What do you think?
Rate this book
20-те битки, които промениха света
Two modern masters of military history make their case to name the twenty most pivotal battles of all time, in a riveting trip through the ages to those moments when the fate of the world hung in the balance.
In the grand tradition of Edward Creasy’s classic Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, James Lacey and Williamson Murray spotlight engagements that changed the course of civilization. Much more than simply a survey of armed conflict through the centuries, Moment of Battle brings these conflicts and their eras to vivid life in gripping narrative accounts that detail the cultural imperatives that led inexorably to the battlefield, the experiences of the common soldiers who fought and died, and the legendary commanders and statesmen who matched wits, will, and nerve for the highest possible stakes.
From the great clashes of antiquity to the high-tech wars of the twenty-first century, here are the stories of the twenty most consequential battles ever fought, including
• Marathon, where Greece’s “greatest generation” repelled Persian forces three times their numbers—and saved Western civilization from being extinguished in its infancy
• Adrianople, the death blow to a disintegrating Roman Empire, dealt by a wave of invading Goths
• Trafalgar, the epic naval victory that decided the Napoleonic Wars and cemented a century of British supremacy over the globe
• Saratoga, where militias from across the colonies united for the first truly American victory and ensured the ultimate triumph of the Revolution
• Midway, the ferocious sea battle that broke the back of the Japanese navy and helped seal the outcome of World War II in the Pacific
• Dien Bien Phu, the climactic confrontation between French imperial troops and Viet Minh rebels that set the stage for American intervention in Vietnam and marked the rise of a new era of insurgent warfare
• Operation Peach, the 2003 mission to secure a critical bridge over the Euphrates River that represented a potentially devastating trap for American forces but would open the way to Baghdad
Historians and armchair generals will argue forever about which battles have had the most direct impact on history. But there can be no doubt that these twenty are among the fraction that set mankind on new trajectories. Each of these epochal campaigns is examined in its full historical, strategic, and tactical context—complete with edge-of-your-seat you-are-there battle re-creations. With an eye for the small detail as well as the bigger picture, Lacey and Murray identify the elements that bind these battles together: the key decisions, critical mistakes, and moments of crisis on which the fates of entire civilizations depended.
Some battles merely leave a field littered with the bodies of the fallen. Others transform the map of the entire world. Moment of Battle is history written with the immediacy of today’s news, a magisterial tour d’horizon that refreshes our understanding of those critical turning points where the future was decided.
“In a single volume, Murray and Lacey have distilled a lifetime of learning and insight into the most influential battles in world history. This is a readable and compelling primer and a feast for the student of military history.”—James D. Hornfischer, author of Neptune’s Inferno: The U.S. Navy at Guadalcanal
In the grand tradition of Edward Creasy’s classic Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World, James Lacey and Williamson Murray spotlight engagements that changed the course of civilization. Much more than simply a survey of armed conflict through the centuries, Moment of Battle brings these conflicts and their eras to vivid life in gripping narrative accounts that detail the cultural imperatives that led inexorably to the battlefield, the experiences of the common soldiers who fought and died, and the legendary commanders and statesmen who matched wits, will, and nerve for the highest possible stakes.
From the great clashes of antiquity to the high-tech wars of the twenty-first century, here are the stories of the twenty most consequential battles ever fought, including
• Marathon, where Greece’s “greatest generation” repelled Persian forces three times their numbers—and saved Western civilization from being extinguished in its infancy
• Adrianople, the death blow to a disintegrating Roman Empire, dealt by a wave of invading Goths
• Trafalgar, the epic naval victory that decided the Napoleonic Wars and cemented a century of British supremacy over the globe
• Saratoga, where militias from across the colonies united for the first truly American victory and ensured the ultimate triumph of the Revolution
• Midway, the ferocious sea battle that broke the back of the Japanese navy and helped seal the outcome of World War II in the Pacific
• Dien Bien Phu, the climactic confrontation between French imperial troops and Viet Minh rebels that set the stage for American intervention in Vietnam and marked the rise of a new era of insurgent warfare
• Operation Peach, the 2003 mission to secure a critical bridge over the Euphrates River that represented a potentially devastating trap for American forces but would open the way to Baghdad
Historians and armchair generals will argue forever about which battles have had the most direct impact on history. But there can be no doubt that these twenty are among the fraction that set mankind on new trajectories. Each of these epochal campaigns is examined in its full historical, strategic, and tactical context—complete with edge-of-your-seat you-are-there battle re-creations. With an eye for the small detail as well as the bigger picture, Lacey and Murray identify the elements that bind these battles together: the key decisions, critical mistakes, and moments of crisis on which the fates of entire civilizations depended.
Some battles merely leave a field littered with the bodies of the fallen. Others transform the map of the entire world. Moment of Battle is history written with the immediacy of today’s news, a magisterial tour d’horizon that refreshes our understanding of those critical turning points where the future was decided.
“In a single volume, Murray and Lacey have distilled a lifetime of learning and insight into the most influential battles in world history. This is a readable and compelling primer and a feast for the student of military history.”—James D. Hornfischer, author of Neptune’s Inferno: The U.S. Navy at Guadalcanal
428 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2013
54 people are currently reading
473 people want to read
About the author
James Lacey
39 books27 followersJames G. Lacey is the Marine Corps University’s Major General Matthew C. Horner Chair of War Studies, where serves as professor and course director for War, Policy, and Strategy, as well as Political Economy at the Marine Corps War College. He holds a Bachelor of Arts in History from The Citadel and a Ph.D. in Military History from Leeds University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
April 6, 2013
This is a nicely written book. One gets a pretty good sense of the top twenty military battles of all time, in the authors’' view. Literately written, with some useable maps to give a sense of battles and campaigns.
There are quite a few familiar battles listed here. And that is one issue. This hardly a surprising set of battles. Why the need for another book? They argue that their selection is offering a different approach, noting that what others who list decisive battles missed was (p. xiv) ". . .the fact that all too many battles are not decisive in the long run, that victory on the day of battle is all too often followed by dark days of death, defeat, and brutal sacrifice." Question: A battle in Iraq during Desert Storm was decisive? It's too early, first, too judge. Hence, they betray their own criterion of looking at "the long run."
