What do you think?
Rate this book
The Evolution of Strategy: Thinking War from Antiquity to the Present
Is there a 'Western way of war' which pursues battles of annihilation and single-minded military victory? Is warfare on a path to ever greater destructive force? This magisterial new account answers these questions by tracing the history of Western thinking about strategy - the employment of military force as a political instrument - from antiquity to the present day. Assessing sources from Vegetius to contemporary America, and with a particular focus on strategy since the Napoleonic Wars, Beatrice Heuser explores the evolution of strategic thought, the social institutions, norms and patterns of behaviour within which it operates, the policies that guide it and the cultures that influence it. Ranging across technology and warfare, total warfare and small wars as well as land, sea, air and nuclear warfare, she demonstrates that warfare and strategic thinking have fluctuated wildly in their aims, intensity, limitations and excesses over the past two millennia.
593 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2010
44 people are currently reading
420 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 - 13 of 13 reviews
May 17, 2020
It deserves ten stars at least
January 12, 2024
For the purpose I wanted to read it for this was perfect. It's a great introduction to the history of military strategic thought, with a strong awareness of the intellectual and social contexts in which strategy was developed. Topics discussed include the question of who wages war and ideological arguments for citizen militias or professional armed forces, seeking decisive battles versus more limited forms of warfare, the role of technology in the evolution of warfare and the influence of broader intellectual tendencies like social darwinism and racism on the thinking of strategists
The book has sections dedicated specifically to maritime strategy, air and nuclear strategy and insurgency, so stimulates thinking well beyond conventional ground warfare. The final chapters also include reflections on the role of bureaucratic bargaining in the strategy formation of modern western armed forces. It's worth mentioning that this is a history of strategic thinking and not warfare specifically so this shouldn't be consulted for a history of warfare as such.
The book has sections dedicated specifically to maritime strategy, air and nuclear strategy and insurgency, so stimulates thinking well beyond conventional ground warfare. The final chapters also include reflections on the role of bureaucratic bargaining in the strategy formation of modern western armed forces. It's worth mentioning that this is a history of strategic thinking and not warfare specifically so this shouldn't be consulted for a history of warfare as such.
January 25, 2013
I found this book very interesting. For a self taught strategist this book help me wrap my mind around the different definitions an dmenaings of the word strategy. too many zone in on one or the other and lose sight of context in the different meaning as they pertain tot he time they were crafted. This book help me remove a lot of confusion i have had on the topic as it discussed the different eras as strategy has evolved. i highly recommend the book.
November 28, 2025
Heuser aims to trace the broad development of (Western) Military Strategy. Doing so is a monumental task, and Heuser has done a comprehensive work that touches on almost all the necessary points of the development of military strategy. Because of the breadth of the subject that can lead Heuser down the path of writing about the History of War, Heuser focuses specifically on how intellectuals (broadly defined) have thought and written about why and how people fight wars. Despite the title, Heuser devotes the majority of the text to focus on the modern period (from the Napoleonic Wars onwards). Rightly so due to the exponential pace of developments in why and how wars are fought since then, which Heuser labels as the Napoleonic Paradigm. The text leans more towards intellectual history instead of just purely military history, and this makes this one of the more challenging reads that I've done because of the abstract nature of what is being written about, and sources for intellectual history (the "philosophers") often lack brevity and concision, writing in a stream of consciousness often. On this point, one star docked for the text because Heuser's writing style often adds to the difficulty of writing. Heuser often writes in a convoluted way that requires one to re-read her writing several times before being able to get the point. In particular, using double negatives a lot less frequently would have helped to make this a simpler read. But overall, this will be the essential text for anyone interested in the history of military strategy. Heuser brings up almost every key military strategist/thinker that one can think of or who would appear in strategic thought courses. I do hope that Heuser eventually updates the text to evaluate how strategic thinking has evolved in light of recent wars like the Russo-Ukraine War and the Israel-Hamas War.
