The Face of Battle

Rating:
Summary: Illuminating, well written, relevant
Review: "The Face of Battle" is a unique combination of military history and social history that is relevant to everyone. As enjoyable as military history is, most of it tends to be a combination of adventure story and propaganda. John Keegan accomplishes something different in this respect by illuminating the day to day experiences of common soliders in several historic battles. For example, Keegan's chapter on the Battle of Agincourt describes such details as the weight of the British soldiers' armor, their response to the cold weather, the discomfort they felt relieving themselves while dressed, and the fear they must have experienced at the thought of doing battle with numerically superior French cavalry.

Keegan does much to expose the reality of combat and the life of a common soldier throughout history in an objective and apolitical fashion. If you are a pascifist or a social historian, then by all means read this book to enhance your understanding of war's unpleasant realities. If you are a fan of military history, then read this book to gain a finer, more detailed understanding of war.

Rating:
Summary: Illuminating, well written, relevant
Review: "The Face of Battle" is a unique combination of military history and social history that is relevant to everyone. As enjoyable as military history is, most of it tends to be a combination of adventure story and propaganda. John Keegan accomplishes something different in this respect by illuminating the day to day experiences of common soliders in several historic battles. For example, Keegan's chapter on the Battle of Agincourt describes such details as the weight of the British soldiers' armor, their response to the cold weather, the discomfort they felt relieving themselves while dressed, and the fear they must have experienced at the thought of doing battle with numerically superior French cavalry.

Keegan does much to expose the reality of combat and the life of a common soldier throughout history in an objective and apolitical fashion. If you are a pascifist or a social historian, then by all means read this book to enhance your understanding of war's unpleasant realities. If you are a fan of military history, then read this book to gain a finer, more detailed understanding of war.

Rating:
Summary: Realities of War vs. Romantic Rhetoric
Review: I too found this book is somewhat hard to read (thus the missing 5th star) probably due to the natural language barrier between us Americans and our British cousins.

That said - I really found this book informative and a positive addition to my military book collection. The Face of Battle gives an unbiased view of warfare, separating romantic notions with the bloody facts. A prime example of Keegan's abilities is his critique of General Sir William Naoier's famous "heroic" account, of the 23rd Royal Welch Fusiliers advance against the French in the battle of Albuera in 1811. While the advance of the Fusiliers is an inspirational work in it's own way (ideal for fortifying unit pride or recruiting), it is not fact based nor is it real history. Missing as Keegan points out - are the broken bodies, moments wavering & acts of cowardliness on the part of the Fusiliers.

I'll admit this book is not for everybody as it points out the savageness & realities of warfare. So at no point will you get warm & fussy feelings as you read this book. But for to those of you who want a well-balanced library - I'd highly recommend this book.

Rating:
Summary: Female peacemonger loves this ultimate battle book
Review: I'm more a reader of fiction than of military history, but when I read a passage in Margaret Atwood's The Robber Bride about Keegan, I decided to try it out. (There's a professor who teaches a course about how badly designed military uniforms can actually lose a war.)

What a great experience. I read this book twice and recommend it to everyone I know. It's a short, intense look at three hugely important battles in history, switching from the soldier's viewpoint to the big picture and back. You find out all the small decisions that turn into tragic errors. War seems both more immediate and more uncomprehensibly insane.

I've since tried to read some of his more recent books, but they're a little too heavy going--for me--on battalion names and such. This is the best.

Rating:
Summary: Keegan Standard
Review: If you are going to start reading Keegan books then start with this one. His best work in my opinion. I read this book a long time ago, but revisited it recently to get Keegan's take on Agincourt. In this volume Keegan looks at warfare from a human perspective focusing on soldiers and less on leaders. It is a relatively easy read. If you have an interest in this subject of how battle's are fought and won then you should probably read this. Keegan is a great writer of military history. Originally published in 1976 this book is still a standard. The photos in the book are not that good, but it does have a few useful maps.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: John Keegan has written many books about the conduct and outcome of wars. In this, he focuses on the question: what is it like to be in a battle? Why do studies show that even at the height of a battle, typically no more than one in four soldiers ever fire their gun? And why, on the other hand, do so few soldiers run away?