A sampling of battles that they explore: Marathon, Gaugamela (or Arbela), Zama, Teutoburger Wald, Adrianople, Yarmuk, Hastings, The Spanish Armada, Breitenfeld, the time around 1759 when British supremacy arose, Saratoga, Trafalgar, Vicksburg, The Marne, Battle of Britain, Midway, Kursk, Normandy, Dien Bien Phu, Objective Peach (Iraq War). Note something bizarre? 10 of the 20 involved Great Britain and the United States. It strains my credulity to believe that half of all decisive battles include just these two countries.
Again, this is well written. The brief depictions of the battles are also nicely crafted. But is hard to take this seriously when it is so narrowly drawn and emphasizes just two countries.
There are quite a few familiar battles listed here. And that is one issue. This hardly a surprising set of battles. Why the need for another book? They argue that their selection is offering a different approach, noting that what others who list decisive battles missed was (p. xiv) ". . .the fact that all too many battles are not decisive in the long run, that victory on the day of battle is all too often followed by dark days of death, defeat, and brutal sacrifice." Question: A battle in Iraq during Desert Storm was decisive? It's too early, first, too judge. Hence, they betray their own criterion of looking at "the long run."
A sampling of battles that they explore: Marathon, Gaugamela (or Arbela), Zama, Teutoburger Wald, Adrianople, Yarmuk, Hastings, The Spanish Armada, Breitenfeld, the time around 1759 when British supremacy arose, Saratoga, Trafalgar, Vicksburg, The Marne, Battle of Britain, Midway, Kursk, Normandy, Dien Bien Phu, Objective Peach (Iraq War). Note something bizarre? 10 of the 20 involved Great Britain and the United States. It strains my credulity to believe that half of all decisive battles include just these two countries.
Again, this is well written. The brief depictions of the battles are also nicely crafted. But is hard to take this seriously when it is so narrowly drawn and emphasizes just two countries.
May 29, 2013
One won't be able to chide James Lacey and Williamson Murray for lack of ambition in their book "Moment of Battle: The Twenty Clashes That Changed the World."
The authors spotlight twenty battles that changed the world---these are not necessarily the most well known battles of the selected conflicts, but these battles changed or defined the course of battle and in the process human civilization.Each battle takes a section of the book 20-40 pages and the reader is given a brief historical sketch of the battle, the key players, and their thought processes. This almost transports the reader onto the battlefield.
My only major quibble with this book is the selection of the battles (though the authors readily acknowledge that this will be a point of contention.) My specific point is the large gap that exists between 1954-2003. I find it hard to believe that no civilization changing battles occurred during this period. Consider the Soviet Union's conflict in Afghanistan, the multiple Arab-Israeli wars, among other things.
I also question the inclusion of the US drive towards Baghdad in 2003 because we don't really know how the situation in Iraq will shake out yet. The other nineteen battles have had in some cases hundreds of years between them.
These minor concerns aside, this is a fantastic book that made me wish that it was the fifty clashes that changed the world because it went entirely too quickly.
The authors spotlight twenty battles that changed the world---these are not necessarily the most well known battles of the selected conflicts, but these battles changed or defined the course of battle and in the process human civilization.Each battle takes a section of the book 20-40 pages and the reader is given a brief historical sketch of the battle, the key players, and their thought processes. This almost transports the reader onto the battlefield.
My only major quibble with this book is the selection of the battles (though the authors readily acknowledge that this will be a point of contention.) My specific point is the large gap that exists between 1954-2003. I find it hard to believe that no civilization changing battles occurred during this period. Consider the Soviet Union's conflict in Afghanistan, the multiple Arab-Israeli wars, among other things.
I also question the inclusion of the US drive towards Baghdad in 2003 because we don't really know how the situation in Iraq will shake out yet. The other nineteen battles have had in some cases hundreds of years between them.
These minor concerns aside, this is a fantastic book that made me wish that it was the fifty clashes that changed the world because it went entirely too quickly.
July 19, 2013
The authors have chosen twenty battles that met their criteria of changing the course of history for years, if not generations, beyond the war and the events in which they occurred. It is an interesting concept, and part of the fun of reading the book is the justification provided by the author to substantiate that choice. I don't think they succeed with all twenty battles. They have chosen four battles out of WWII - at least two of do not meet the criteria they define. The argument of lasting historical affect clearly fits the Battle of Britain and Midway, but their other two choices don't. One (D-Day) was a momentous event that affected the course of the war. But if D-Day had failed, the defeat of Germany would still have happened. The Allies would have come back and done it again, and done it better. D-Day affected the timing of the course of the war, not its result and thus not really the course of history in years to follow. Likewise the Battle of Kursk - an odd choice under the "world-changing" concept. Stalingrad would be the world-changer -- that huge, monstrous siege and battle that represented the high water mark for NAZI Germany. Losing at Stalingrad - and it could have gone the other way - turned the war irrevocably against Germany - as did Midway turn it against Japan. From that point on, Germany could not win... it could surge and fight for years yet to come, but it could not win. That cannot be said of Kursk.
The French defeat at Dien Bein Phu is another peculiar choice. I was interested to read the author's summary account of the battle and the historical events that led up to it. But I don't see the French defeat as world-changing... not in the substantive and lasting fashion defined by the author's. A far better argument could be made for the 1968 Tet offensive that was a crushing US victory and yet was the turning point for the US slide into defeatism and antiwar politics, all of which certainly have had world-changing influence in the years since.
The 20th battle offered is the drive to Baghdad in the Iraq War... a choice I simply don't understand. If it ever proves to be world-changing, we won't know it for years and years to come. I doubt that happens - there is no indication that the drive on Baghdad will prove to have changed much of anything in the Mideast. Perhaps it would have if the US had made better use of its time in Iraq, and made better preparation for a continuing presence there following the emergence of a stable and viable Iraqi government... but that didn't happen and current events seem to indicate a return to the usual state of affairs ante-bellum. Mideastern entropy at play, I suppose. Speculation by the authors that the drive to Baghdad will be world-changing is really weak, to be kind.
That said, the greater value of the book for me was to give me some exposure to some historical events outside my range of historical interests. It is a nice smorgasbord of battles that are succinctly, but interestingly, narrated with enough personal detail and context to make them meaningful and enjoyable to read. Some deal with historical eras that do not interest me - but the battle described did and thus gave me a small grounding in the era. That's a big plus for the book. And to the extent the author's compel you to digest and evaluate their arguments for historical significance, it is stimulating. Agree - disagree - it's a good thought exercise!