One point to note is that the title is a slight misnomer, as Heuser is focusing on the evolution of Western military strategy. But this is not a point of criticism and was a good choice by Heuser. Criticisms of Eurocentrism fall short here, as there is no continuous thread or development of global strategic thought, unlike the continuous thread of the development of Western military strategy. To avoid criticisms of Eurocentrism, history courses today often throw in Sun Tzu to show global strategic thought, despite there being a disjoint to the development of Western military strategy. Heuser does give some depth to non-Western military strategy by looking at thinkers like Mao and Giap when studying insurgencies. I did feel that Heuser could have studied more non-Western strategies, particularly in the post-1945 era, to show divergences from Western military strategy. Kautilya and his influence on Indian military strategy would have been a useful addition.
One point to note is that the title is a slight misnomer, as Heuser is focusing on the evolution of Western military strategy. But this is not a point of criticism and was a good choice by Heuser. Criticisms of Eurocentrism fall short here, as there is no continuous thread or development of global strategic thought, unlike the continuous thread of the development of Western military strategy. To avoid criticisms of Eurocentrism, history courses today often throw in Sun Tzu to show global strategic thought, despite there being a disjoint to the development of Western military strategy. Heuser does give some depth to non-Western military strategy by looking at thinkers like Mao and Giap when studying insurgencies. I did feel that Heuser could have studied more non-Western strategies, particularly in the post-1945 era, to show divergences from Western military strategy. Kautilya and his influence on Indian military strategy would have been a useful addition.
March 3, 2018
A comprehensive overview of the evolution of military-political strategies, especially since the Napoleonic age and with special chapters on sea, air, and nuclear strategy. Heuser's wide and deep scholarship shines most brilliantly when she traces lines between seemingly unconnected strands of strategic thought - like the return of the pre-Napoleonic/Clausewitzian war in our times or the tradition of air strategy in the naval thought of the 19th and early 20th century.
May 25, 2017
I thought it was an excellent book on the evolution of strategy but it doesn't go into the strategy itself. I say that with the realisation that a single book covering all strategy would be impossible.
July 31, 2018
2.5/5
November 28, 2015
“War. War never changes”. So begins the latest hit video game Fallout 4. In reality however, war has changed immeasurably.
Examining 2000 years of warfare, with an emphasis from the age of Napoleon to the early War on Terror, Heuser shows the evolution, change, and variations of strategy and conflict. While bloodshed, suffering, fog and friction are common of every conflict, the how, where, when, and why of war has as many fashions as well...fashion.
Heuser’s concern is how people have written about and talked about the use and management of war and violence. Treating this entire field as focused on ‘strategy’ is a methodological risk. Most people in history haven’t used the term ‘strategy’ as we understand it today. While we should be careful not to put new words into old mouths, this is a risk worth taking.
Evidence of strategic behaviour is common across all human history and all human cultures. Even if our ancestors would not have used the term, they were undertaking the same essential task as we do today: Thinking about how to manage and use force to achieve political ends. And if we are to understand our challenges, we need to learn how those before us overcame theirs.
To manage an intellectual history of this scope, Heuser identifies five broad areas, bookended by analysis of the use of the term ‘strategy’ (from the Greek ‘stratagos’ meaning a General), and a fascinating discussion of the long term trends and future challenges.
Heuser merges the period from covering Antiquity to the Middle Ages, covering issues such as leadership, moral, mercenaries, sieges and technology. The book then explores on the Napoleonic era and the development of ideas of total war. She highlights a ‘Napoleonic paradigm’ focused on decisive battles, and increasingly the targeting of foreign populations as a constant from the late 18th century till the advent of nuclear weapons in 1945. Forces such as the development of the modern state, technology, nationalism and Social Darwinism all contributed to this trend. The outcome was a shift from a war where people could sit on the hillside and watch during the American Civil War, to a world where civilians were the target of war.
Total war, pitting the entire resources of the state against an opponent in a struggle for survival found its apotheosis in the Second World War. Many expected its appearance during the Cold War, and its core ideas such as aiming for decisive, unconditional victories still drive many modern militaries, particularly the USA.
