The History Book Club discussion

Here is your new thread for 2013.

Our Format:

JANUARY

1. by Winston Churchill
Finish date: March 2008
Genre: (whatever genre the book happens to be)
Rating: A
Review: You can add text from a review you have written but no links to any review elsewhere even goodreads. And that is about it. Just make sure to number consecutively and just add the months.

Note: I will delete required format post once you get started.

1. by Geoffrey Wawro
January 16, 2008
History
Rating: 4 Stars
Review: Well-written, concise account of the war, focused primarily on how and why the Prussians won. This is the only book I've read about the war, so I can't judge its accuracy. It's very readable, though, and did not require any specialized knowledge to follow the narrative. The only negative thing I can say about it is that it seemed a little sketchy, not quite complete. Although it was a fairly short war, it just seemed like there should have been more to say about it, more detail to add.

Erskine you got the format right (bravo) and I have not read the book but it looks like I will add it to my list.

I chose it, because I wanted to learn more about Prussia and the process of unification that created modern Germany. Last year, I read by Michael Eliot Howard. Between the two, I can see how the lessons that Prussia learned from these wars shaped their conduct of the First and Second World Wars.

In their 19th century wars with Austria and France, it was speed of mobilization, superior technology, and enveloping maneuvers that gave them quick and decisive victories. Fast mobilization also allowed them to fight on the enemy's territory, preserving Germany from the devastation of the war. It's interesting to see how the desire to achieve those same goals played out in their 20th century wars.

Thanks for the helpful information Erskine. But remember the proper citation format:

by Michael Eliot Howard

I guess you would recommend both of these books then.

Corrected. I didn't realize bookcover was the preferred format for inserting in a paragraph. The formatting looks a bit awkward.

Yes, I would recommend both books, and I rate the one by Howard somewhat higher, say 4.5 stars instead of 4.

That is good to know. I will look for the Howard book first.

Good job - but you can make it easier for yourself by simply adding the citation at the bottom and typing the name of the book and author above.

But what you did is fine. Looks good.

2. by David G. Chandler
February 28, 2013
History
Rating: 5 Stars
Review: Excellent book. A masterpiece of scholarship. As the title suggests, it focuses primarily on Napoleon's military campaigns. The author's main intent is to identify the elements of Napoleon's art of war, and show that his ideas were developed early and employed consistently over the course of his career. Other aspects of Napoleon's career are sketched in outline, and there is some discussion of his overall strategy. Most of the book, though, is given to descriptions of his military campaigns, and his conduct of individual battles. Highly recommended for those with an interest in military history, but at 1095 pages it's not for the casual reader.

Erskine wrote: "2. by David G. Chandler
February 28, 2013
History
Rating: 5 Stars
Review: Excellent book. A masterpiece of scholarship. ..."

How are the maps? One thing that (at least for me) is important in military history is good maps.

I agree on the importance of maps, and these are excellent. Almost all of them were drawn just for this book. They show troop placements, and maneuvers in the same manner as the West Point series by Esposito. There are also regional maps to put the campaigns into geographical context. A couple of the maps were taken from older texts, apparently, and they were more difficult to read. The map for Borodino was one of those. I don't think you will be disappointed.

I enjoyed both books as well. Howard's is older and I found the maps in Howard's not that great if memory serves:

Geoffrey Wawro

Michael Eliot Howard

I haven't read Wawro's book on the Franco-Prussian War, but I would like to check it out eventually. It's been long enough since I read Howard's that I've forgotten the maps. If the book doesn't provide them, I usually go searching on the internet. I like knowing where the action is taking place.

by Geoffrey Wawro

by Michael Eliot Howard

MARCH
3. by Mike Rapport
March 25, 2013
History
Rating: 4 Stars
Review: Not an easy read due to the way it's organized, and the scope of the topic. The narrative covers the wave of revolution, and counter-revolution, that swept through Europe in 1848-9. It jumps from France, to the Hapsburg Empire, to the German Confederation, to Italy, and then cycles back around repeatedly. So many different people are introduced that it's very difficult to keep clear on who's who, and at each geographical jump one has to strain to recall what was going on in that location when last visited.

For all that, I believe the book is well worth reading. It covers a period of history that I, at least, knew very little about, a period in which the people of several European nations attempted to take control of their governments, and achieve for themselves the freedom that is every human's right. The degree to which they succeeded and failed would have a huge impact on future events, such as the unifications of both Germany and Italy, and the wars that were fought to accomplish those unifications. For me, the book filled in an important piece of modern European history.

Erskine, you have tackled some very serious books this year. Keep it up. Good job.

Thanks for the encouragement!

MARCH
4. by Andrew Wheatcroft
History
Rating: 3 Stars

Review: This was a quick, easy read, but a bit fluffy. It was a welcome break from some of the heavier reading I've been doing lately, and made a good introduction to the centuries long conflict between the Hapsburg and Ottoman empires. Wheatcroft's description of the Siege of Vienna was colorful and gripping. Though I knew the outcome, I found myself unable to put the book down until I had gotten through that part.

Outside the siege, the war is only outlined in brief sketches. The author is only concerned with giving an overview of the conflict. His main design, beyond entertaining us with the story of the siege, is to argue that the current conflict between the West and Islam is in danger of being viewed through the lens of a mythologized past. Personally, I just wish that more people knew something of that past, mythologized or not. Wheatcroft has written a decent introduction to at least a portion of that past that should be accessible to the casual student of history.