The French defeat at Dien Bein Phu is another peculiar choice. I was interested to read the author's summary account of the battle and the historical events that led up to it. But I don't see the French defeat as world-changing... not in the substantive and lasting fashion defined by the author's. A far better argument could be made for the 1968 Tet offensive that was a crushing US victory and yet was the turning point for the US slide into defeatism and antiwar politics, all of which certainly have had world-changing influence in the years since.
The 20th battle offered is the drive to Baghdad in the Iraq War... a choice I simply don't understand. If it ever proves to be world-changing, we won't know it for years and years to come. I doubt that happens - there is no indication that the drive on Baghdad will prove to have changed much of anything in the Mideast. Perhaps it would have if the US had made better use of its time in Iraq, and made better preparation for a continuing presence there following the emergence of a stable and viable Iraqi government... but that didn't happen and current events seem to indicate a return to the usual state of affairs ante-bellum. Mideastern entropy at play, I suppose. Speculation by the authors that the drive to Baghdad will be world-changing is really weak, to be kind.
That said, the greater value of the book for me was to give me some exposure to some historical events outside my range of historical interests. It is a nice smorgasbord of battles that are succinctly, but interestingly, narrated with enough personal detail and context to make them meaningful and enjoyable to read. Some deal with historical eras that do not interest me - but the battle described did and thus gave me a small grounding in the era. That's a big plus for the book. And to the extent the author's compel you to digest and evaluate their arguments for historical significance, it is stimulating. Agree - disagree - it's a good thought exercise!
June 4, 2014
Very accessible, but at times delving too far into detail for the overall theme of the book (roughly ten pages per battle). Further, this is incredibly biased, and should read "...Twenty Clashes that Changed the Western World."
June 14, 2017
Boring and biased. The choice of battles obviously gravitates around USA/England and the descriptions of the battles are too detailed
May 31, 2020
20 clashes, how long could that to read? It took me quite a long time. Because I am not a military history aficionado, had little previous exposure to many of these battles (like, I’d never heard of them), and they are described using what I presume is standard military terminology. I kept forgetting the difference between brigades and divisions and things like that, and the ranks of commanders meant little to me other than a sense that Generals and Admirals were up at the top.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed the book well enough to finish it. I doubt I will remember any of the particular points (when it's beneficial to be atop a hill, or on a particular side of a swamp or river, where you should position your archers or calvary for best effect, etc.), but I read it for the overview. I learned about all different military leaders throughout history and throughout the world, about the situations that lead to various wars, and how history was sent in a particular trajectory by the outcome of these battles.
I’d recommend this especially for people with a particular interest in the nitty gritty of military battles, I'm not sure it’s intended for a very general audience like myself. That said, if you want/need to learn about a *particular* battle included, each chapter is stand-alone, and pretty useful. My son only read the chapter about Hastings for a history paper, it was a great resource for that.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed the book well enough to finish it. I doubt I will remember any of the particular points (when it's beneficial to be atop a hill, or on a particular side of a swamp or river, where you should position your archers or calvary for best effect, etc.), but I read it for the overview. I learned about all different military leaders throughout history and throughout the world, about the situations that lead to various wars, and how history was sent in a particular trajectory by the outcome of these battles.
I’d recommend this especially for people with a particular interest in the nitty gritty of military battles, I'm not sure it’s intended for a very general audience like myself. That said, if you want/need to learn about a *particular* battle included, each chapter is stand-alone, and pretty useful. My son only read the chapter about Hastings for a history paper, it was a great resource for that.
November 15, 2022
Typical military history book: minute attention given to the detailed movement of the right flank or the left flank of some army, with very little attention given to the larger significance or impact of the battle/war. I have never found this kind of thing interesting - "Alexander's right flank plunged into Darius's middle", etc. These kind of military history books are all the same - they lavish time and attention upon boring details, whether of the caliber of this or that gun, or battlefield tactics, but they never have time for more thoughtful analysis. I'm not sure I'd care to hear for these authors' analysis, now that I think of it, since most of what they have to say beyond the level of battlefield tactics seems to be how great the "West" is and how inferior everyone else is. You can tell the authors are ethnocentric from their selection of battles alone - more than half come from the UK or USA alone. Half of all the important battles in world history are from these two countries?
Why do I keep falling for these types of books? They're never interesting.
Why do I keep falling for these types of books? They're never interesting.
August 17, 2020
С това заглавие книгата подвежда че ще е поредната "уикипедия" книга с изброени 20 битки на по две страници с по няколко снимки,но въсъщност книгата представлява възможно най-подробното (за формата си) описание и анализ на битките,които според авторите са от най-значимите и последиците им се усещат в нашето съвремие.Похвално е ,че авторите предствят свои интерпретации за някои апекти от битките ,като развой (където липсват или са пристрастни историческите данни) ,допуснати грешки и най-удачни военни действия и значението на битките ако бяха спечели/загубени.Почти превеса на английските и американските битки ,навежда на мисълта за пристрастие,но както казват авторите всеки е свободен да напише своя книга със своя класация ианализ и интерпретация на изобилието от битки (явно ние хората обичаме да се избиваме поради религиозни,мегаломански и ред други причини) в човешката история.
3,5 *
3,5 *
June 25, 2020
This is an interesting book, with some issues. Those would start with some of the choices of battles, most if which make sense (though many might differ) including Operation Peach, which is too soon in the past to really warrant inclusion in a book about battles that changed history. A number of the conclusions for each battle are debatable. There were also some erroneous details that made me wonder if there were others that I missed. Those included having the Spanish Armada sailing west in the English Channel, calling Cape Breton Island a peninsula, and having the French fleet sailing to the East Indies, when I suspect that they went to their possessions in the West Indies, to avoid an English fleet. These errors should have been picked up in the edit process. Still, it is worth a read.
January 28, 2018
The book was okay. It was good to get a refresher on some of the great battles in world history, but I was looking for more analysis and depth. The tone of the book appeared to be "simplified" - at times it felt like I was reading material of the fourth and fifth graders. Another area that felt unfinished is the way the authors presented how a given military formation, a given size of the opponent, or some other event must have made the opposing force feel. Without much documentation or references to source materials to back up certain individual stories - it felt like too much was being inferred by the authors alone.