Following this analysis, and in line with the chronology, though more thematically organised, Maritime Strategy, Airpower and Asymmetric conflicts are explored. These chapters are useful to show just how new many of our ideas about warfare are, and how important technological change has been to dramatically shaping its nature, focus and use.
This is a long book, with a lot of history to chew through. While consistently solid in its prose, some of these areas can drag for the non-specialist. Or seem not deep enough for those with something of a background in the area. It’s useful to know some of what Thucydides, Jomini, Mahan, Corbett and other ‘masters’ of strategy thought, as Heuser tends to try and spread around her focus, showing the wider context of the debates and spread of ideas about war through (largely European) societies.
A highlight is the concluding section on ‘The quest for new paradigms after the world war’. Here the narrative seems to slow down, trying less to highlight all the major debates and authors. Instead it trace just a few ideas and pulls them apart. You hear more of Heuser’s own views through this section, which is to be appreciated, and reminiscent of the historically grounded essays of Hew Strachan’s Direction of War.
It’s a truism that general fight the last war AND that they are obsessed with how new technology makes all past experience obsolete. As Heuser masterfully shows, there have always been historically grounded and material/technologically oriented schools of thought about strategy. Its use and application has always been a debate, wrapped up with our notions of ethics, technology, geography, identity and logic. Strategy changes because war changes. Notions of linear experience might work for a fictional video game, but reality is far richer and more varied. The catch – and there always is one – is that to make sense of this change, we need to know what has stayed the same. If you can work your way through Heuser’s volume, you’ll be well on your way to separating fact from fiction.
Examining 2000 years of warfare, with an emphasis from the age of Napoleon to the early War on Terror, Heuser shows the evolution, change, and variations of strategy and conflict. While bloodshed, suffering, fog and friction are common of every conflict, the how, where, when, and why of war has as many fashions as well...fashion.
Heuser’s concern is how people have written about and talked about the use and management of war and violence. Treating this entire field as focused on ‘strategy’ is a methodological risk. Most people in history haven’t used the term ‘strategy’ as we understand it today. While we should be careful not to put new words into old mouths, this is a risk worth taking.
Evidence of strategic behaviour is common across all human history and all human cultures. Even if our ancestors would not have used the term, they were undertaking the same essential task as we do today: Thinking about how to manage and use force to achieve political ends. And if we are to understand our challenges, we need to learn how those before us overcame theirs.
To manage an intellectual history of this scope, Heuser identifies five broad areas, bookended by analysis of the use of the term ‘strategy’ (from the Greek ‘stratagos’ meaning a General), and a fascinating discussion of the long term trends and future challenges.
Heuser merges the period from covering Antiquity to the Middle Ages, covering issues such as leadership, moral, mercenaries, sieges and technology. The book then explores on the Napoleonic era and the development of ideas of total war. She highlights a ‘Napoleonic paradigm’ focused on decisive battles, and increasingly the targeting of foreign populations as a constant from the late 18th century till the advent of nuclear weapons in 1945. Forces such as the development of the modern state, technology, nationalism and Social Darwinism all contributed to this trend. The outcome was a shift from a war where people could sit on the hillside and watch during the American Civil War, to a world where civilians were the target of war.
Total war, pitting the entire resources of the state against an opponent in a struggle for survival found its apotheosis in the Second World War. Many expected its appearance during the Cold War, and its core ideas such as aiming for decisive, unconditional victories still drive many modern militaries, particularly the USA.
Following this analysis, and in line with the chronology, though more thematically organised, Maritime Strategy, Airpower and Asymmetric conflicts are explored. These chapters are useful to show just how new many of our ideas about warfare are, and how important technological change has been to dramatically shaping its nature, focus and use.
This is a long book, with a lot of history to chew through. While consistently solid in its prose, some of these areas can drag for the non-specialist. Or seem not deep enough for those with something of a background in the area. It’s useful to know some of what Thucydides, Jomini, Mahan, Corbett and other ‘masters’ of strategy thought, as Heuser tends to try and spread around her focus, showing the wider context of the debates and spread of ideas about war through (largely European) societies.
