Dawn and Decadence, Innovation, & The Face of Battle — top 3
I once collected evidence on the lives of about thirty of these men who flourished in the nineteenth century. A surprising number turned out to be people with little formal education, who drank a good deal, who were careless with money, and who had trouble with wives or other women.
Morison devotes one essay to the characteristics and ills of a “bureau.” He describes the difficulty of getting anything accomplished within an average bureaucracy—largely because bureaucrats live for process and harmony. He says:
Taken together, a set of regulations provides a pattern of behavior for the energies bureaus are set up to regulate….Regulations are a way of keeping a system of energies working in harmony and balance…First it is easier to make a regulation than to abolish it.
Morison’s eighth and concluding essay provide Some Proposals for dealing with change and newness—in a word, solutions to many of the problems identified earlier. That said, only the most dedicated reader will complete the seventh (and longest) chapter, according the Morison, originally intended to be a book about the history of 19th Century American railroad innovation. Overall, I concur with Speaker Gingrich and highly recommend this title.
The Face of Battle, by John Keegan
A title needing no introduction at Zenpundit, I’ll only offer this title as one of the best books of the genre I’ve read. Keegan covers three battles across 500 years of history, Agincourt, Waterloo, and The Somme. In each, he brings alive the battlefield and provides the conditions faced by combatants—often up close and personal. Keegan’s scholarship, insight, and importantly, his humility in addressing a topic he admittedly had no first hand experience make this a must read for anyone in the profession of arms, and recommended for anyone seeking more insight into how we fight.
That’s a wrap, be back soon!
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
joey:
October 5th, 2013 at 11:31 am
Never liked the face of battle, or John Keegans writing in general. In the face of battle I felt he had little understanding of the psychological impact of battle on the individual soldiers. As a grunts view of the fighting I felt it was limited because of this.
J. Scott Shipman:
October 5th, 2013 at 2:38 pm
Hi joey,
.
Given Keegan’s introductory remarks, he recognized your point as a weakness (I got the sense he was apologizing in advance for no first hand knowledge). For me, his illustrations of weapons and their use, proximity of combatants, and the changing geography of battlefields—as seen by the soldiers made the book compelling.
morgan:
October 5th, 2013 at 3:18 pm
I could be wrong, but wasn’t Keegan not physically qualified to serve in the armed forces? Seems I read that a long time ago. I don’t know if the term is still in use by us today, but when I was in the service many years ago such oersons had a Four F designation.
joey:
October 5th, 2013 at 4:20 pm
I wouldn’t condemn him for not having first hand experience, just a lack of psychological insight into the experience and effect of combat on the troops, and an over dense prose style.
J. Scott Shipman:
October 5th, 2013 at 5:15 pm
Hi morgan,
.
According to the wiki link above, he was afflicted with orthopedic tuberculosis as a child (which affected his gait) and was rendered unfit for military service.
.
In his Acknowledgements section, he dissects his unfamiliarity with the “real thing,” citing a provide his students insight into the experience of the rank-and-file soldier—without the psychological aspects, to be sure. As mentioned above, this section reads as an apology in my estimation.
.
And joey, I’d agree on his prose style. The Price of Admiralty was a tough read—much more dense than FoB—and I’m a former sailor. In my experience, it is often good to read past style and this varies among individuals. I am a big admirer of Charles Hill, for instance, but have friends/acquaintances who find him tedious or overly verbose. Alfred Thayer Mahan is another example. As LCDR B.J. Armstrong quotes Geoffrey Till in his introduction to 21st Century Mahan (and excellent book, btw): “Mahan sometimes suffers from having written more than most people are prepared to read.” In my experience, “density” is part of the trade in military history, and we must study history. As Armstrong again quotes ATM: “the study of military history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practices.” Getting there from here, is often a bit dry to be sure…