January 31, 2022
По-скоро посредствена. По мое скромно мнение разгледаните 20 битки биха могли да бъдат засегнати по-детайлно. Например за танковата битка при Прохоровка авторите само бегло споменават проблема с числата на танковете в бележка под линия, цитирайки Читино, но са явно незпознати с блестящата монография на Замулин или със спорната теза на Фризер. За европоцентристкия им мироглед (битката при Маратон) или западноцентристкия (битката при Тевтобург) няма да взема отношение.
March 16, 2023
I’m sorry to say this isn’t very good, unless you enjoy pro western, pro Protestant, anti Catholic, anti Muslim, colonial apologist bias. It’s a shame as this had a lot of potential. I abandoned this one in the midst of the chapter on the Spanish Armada. How these authors can call Islam an expansionistic faith while eliding over and / or praising Christian expansionism or western colonialism really beggars belief.
March 18, 2020
Excellent
I learned a great deal reading this book. Many thanks to the authors and I look forward to their coming works.
I learned a great deal reading this book. Many thanks to the authors and I look forward to their coming works.
January 5, 2021
Strong book. Covers several key battles in detail, and the reader will come away with a feeling of just how close run hinge points of history can be. Fascinating to contemplate.
March 31, 2019
Moment of Battle
The Twenty Clashes that Changed the World
James Lacey
Williamson Murray
Each chapter describes a battle.
the youtube videos reinforce and sometimes better explain the written text. Also it gives the pronunciation:
Gaugamela
311 BC
gaugamela = gaga mela
Darius = Da rius
first youtube video is only 6 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOin0...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY3z3...
I like the conclusion of the book:
In large measure, the development of the philosophical edifice that underpins Christian beliefs is a Hellenistic interpretation of the life and traditions of Jesus, coming to us through a prism of cultural beliefs first established by Alexander’s victory at Gaugamela. It is too much to claim that if Alexander had been defeated, Christianity would never have appeared, but it is clear that the trajectory and traditions of Christianity would have been radically altered if Alexander had been vanquished.”
The Spanish Armada
1588
A very good description of the context and the sea battle itself. Philip II of Spain sent his fleet to defeat the English fleet and conquer England itself.
Page 139: “Although the Ottoman threat had receded, Spain remained embroiled in France’s civil war as well as incessant quarrels within its own Italian possessions. Moreover, a huge part of its military might was locked in a death embrace with the Dutch that had become a multigenerational quagmire. All of these conflicts were a constant drain on Philip’s treasury”
In their conclusion of the chapter, the authors emphasize the religious nature of the conflict. The defeat of the Spanish Armada, was an essential element of the rise of Protestantism in Europe. Undoubtably true. Looking back from the vantage of four hundred years, Philip II was over zealous in defending Catholicism. Somehow, he never considered that Protestants were also Christians and ignored the central message of the Gospel which was Christ died for our sins. The Gospel has little to say about the organization of the church. Philip suffered from what I call bossism - he wanted to be the boss - as if being the boss would solve all problems. Again from the vantage of four hundred years, it’s very clear that advances in technology would have advanced the position of Spain in the world. Why couldn’t Philip have promoted the development of ship building and metallurgy. Advances in metallurgy would have improved three things: saws to cut wood, cannons and hardware on ships.
The YouTube video presents the battle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl3st...
Battlefield Britain - Spanish Armada: The narrator says that at one point, the Spanish fleet had an extraordinary opportunity to engage the English fleet while it was trapped in Plymouth harbour. The fact that it didn’t showed that the commander, the Duke of Medina Sidonia was not the man for the job. He said so himself. Suppose, Sidonia had been successful, in defeating the English fleet and the invasion of England itself. It would seem a stretch, that he would loyally report back to Philip.
Midway
1942
Very good summary. I have studied this battle. The authors highlight the dramatic moments when individual brilliance made the difference:
“As the Zeros splashed the last of the torpedo bombers, American dive bombers, almost out of fuel, picked up the wake of a destroyer the Japanese had detached to take care of the Nautilus. Lieutenant Commander Clarence McClusky, leading the Enterprise’s Dauntless dive bombers, decided the ship was attempting to catch up to Nagumo’s carriers and turned his squadron to follow the destroyer’s course. Minutes later, the dive bomber pilots spotted the Japanese fleet laid out just ahead of them.”
I take inspiration from his conclusion:
“Midway was also crucial in the long term. By ensuring that the war in the Pacific ended when it did, it allowed the Americans to exclude the Soviets from participating in the occupation of Japan. In August 1945, the Soviets were able to launch an invasion of Manchuria, but not the Japanese home islands. Without a presence on Japanese territory, they lacked the political prestige to demand an occupation zone. As a result, Japan would not find itself divided, as was the case with Germany; there would be no tyrannical Communist regime in northern Japan that would have undoubtedly resembled East Germany or even more disastrously, North Korea. Instead, Japan would emerge from its devastating defeat as a democratic nation - one, moreover, that was to become the economic powerhouse in the explosion of Asian economies that has come since the Second World War and fundamentally altered the wold’s political and economic map. Midway, indeed, cast a long shadow.”
The Twenty Clashes that Changed the World
James Lacey
Williamson Murray
Each chapter describes a battle.
the youtube videos reinforce and sometimes better explain the written text. Also it gives the pronunciation:
Gaugamela
311 BC
gaugamela = gaga mela
Darius = Da rius
first youtube video is only 6 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOin0...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY3z3...
I like the conclusion of the book:
In large measure, the development of the philosophical edifice that underpins Christian beliefs is a Hellenistic interpretation of the life and traditions of Jesus, coming to us through a prism of cultural beliefs first established by Alexander’s victory at Gaugamela. It is too much to claim that if Alexander had been defeated, Christianity would never have appeared, but it is clear that the trajectory and traditions of Christianity would have been radically altered if Alexander had been vanquished.”
The Spanish Armada
1588
A very good description of the context and the sea battle itself. Philip II of Spain sent his fleet to defeat the English fleet and conquer England itself.