A highlight is the concluding section on ‘The quest for new paradigms after the world war’. Here the narrative seems to slow down, trying less to highlight all the major debates and authors. Instead it trace just a few ideas and pulls them apart. You hear more of Heuser’s own views through this section, which is to be appreciated, and reminiscent of the historically grounded essays of Hew Strachan’s Direction of War.
It’s a truism that general fight the last war AND that they are obsessed with how new technology makes all past experience obsolete. As Heuser masterfully shows, there have always been historically grounded and material/technologically oriented schools of thought about strategy. Its use and application has always been a debate, wrapped up with our notions of ethics, technology, geography, identity and logic. Strategy changes because war changes. Notions of linear experience might work for a fictional video game, but reality is far richer and more varied. The catch – and there always is one – is that to make sense of this change, we need to know what has stayed the same. If you can work your way through Heuser’s volume, you’ll be well on your way to separating fact from fiction.
August 16, 2016
Heavy Reading
I am a lay-person with a long standing interest in strategy & tactics. But in reading this book, I realized that there is much more to this topic than I had realized. While I recognized much of the 20th century terminology the much broader explanations & debates were eye opening to me. I admit to forcing myself to plow throughout some segments & much of the detail & names are already lost to me. Nevertheless it gave me a much greater perspective. My husband attended the Naval War College in the mid 70s & I typed his papers. I recognized names & some of his required reading. My father had also had been a career military man. His career began in the Army Air Corp in 1939 & later the Air Force. This may explain my interest.
My 5 star rating is not based on my expertise of the subject. I can neither defend or argue against much of it. the book was more than I expected & held my attention & interest to the end. Therefore my rating is, again, based on lay perspective.
I am a lay-person with a long standing interest in strategy & tactics. But in reading this book, I realized that there is much more to this topic than I had realized. While I recognized much of the 20th century terminology the much broader explanations & debates were eye opening to me. I admit to forcing myself to plow throughout some segments & much of the detail & names are already lost to me. Nevertheless it gave me a much greater perspective. My husband attended the Naval War College in the mid 70s & I typed his papers. I recognized names & some of his required reading. My father had also had been a career military man. His career began in the Army Air Corp in 1939 & later the Air Force. This may explain my interest.
My 5 star rating is not based on my expertise of the subject. I can neither defend or argue against much of it. the book was more than I expected & held my attention & interest to the end. Therefore my rating is, again, based on lay perspective.
August 16, 2016
I am a lay-person with a long standing interest in strategy and tactics. But in reading this book, I realized that there is much more to this topic than I had realized. While I recognized much of the 20th century terminology, the much broader explanations and debates were eye opening to me. I admit to forcing myself to plow through some segments and much of the detail and names are already lost to me. Nevertheless it gave me a much greater perspective. My husband attended the Naval War College in the mid 70s and I typed his papers. I recognized names and some of this required reading. My father had also been a career military man. His career began in the Army Air Corp in 1939 and later the AirForce. This may explain my interest.
My 5 start rating is not based on my expertise of the subject. I can neither defend or argue against much of it. The book was more than I expected and held my attention and interest to the end.
My 5 start rating is not based on my expertise of the subject. I can neither defend or argue against much of it. The book was more than I expected and held my attention and interest to the end.
February 1, 2014
An outstanding history. Should have bought the hardback to add to my collection on war, violence and ethics. The subtitle clarifies that this is a book about "thinking war" rather than the practice of strategy itself. Of course, one influences the other. Should be read by all those who are concerned that the United States has not "won" a war since World War II.
June 17, 2012
Exceedingly academic look at strategy through the ages. Bounces around between ideas. Does not formulate a cohesive thesis. Lots of information, but would have received a C+ in my high school English class.
May 6, 2014
Looking for a good survey of strategic thought to serve as the core text for an undergraduate course in strategic studies. Thought this might fit the bill. Sadly, it does not.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews