adaptation. For serious students of strategy, “The Dark Path” is demanding but indispensable: a dark, clarifying lens on how war has made the modern West and how it may yet unmake it.
Seems like this is a writer that only parrots the propaganda. There is very poor research in creating this junk. For instance stated that Germany started world war 2. Pretty much all the countries involved were responsible. The worst was Austria Hungary. Germany made the mistake of not pushing Austria Hungary to back off. That this author has such a shallow understanding of how wars are seldom all caused by one side indicates that this book is pretty much worthless. The killing of all the Belgium civilians has never been substantiated. I believe it was in "Atrocity Fabrication and Its Consequences: How Fake News Shapes World Order" that proves there is a lack of evidence could be found after the war. The west is very good at lies, and this book falls for them hook line and sinker. The unwillingness to dig past propaganda, seems to me to indicate that the other information is suspect. What is sad is that repeating these lies when they have nothing to do with military strategy indicates that this is very much a piece of propaganda. There was no need to even cover some of these subjects in a book on military strategy. DO NOT BOTHER WITH THIS BOOK WHICH.
A history of warfare in the western world of the last several centuries. Some conflicts were briefly covered and others such as WWII in granular detail. The book, unfortunately, is already outdated after more developments in Ukraine, the Israeli response to Oct. 7 and the meteoric rise of AI. The book, at least on Kindle, suffers from the frequent references to locations of battles at the tactical level without maps.
Content does not deliver on the promise of the title. Haphazard and opinionated skimming of history of war. If there was an idea he was trying to show through this war's biggest hits I didn't see it.