Page 139: “Although the Ottoman threat had receded, Spain remained embroiled in France’s civil war as well as incessant quarrels within its own Italian possessions. Moreover, a huge part of its military might was locked in a death embrace with the Dutch that had become a multigenerational quagmire. All of these conflicts were a constant drain on Philip’s treasury”
In their conclusion of the chapter, the authors emphasize the religious nature of the conflict. The defeat of the Spanish Armada, was an essential element of the rise of Protestantism in Europe. Undoubtably true. Looking back from the vantage of four hundred years, Philip II was over zealous in defending Catholicism. Somehow, he never considered that Protestants were also Christians and ignored the central message of the Gospel which was Christ died for our sins. The Gospel has little to say about the organization of the church. Philip suffered from what I call bossism - he wanted to be the boss - as if being the boss would solve all problems. Again from the vantage of four hundred years, it’s very clear that advances in technology would have advanced the position of Spain in the world. Why couldn’t Philip have promoted the development of ship building and metallurgy. Advances in metallurgy would have improved three things: saws to cut wood, cannons and hardware on ships.
The YouTube video presents the battle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl3st...
Battlefield Britain - Spanish Armada: The narrator says that at one point, the Spanish fleet had an extraordinary opportunity to engage the English fleet while it was trapped in Plymouth harbour. The fact that it didn’t showed that the commander, the Duke of Medina Sidonia was not the man for the job. He said so himself. Suppose, Sidonia had been successful, in defeating the English fleet and the invasion of England itself. It would seem a stretch, that he would loyally report back to Philip.
Midway
1942
Very good summary. I have studied this battle. The authors highlight the dramatic moments when individual brilliance made the difference:
“As the Zeros splashed the last of the torpedo bombers, American dive bombers, almost out of fuel, picked up the wake of a destroyer the Japanese had detached to take care of the Nautilus. Lieutenant Commander Clarence McClusky, leading the Enterprise’s Dauntless dive bombers, decided the ship was attempting to catch up to Nagumo’s carriers and turned his squadron to follow the destroyer’s course. Minutes later, the dive bomber pilots spotted the Japanese fleet laid out just ahead of them.”
I take inspiration from his conclusion:
“Midway was also crucial in the long term. By ensuring that the war in the Pacific ended when it did, it allowed the Americans to exclude the Soviets from participating in the occupation of Japan. In August 1945, the Soviets were able to launch an invasion of Manchuria, but not the Japanese home islands. Without a presence on Japanese territory, they lacked the political prestige to demand an occupation zone. As a result, Japan would not find itself divided, as was the case with Germany; there would be no tyrannical Communist regime in northern Japan that would have undoubtedly resembled East Germany or even more disastrously, North Korea. Instead, Japan would emerge from its devastating defeat as a democratic nation - one, moreover, that was to become the economic powerhouse in the explosion of Asian economies that has come since the Second World War and fundamentally altered the wold’s political and economic map. Midway, indeed, cast a long shadow.”
August 24, 2014
A very good book about the key battles that changed history.
The purpose of the book is to identify the battles that have have had the most significant historical repercussions. Thus, you won't find any battles in here that were fought by great generals whose sides eventually lost such as Hannibal, Napoleon or Robert E. Lee, because the historical outcome would have been the same even if they had lost the battles that they won. Instead, Lacey/Murray have identified battles that "changed history," and proceed to examine the key strategic and tactical decisions and other factors (such as training, equipment, weather and luck) that determined the outcome of these battles.
The discussions of the battles are excellent. The authors discuss each battle in about 20 pages, focusing on the critical factors rather than on operational minutiae, and explaining how the battles could have gone differently if the commanders had made different decisions.
There is less emphasis on the "changed history" part, generally a page of counter-factual supposition. There are entire books about counter-factual history, and the authors sensibly focus more on the battles rather than overdoing the counter-factual conclusions. I also noted an anti-Catholic bent to the claimed historical significance of several battles, as the defeat of the Spanish Armada and the Battle of Breitenfeld are depicted as clashes that saved Europe from harsh and unenlightened Catholic rule that the authors claim would have prevented the Industrial Revolution and crushed intellectualism. It's one thing to claim that battles dramatically altered who ruled Europe, it's another to argue in a military history book that Catholics would have prevented the Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment from occurring. That's too much to claim about these battles.
The book could have used a few more maps. There is one per chapter, but it can be hard to follow some of the battles when maps only show the disposition of forces at one point in time.
Another criticism I have is with the selection of the battles. Many of the selections are inspired - the battles of Zama and Hastings are often mentioned but seldom discussed in detail, so it was very interesting to read about the details of these battles here. Lacey/Murray also have compelling discussions about the importance of several other battles with which I was previously unfamiliar - Yarmuk and Breitenfeld.
Still, Lacey/Murray did not include Stalingrad, even though they selected four other battles from WWII. It's hard to believe that Stalingrad - the largest battle of the War, an incredibly decisive battle, and one that marked the clearest turning point of the War for the Western Allies - was not one of the four most significant of WWII. The inclusion of "Objective Peach" - a battle during Operation Iraqi Freedom in which an American division captured a key bridge and destroyed an Iraqi division - is baffling. Lacey/Murray acknowledge that it's too soon to tell how this battle "changed history," and they don't even explain how it affected Operation Iraqi Freedom. There is no suggestion that the Coalition would have failed to capture Baghdad if the battle had gone differently, for instance. There is no explanation for why this battle is included instead of Stalingrad or some other battle of more historical significance such as the Battle of Tours in 732, in which the Muslim invasion of Europe was halted, dramatically altering the course of history. The most likely explanation is that the authors wanted to include at least one recent battle. But wouldn't a battle from the Arab-Israeli wars have made more sense? Objective Peach just doesn't fit with the premise of the book because it was not very significant in deciding the actual war in which it was fought and has no apparent long-term historical significance.
The book is also heavily focused on the battles of Western Civilization. 18 of the 20 battles were in Europe/Eurasia and America. Even the two battles selected that were in East Asia - Midway and Dien Bien Phu - had Western combatants on one side, meaning that of the 40 main combatants who fought the 20 battles in the book, 38 (95%) were European, Eurasian or American. I don't know much about Asian history, but I find it difficult to believe that there were no battles east of the Persian Gulf until 1942 that "changed the world." It's really a book about battles that changed the WESTERN world, though that title is not as weighty as the "Clashes that Changed the WORLD."
Those criticisms aside, the book does a great job of explaining battles in an easily-understood manner from an operational to a geo-political level in a concise and interesting manner, and it's certainly a worthwhile read.
The purpose of the book is to identify the battles that have have had the most significant historical repercussions. Thus, you won't find any battles in here that were fought by great generals whose sides eventually lost such as Hannibal, Napoleon or Robert E. Lee, because the historical outcome would have been the same even if they had lost the battles that they won. Instead, Lacey/Murray have identified battles that "changed history," and proceed to examine the key strategic and tactical decisions and other factors (such as training, equipment, weather and luck) that determined the outcome of these battles.
