John Keegan is a renowned military historian who made his reputation while teaching at Sandhurst, Britain’s version of the United Sates Military Academy at West Point. The Face of Battle is one of his earliest and best books.

Although he confesses to never having participated in a battle, he taught many men who would do so and interviewed many eminent soldiers who had experienced battle first hand. As an academician, he studied many previous accounts of battle written by other historians, but his study of military history led him to conclude that most, if not all, earlier accounts failed to explore adequately what it was actually like to be in a battle.

The first chapter of The Face of Battle is a discussion of military historiography in which he explores some of the reasons that earlier historians failed so clearly to portray the experiences of actual fighting men. One reason is that until recently, the vast majority of the men engaged in battle were rather illiterate, and thus did not leave usable accounts of their experiences. Another reason is that it is easier to write history by focusing on commanders and politicians than on the very diverse experiences of individual soldiers. Keegan accuses earlier historians of creating the “Myth of the Decisive Battle” because it made writing about war easier than attempting to capture its complexities. Moreover, most earlier historians tended to treat the soldiers themselves as fungible, uniformly behaving (pun intended) pawns manipulated by their famous leaders. As an example, he cites Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars and several lesser known, more recent books.

Keegan credits a study led by S. L. A. Marshall of the United States Army in World War II as being the first systematic study of human behavior in combat.

Keegan applies lessons learned in his own studies and from Marshall’s work along with common sense to an analysis of three historically significant battles: Agincourt (1415), Waterloo (1825) and The Somme (1916), that took place in different centuries, but in close geographical proximity.

An excellent and enjoyable book.

(JAB) ( )

Absolutely stunning and terrifying study of the human side of combat. Must read for anybody, not just military buffs. ( )

Well written and thoroughly researched. Excellent military history comparing warfare from different eras. ( )

I debated between being objective about this nonfiction or just reviewing it based on my gut feeling.

In the end, I had to give it a 5 for good analysis and its own bright objectivity.

But for myself, I have to wonder why I read military history and why, after each time I do it, I feel sullied and unclean. If I leave enjoyment out of it, I did learn a lot about the details of these battles and the author did his very best to bring in all sides of the battles, not just what-ifs and strategy, but a lifetime of critical thinking.

I really appreciated that. And, a point-of-fact, I would absolutely recommend this book for all military buffs and history buffs. He's not only pretty exhaustive and wise about the battles, but he has a healthy dose of self-doubt tempered by a lot of experience. But not of battle. He makes it very clear he cannot understand battle from direct knowledge. But more importantly, neither can almost anyone. :)

But, of course, any history is going to rest or fall on its details and analysis. Fortunately, this one comes through with flying colors. :)

But again... I really didn't *enjoy* this text all that much. Be it mood or distaste, I generally don't go out of my way to read about war and for that reason alone I had a hard time liking it. And yet I can still appreciate a good dose of new knowledge, so it balances out.

( )

tedious ( )