To answer the questions, he studies three different battles, representing three different types of combat: the hand-to-hand combat of Agincourt, the single-shot guns of Waterloo, and the mechanised destruction of the Somme. He talks about the kind of men who found themselves in each battle and the kind of experiences they had. You learn about the overwhelming noise of Waterloo, about how the raw recruits of Kitchener's army made it necessary to rely on artillery barrages to win the Somme, about the technical miscalculations that made this strategy go desperately wrong.

It's striking and moving, and unlike any other book about battle -- Victor Davis Hanson's recent "Carnage and Culture" does almost as good a job of capturing the experience of battle, but without the same level of compassion. Recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Face of Battle
Review: John Keegan, professor at Sandhurst, England's equivalent of West Point, wrote this treatise of war from the standpoint of the foot soldier circa the mid-1970's. Within this perspective he compares and contrasts the technological advancements in combat weapons from the battle of Agincourtin 1415, to Waterloo in 1815, and finally to the battle of the Somme in 1916. In each instance he relates how standoff and kill technique has been with us as long as man has been able to propel missiles at his enemy. The difference over time is the number of people that can be killed by one shot or blast.

The archers at Aginsourt were successful not only due to their skill, but because of the terrain and the weather. The artillery at Waterloo was more devastating due to the range of its blast and the tight formations of the soldiers. And, the Maxim guns of the Germans at the Somme, after winning the "race to the parapets", were even more effective because the English leadership did not insist that their infantry run across no-man's land rather than walk.

Keegan goes into detail upon detail, all layered in a contextural fabric, that leads the reader to see war in a way not previously envisioned. An excellent book and one of the first he wrote in the course of many.

Rating:
Summary: A personalized account of warfare
Review: John Keegan, professor at Sandhurst, England's equivalent of West Point, wrote this treatise of war from the standpoint of the foot soldier circa the mid-1970's. Within this perspective he compares and contrasts the technological advancements in combat weapons from the battle of Agincourtin 1415, to Waterloo in 1815, and finally to the battle of the Somme in 1916. In each instance he relates how standoff and kill technique has been with us as long as man has been able to propel missiles at his enemy. The difference over time is the number of people that can be killed by one shot or blast.

The archers at Aginsourt were successful not only due to their skill, but because of the terrain and the weather. The artillery at Waterloo was more devastating due to the range of its blast and the tight formations of the soldiers. And, the Maxim guns of the Germans at the Somme, after winning the "race to the parapets", were even more effective because the English leadership did not insist that their infantry run across no-man's land rather than walk.

Keegan goes into detail upon detail, all layered in a contextural fabric, that leads the reader to see war in a way not previously envisioned. An excellent book and one of the first he wrote in the course of many.

Rating:
Summary: Gripping
Review: Keegan has provided a nearly "eyewitness" account of battle that is as gripping and gut-wrenching as it is informative and mind-opening. I was especially struck, by the account of the Battle of Agincourt. The chaos and confusion of battle, and its disasterous effects, though related in a cold, journalistic style, were nevertheless terrifying. This is my second Keegan book, following "A Histoy of Warfare", and I recommend him to any who wish to have a finer insight into the nature of battle itself and the people who fight in them.

Nevermind his often bizarre conclusions, such as his predictions of a future without war, as I believe this is his way of maintaining his academic stature. Military history has a questionable reputation within academic circles, its historians stygmatized as quacks with sand-tables, and there are times where I feel Keegan is pre-occupied trying to prove himself otherwise. While some may find his style long-winded and difficult to follow, this should not be too big a problem if you can read without moving your lips.

Rating:
Summary: Gripping
Review: Keegan has provided a nearly "eyewitness" account of battle that is as gripping and gut-wrenching as it is informative and mind-opening. I was especially struck, by the account of the Battle of Agincourt. The chaos and confusion of battle, and its disasterous effects, though related in a cold, journalistic style, were nevertheless terrifying. This is my second Keegan book, following "A Histoy of Warfare", and I recommend him to any who wish to have a finer insight into the nature of battle itself and the people who fight in them.

Nevermind his often bizarre conclusions, such as his predictions of a future without war, as I believe this is his way of maintaining his academic stature. Military history has a questionable reputation within academic circles, its historians stygmatized as quacks with sand-tables, and there are times where I feel Keegan is pre-occupied trying to prove himself otherwise. While some may find his style long-winded and difficult to follow, this should not be too big a problem if you can read without moving your lips.