The discussions of the battles are excellent. The authors discuss each battle in about 20 pages, focusing on the critical factors rather than on operational minutiae, and explaining how the battles could have gone differently if the commanders had made different decisions.
There is less emphasis on the "changed history" part, generally a page of counter-factual supposition. There are entire books about counter-factual history, and the authors sensibly focus more on the battles rather than overdoing the counter-factual conclusions. I also noted an anti-Catholic bent to the claimed historical significance of several battles, as the defeat of the Spanish Armada and the Battle of Breitenfeld are depicted as clashes that saved Europe from harsh and unenlightened Catholic rule that the authors claim would have prevented the Industrial Revolution and crushed intellectualism. It's one thing to claim that battles dramatically altered who ruled Europe, it's another to argue in a military history book that Catholics would have prevented the Industrial Revolution and Enlightenment from occurring. That's too much to claim about these battles.
The book could have used a few more maps. There is one per chapter, but it can be hard to follow some of the battles when maps only show the disposition of forces at one point in time.
Another criticism I have is with the selection of the battles. Many of the selections are inspired - the battles of Zama and Hastings are often mentioned but seldom discussed in detail, so it was very interesting to read about the details of these battles here. Lacey/Murray also have compelling discussions about the importance of several other battles with which I was previously unfamiliar - Yarmuk and Breitenfeld.
Still, Lacey/Murray did not include Stalingrad, even though they selected four other battles from WWII. It's hard to believe that Stalingrad - the largest battle of the War, an incredibly decisive battle, and one that marked the clearest turning point of the War for the Western Allies - was not one of the four most significant of WWII. The inclusion of "Objective Peach" - a battle during Operation Iraqi Freedom in which an American division captured a key bridge and destroyed an Iraqi division - is baffling. Lacey/Murray acknowledge that it's too soon to tell how this battle "changed history," and they don't even explain how it affected Operation Iraqi Freedom. There is no suggestion that the Coalition would have failed to capture Baghdad if the battle had gone differently, for instance. There is no explanation for why this battle is included instead of Stalingrad or some other battle of more historical significance such as the Battle of Tours in 732, in which the Muslim invasion of Europe was halted, dramatically altering the course of history. The most likely explanation is that the authors wanted to include at least one recent battle. But wouldn't a battle from the Arab-Israeli wars have made more sense? Objective Peach just doesn't fit with the premise of the book because it was not very significant in deciding the actual war in which it was fought and has no apparent long-term historical significance.
The book is also heavily focused on the battles of Western Civilization. 18 of the 20 battles were in Europe/Eurasia and America. Even the two battles selected that were in East Asia - Midway and Dien Bien Phu - had Western combatants on one side, meaning that of the 40 main combatants who fought the 20 battles in the book, 38 (95%) were European, Eurasian or American. I don't know much about Asian history, but I find it difficult to believe that there were no battles east of the Persian Gulf until 1942 that "changed the world." It's really a book about battles that changed the WESTERN world, though that title is not as weighty as the "Clashes that Changed the WORLD."
Those criticisms aside, the book does a great job of explaining battles in an easily-understood manner from an operational to a geo-political level in a concise and interesting manner, and it's certainly a worthwhile read.
August 2, 2019
Pretty good overview of a number of important battles throughout history. The details are pretty good for the battles that I'm fairly knowledgeable about, though, of course, none of them are gone into too much detail. Think one chapter each. They've tried to distance themselves from other lists by by-passing some of the more well-known battles (think Waterloo) in favor of less well-known battles (e.g. Saratoga as the only American revolution battle). They've done this purposely to highlight that these battles are more import in history - but it sometimes comes across that they are trying just a bit too hard.
October 21, 2015
Let me start off by saying that one should probably disregard the number of stars that I gave this book. They are merely a reflection of how the book and I got along, they are not an accurate reflection on the quality of the book.
Moment of Battle is military history. It covers the twenty battles whose outcome the authors believe changed the course of world history. The book begins with the Battle of Marathon in 490 B.C., and ends with Objective Peach, the Drive for Baghdad in 2003. So it covers a lot of history.
The authors write clearly and enthusiastically about their subject; they are clearly knowledgeable and have put deep and broad thought into the battles and into how those battles changed world history. They spend time covering not only the battles, but the key figures in those battles, trying to bring to life their motivations, their thought processes, and their brilliance (or lack thereof), and their humanity. The book is well written, colorful, enlightening, and educational. Sometimes the reading is quick, other times it's a slog. It really depends on the battles being waged.
BUT. But. I do not have a mind that can envision the scene of battle to the extent that this book demands. I can't keep in my mind what division is over here, and whose company is doing what over there, and what the cavalry is doing back there, and what tank battalions are rolling over what village. My brain could not keep track of the battle, particularly once we hit WW I and warfare became impersonal mechanized massacre on a grand scale (which in itself was eye opening and terrifying, by the way). To help me track the battles I could have used one of those big battle maps like you see in war rooms. When we are talking about 1000, or 3000, or 5000 troops, I can see it. When we are talking about 20,000, or 50,000, or 250,000 dead on both sides, it's beyond my scope of comprehension.
The other thing I noticed about this book is that the battles were largely centered on Western civilization. Greece, Rome, and European battles figured prominently. The battle of Dien Bien Phu, and the Battle of Midway were covered, but that's pretty much it for Asia. I did find that a little odd, since you know, China. In over 5000 years of history there has to be a battle or two there that shaped the world. And then there's Genghis Khan. Betcha he is responsible for some world changing war activity. Not to mention Korea, which let's face it, is a place of great interest to the world even today. South Korea, the United States, Japan, China, and Russia all keep a watchful eye on that little corner of the world. Battles in the New World weren't covered. I would argue that the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs, Inca, and Maya probably changed the world to a great degree, and certainly changed the face of the Western Hemisphere. But anyway. The authors covered 20 battles, not 50. There will always have to be omissions when one is setting a numerical limit.
Overall the book is a good read if you like history, military history in particular. I'd argue that you need to be prepared to spend some time with the book, though, and be prepared for enough description of battle to make you think you need to go wash the blood off your hands when you put the book down.
Moment of Battle is military history. It covers the twenty battles whose outcome the authors believe changed the course of world history. The book begins with the Battle of Marathon in 490 B.C., and ends with Objective Peach, the Drive for Baghdad in 2003. So it covers a lot of history.
