What do you think?
Rate this book
Understanding War: History And Theory Of Combat
Mint condition book, shipped in a box so it arrives that way. MHSbooks see our photo please!
312 pages, Hardcover
First published June 1, 1987
3 people are currently reading
116 people want to read
About the author
Trevor N. Dupuy
119 books26 followersTrevor Dupuy attended West Point, graduating in the class of 1938. During World War II he commanded a U.S. Army artillery battalion, a Chinese artillery group, and an artillery detachment from the British 36th Infantry Division. He was always proud of the fact that he had more combat time in Burma than any other American, and received decorations for service or valour from the U.S., British, and Chinese governments. After the war Dupuy served in the United States Department of Defense Operations Division[1] from 1945 to 1947, and as military assistant to the Under Secretary of the Army from 1947 to 1948. He was a member of the original Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) staff in Paris under Generals Dwight D. Eisenhower and Matthew Ridgway from 1950 to 1952.
It is as a military historian and a theorist that Trevor Dupuy would make a lasting mark on the world. He is perhaps best known for his massive book The Encyclopedia Of Military History (co-written, like many of his books, with his father R. Ernest Dupuy). Starting from the beginning of history and going up the present day the book tries to cover all the major (and minor) military conflicts in world history. Usually each entry (arranged chronologically and by region) gives little more than the names of the commanders and (often) very rough estimates for the size of the forces involved in the campaigns. Dupuy was not afraid of expressing an opinion and he classified some of his subjects as Great Captains (such as Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, Frederick II of Prussia and Napoleon). Like most Western reference works it spends far more time dealing with wars in Europe and the United States than the rest of the world, but it does at least try to cover the entire world. The Encyclopedia Of Military History has been revised (and updated) several times, most recently in 1993. It can be found in the reference section of most American libraries.
It is as a military historian and a theorist that Trevor Dupuy would make a lasting mark on the world. He is perhaps best known for his massive book The Encyclopedia Of Military History (co-written, like many of his books, with his father R. Ernest Dupuy). Starting from the beginning of history and going up the present day the book tries to cover all the major (and minor) military conflicts in world history. Usually each entry (arranged chronologically and by region) gives little more than the names of the commanders and (often) very rough estimates for the size of the forces involved in the campaigns. Dupuy was not afraid of expressing an opinion and he classified some of his subjects as Great Captains (such as Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, Frederick II of Prussia and Napoleon). Like most Western reference works it spends far more time dealing with wars in Europe and the United States than the rest of the world, but it does at least try to cover the entire world. The Encyclopedia Of Military History has been revised (and updated) several times, most recently in 1993. It can be found in the reference section of most American libraries.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 13, 2022
A passionate effort to quantify our understanding of war. Dupuy's aim is to present a 'theory of combat' he calls Quantified Judgement Model. Along the way he offers strong chapters on force ratios, attrition, movement and combat power. And applies his model to historical and more recent case studies.
Ultimately, I remain somewhat skeptical about such efforts. To his credit, Dupuy stresses the importance of going beyond simple numbers (who has more troops/tanks) and trying to quantify the quality of the forces, and the intangibles such as their training and morale. But it never feels like much more than an effort at translation. Take qualitative judgements, turn them into numbers, and use the numbers to then validate the original qualitative judgements. I
Such models have great value as alternate lenses through which to view a campaign. I can see why those directly involved in operational planning (or perhaps a historian intensively studying a specific campaign) would want to adopt such a model. But it always has to abstract heavily away from reality in order to function, and often seems best able to validate ideas already reached by qualitative analysis.
A classic. But not one I find persuasive.
Ultimately, I remain somewhat skeptical about such efforts. To his credit, Dupuy stresses the importance of going beyond simple numbers (who has more troops/tanks) and trying to quantify the quality of the forces, and the intangibles such as their training and morale. But it never feels like much more than an effort at translation. Take qualitative judgements, turn them into numbers, and use the numbers to then validate the original qualitative judgements. I
Such models have great value as alternate lenses through which to view a campaign. I can see why those directly involved in operational planning (or perhaps a historian intensively studying a specific campaign) would want to adopt such a model. But it always has to abstract heavily away from reality in order to function, and often seems best able to validate ideas already reached by qualitative analysis.
A classic. But not one I find persuasive.
September 5, 2023
While this book is very interesting in the beginning, it gets into a whole lot of hypothetical formulas in trying to determine if a force has an advantage of 1.20 to one or 1.35 to one. I found it tedious.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews