Logistics: They Key to Victory is a difficult book to review. It’s (as best I can tell) exceptionally researched, and valuably provides a broad overview of logistical developments (including those outside “The West” and European/American colonial ventures*) from the time of the Roman and Chinese empires through to the present (with thoughts on future developments), and uses this to make a valuable argument about thinking about logistics. The understanding of logistics is nuanced and avoids falling into the trap of assuming a continual forward march of progress, or that less technological methods were necessarily less effective. So there’s a lot of good here, and while I don’t read a lot on logistics, I expect it’s an important contribution to the field.
The writing, however, is very academic in nature, with lots of long sentences and the use of terms that are not always adequately described, as well as the use of obscure, long words, when shorter, clearer ones would do a better job. The arguments, too, sometimes feel like they’re danced around as much as focussed on, making it less clear than it could be what the author is driving at – which, when combined with long, complex sentences did not make for an easy reading experience. And while some topics are inherently difficult, the nature of the writing seemed to make this book harder to read than it needed to be.
The standard of editing was generally sound, with only a handful of grammatical errors or typos – but while these weren’t a big issue, due to the longer sentences it was far harder to discern what had been intended (whereas in writing with shorter, more focussed sentences, grammatical errors are easy to “think around”). The book is well-sourced, and as well as the numerous sources referenced in the notes for each chapter, there are suggestions for further reading, and an index. There were no illustrations, maps or diagrams, but that was appropriate for the nature of the book and it didn’t feel like they were missing.
More broadly, while I thought most of the arguments made were robust, there were a couple of times when there was an emphasis on American “can-do” attitude (particularly in the 20th century), without in my view enough of an (or, indeed, any) explanation of how this differed from the capacity of other nations to improvise and adapt (indeed, one example highlighted the US emphasis on at-sea supply as an example of this, overlooking German developments in this field that were arguably at least as innovative).
I’m not, however, unhappy that I’ve read it. The broad sweep of the historical pattern of logistics, and the way the author frames it as focussing on context, capacity and goals, is valuable. All up, then, the quality of the research and generally the strength of the analysis would put it right at the top, but the convoluted sentence structures and difficulty getting at the underlying argument bring it down some. It’s worth reading for people interested the historical development of logistics, but don’t expect an easy read.
* While not described as such (particularly by Americans), the American occupation of the North American continent after becoming independent was just as much a colonial undertaking as any other European empire.