The authors write clearly and enthusiastically about their subject; they are clearly knowledgeable and have put deep and broad thought into the battles and into how those battles changed world history. They spend time covering not only the battles, but the key figures in those battles, trying to bring to life their motivations, their thought processes, and their brilliance (or lack thereof), and their humanity. The book is well written, colorful, enlightening, and educational. Sometimes the reading is quick, other times it's a slog. It really depends on the battles being waged.
BUT. But. I do not have a mind that can envision the scene of battle to the extent that this book demands. I can't keep in my mind what division is over here, and whose company is doing what over there, and what the cavalry is doing back there, and what tank battalions are rolling over what village. My brain could not keep track of the battle, particularly once we hit WW I and warfare became impersonal mechanized massacre on a grand scale (which in itself was eye opening and terrifying, by the way). To help me track the battles I could have used one of those big battle maps like you see in war rooms. When we are talking about 1000, or 3000, or 5000 troops, I can see it. When we are talking about 20,000, or 50,000, or 250,000 dead on both sides, it's beyond my scope of comprehension.
The other thing I noticed about this book is that the battles were largely centered on Western civilization. Greece, Rome, and European battles figured prominently. The battle of Dien Bien Phu, and the Battle of Midway were covered, but that's pretty much it for Asia. I did find that a little odd, since you know, China. In over 5000 years of history there has to be a battle or two there that shaped the world. And then there's Genghis Khan. Betcha he is responsible for some world changing war activity. Not to mention Korea, which let's face it, is a place of great interest to the world even today. South Korea, the United States, Japan, China, and Russia all keep a watchful eye on that little corner of the world. Battles in the New World weren't covered. I would argue that the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs, Inca, and Maya probably changed the world to a great degree, and certainly changed the face of the Western Hemisphere. But anyway. The authors covered 20 battles, not 50. There will always have to be omissions when one is setting a numerical limit.
Overall the book is a good read if you like history, military history in particular. I'd argue that you need to be prepared to spend some time with the book, though, and be prepared for enough description of battle to make you think you need to go wash the blood off your hands when you put the book down.
February 14, 2016
La principal lección que aprendí es: 'Ya aprendiste a llegar sin expectativas a los libros de ficción que lees'. Ahora tengo que hacer lo mismo con los de no ficción.
Este libro es una reescritura y actualización del famosísimo libro de Edward Creasy 'Las quince batallas decisivas del mundo'. A juicio de los autores, las batallas ofrecidas son aquellas cuyo resultado habría alterado dramáticamente la historia.
Como fanático de la historia que soy, llegué deseando muchas cosas. Una narración ágil, unas ideas provocadoras o reflexivas, un detalle interesante que aprender. Y la verdad obtuve algunas de estas cosas, pero a medias.
Las batallas cuyos detalles y desarrollo conocía de antemano las seguí con agilidad y disfrute (Maratón, Trafalgar y Normandía). Con las demás fue bastante difícil seguir el ritmo. Parte de la culpa puede venir de que los autores no son historiadores, sino analistas de defensa. Entonces tienen una tendencia a distraerse con minucias operacionales y distraer al lector al dar una narración poco atrayente. Definitivamente les faltó tomar un curso de no ficción creativa, o de poner detalles importantes en una especie de 'fact sheet' como el que viene en el artículo de cualquier batalla en Wikipedia y no soltarlos en el texto. Lo más valioso, eso sí, es la conjetura (pura especulación) de las consecuencias a largo plazo de lo que habría ocurrido de ganar el otro bando la batalla en cuestión. A veces sus conjeturas son prejuiciosas y a veces no.
La queja número dos es una bastante compartida: la selección de las batallas. Laabsurda omisión de Poitiers/Tours y Stalingrado añaden un poco más a los vicios o errores del libro. Y al igual que casi todos los 23 reseñadores que me han precedido, estoy más que pasmado por la (aún más absurda) inclusión de una batalla de la reciente guerra de Irak. Una guerra que fuera de lograr que colgaran a Hussein de una cuerda no ha hecho nada más que mantener al medio oriente embotado en su usual caos de milenios. Bueno, si Irán se pone loco y *tocando madera para que no* llegamos a los trancazos esta última inclusión pruebe ser correcta. Si no no.
Fuera de esto, este libro padece de una manera de enseñar historia que hizo a virtualmente todos mis compañeros aborrecer la materia hasta sus últimos días escolares. Y quien no conoce la historia está condenado a repetirla.
Este libro es una reescritura y actualización del famosísimo libro de Edward Creasy 'Las quince batallas decisivas del mundo'. A juicio de los autores, las batallas ofrecidas son aquellas cuyo resultado habría alterado dramáticamente la historia.
Como fanático de la historia que soy, llegué deseando muchas cosas. Una narración ágil, unas ideas provocadoras o reflexivas, un detalle interesante que aprender. Y la verdad obtuve algunas de estas cosas, pero a medias.
Las batallas cuyos detalles y desarrollo conocía de antemano las seguí con agilidad y disfrute (Maratón, Trafalgar y Normandía). Con las demás fue bastante difícil seguir el ritmo. Parte de la culpa puede venir de que los autores no son historiadores, sino analistas de defensa. Entonces tienen una tendencia a distraerse con minucias operacionales y distraer al lector al dar una narración poco atrayente. Definitivamente les faltó tomar un curso de no ficción creativa, o de poner detalles importantes en una especie de 'fact sheet' como el que viene en el artículo de cualquier batalla en Wikipedia y no soltarlos en el texto. Lo más valioso, eso sí, es la conjetura (pura especulación) de las consecuencias a largo plazo de lo que habría ocurrido de ganar el otro bando la batalla en cuestión. A veces sus conjeturas son prejuiciosas y a veces no.
La queja número dos es una bastante compartida: la selección de las batallas. Laabsurda omisión de Poitiers/Tours y Stalingrado añaden un poco más a los vicios o errores del libro. Y al igual que casi todos los 23 reseñadores que me han precedido, estoy más que pasmado por la (aún más absurda) inclusión de una batalla de la reciente guerra de Irak. Una guerra que fuera de lograr que colgaran a Hussein de una cuerda no ha hecho nada más que mantener al medio oriente embotado en su usual caos de milenios. Bueno, si Irán se pone loco y *tocando madera para que no* llegamos a los trancazos esta última inclusión pruebe ser correcta. Si no no.
Fuera de esto, este libro padece de una manera de enseñar historia que hizo a virtualmente todos mis compañeros aborrecer la materia hasta sus últimos días escolares. Y quien no conoce la historia está condenado a repetirla.
November 2, 2017
I thought it was an excellent book it was definitely one of my favorite non-fiction books I have read. This book does an excellent job of not only talking about the battles in specific detail as well as the backstory of the conflicts , but also does a fantastic job of explaining why the battles matter , and how history would have been different if the battles had gone differently. One such example of everything I have just mentioned about this book is the second battle in this book which involves my favorite military leader from the ancient world Alexander The Great at the battle of Gaugamela where Alexander defeats an army ten times larger then his. This book tells the backstory of Alexander getting to the battle field as well as Darius The Third's preparations then proceeds to tell both the simplicity of Alexanders battle plan and the actual complexity of carrying it out (Alexanders plan was to attack Darius who was on the battle field knowing from a previous battle that he would most likely flee). Finally the book mentions in this battle how if Alexander had lost the Persians under Darius would have most likely retaliated against Greece , and if that had occurred then the Roman Empire wouldn't have been able to assimilated from the Greeks much of the culture and concepts we still see in the Western world today. I found the vast majority of the battles interesting and useful with the exception of only a couple.
July 12, 2013
This is a huge, heavy, fact-packed book. I learned a lot more about history than I did in 4 years of high school by the time I finished Moment of Battle.
The chapters each detail one of 20 momentous military engagements that had a lasting impact on human history. We start all the way back at the battle of Marathon and end in Iraq. I would recommend this for history buffs and people with a keen interest in how war has changed the course of human events.
With very little background in history I was inspired to do some research and learn more about the cultures and the figures detailed in this tome. It's comprehensive enough to be used as a college textbook, but engaging and accessible for the hobby historian.
The chapters each detail one of 20 momentous military engagements that had a lasting impact on human history. We start all the way back at the battle of Marathon and end in Iraq. I would recommend this for history buffs and people with a keen interest in how war has changed the course of human events.
With very little background in history I was inspired to do some research and learn more about the cultures and the figures detailed in this tome. It's comprehensive enough to be used as a college textbook, but engaging and accessible for the hobby historian.
September 1, 2013
I have never attempted to read actual military history before MOMENT OF BATTLE. My goal was to just read the chapters of several battles that I recognized, but this book kept my interest and enticed me to keep reading. Early leaders throughout history had developed tactics that modern officers utilized and improved upon to win their specific encounters. Each battle chosen by the authors ultimately changed the world around them. A key to a good book for me is to say that I learned something new after finishing it. Lacey and Murray certainly educated me in their detailed 424 page summary of military battles.
August 12, 2013
Hmm. If you're going to claim Creasy's mantle you have to produce novel research, incisive insight and prose elevated above Frosh English. Best also not to repeatedly make mis and unattributed quotes. How often in one book, for example, is it necessary to repeat wellington's 'close run thing' (a misquote in itself)? We're it advertised as an introductory survey of important battles and been subject to some editorial guidance this might have received a higher rating as the author's expertise is evident ... just needed a little help along the way.
June 24, 2013
The authors of this book have done a good job of making the history of the western world's pivotal battles interesting reading for the layman. They set the scene for the battle, describe the way it was fought and explain its impact on history. I found the book interesting and easy to read. It was not bogged down in tactical descriptions and language. A good survey of the way war leaves lasting effects beyond the obvious victor/loser tally, but, regrettably, there is some religious bias in the discussion of a few of the battles.
November 24, 2014
The coverage of the battles in this book and their historical consequences vary in quality. The earlier chapters, pre-Revolutionary War, are masterful. The book gets more uneven as it draws closer to the present. (World War II was very important, I know, but deserving of 4 of the 20 battles throughout all history?) In particular, the final chapter about Iraq seems hastily added on. It says that the Iraq War completely changed world politics, warfare, and diplomacy in the 10 years subsequent, but it completely fails to explain how.
January 1, 2014
It is an interesting book with some interesting facts about historical battles. One can argue about the exclusion of some other battles that could have changed the course of history,the attack on Pearl Harbour being one of them. However, all in all, the book is well researched and informative. There are indeed lessons for the future as well. But as the author himself outlines, the Americans seem to have learnt nothing from the Indo-China experience and rushed into Iraq.
December 19, 2014
This book is really poorly written. It covers historic battles in an interesting way, but the prose is very annoying. Referring to Sir Francis Drake as a lovable "Sea Dog" is not writing history. Neither is making bad puns and not acknowledging how bad they are - I paraphrase, but there's a line on the Kursk section that is essentially "When Nazi Germany invaded Russia, they faced the toughest general yet--General Winter."
February 4, 2016
A good reference for twenty important battles.
They go from Marathon to Object Peach (Baghdad, 2003), and include battles such as Teutoburger Wald and Yarmuk.
The analysis is dry and objective. It doesn't contain many personal accounts of battles, which would be more interesting.
I was unfamiliar with a lot of these battles, and their significance. Even the wars I was alive during, I was not familiar with some of the details provided.
They go from Marathon to Object Peach (Baghdad, 2003), and include battles such as Teutoburger Wald and Yarmuk.
The analysis is dry and objective. It doesn't contain many personal accounts of battles, which would be more interesting.
I was unfamiliar with a lot of these battles, and their significance. Even the wars I was alive during, I was not familiar with some of the details provided.
February 10, 2013
Starting in Marathon (490 BC) and ending with Operation Peach (Iraq 2003), the authors bring up 20 battles that changed the future of our world.
Every battle is analyzed in detail: the historical background, why, where, and how it was fought, the strategies and tactics, and its immediate or future impact on the world.
Very interesting book.
Every battle is analyzed in detail: the historical background, why, where, and how it was fought, the strategies and tactics, and its immediate or future impact on the world.
Very interesting book.
July 8, 2013
This book chronicles several historical battles which have changed the world and humanity. It is written in an easy to read voice and is not too brainy in its treatment of the stories. A very enjoyable book, it will keep you turning the pages.
I was one of the fortunate few to receive a complimentary ARC through GoodReads First Reads and the author.
I was one of the fortunate few to receive a complimentary ARC through GoodReads First Reads and the author.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews