<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Balancing the stars
Review: Did the same reader write all the reviews with one star? They sound suspiciously similar.
Rating: 
Summary: Charitably rated as "Poor"
Review: I cannot improve on these comments by other reviewers: "This slap dash compilation of short descriptions was probably put together as a quick way to make a few bucks." "The battle descriptions are dry and confusing--most of the maps are useless in determining the sequence of events." "...the treatment of the subject is so superficial as to leave any individual modestly knowledgeable of historically significant battles disappointed. Simple drawings and small scale historical 'views' are used with a short summary of each of many battles."Most dissapointing of all is the paucity of maps (contrary to comments by commercial reviewers). I, too, was sucked in by the National Geographic brand.
Rating:
Summary: Charitably rated as "Poor"
Review: I cannot improve on these comments by other reviewers: "This slap dash compilation of short descriptions was probably put together as a quick way to make a few bucks." "The battle descriptions are dry and confusing--most of the maps are useless in determining the sequence of events." "...the treatment of the subject is so superficial as to leave any individual modestly knowledgeable of historically significant battles disappointed. Simple drawings and small scale historical 'views' are used with a short summary of each of many battles." Most dissapointing of all is the paucity of maps (contrary to comments by commercial reviewers). I, too, was sucked in by the National Geographic brand.
Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Book - 5 stars
Review: I did a brief review of this book for the Richmond Times-Dispatch a year ago. As a retired military officer with 31 years of service, I liked it immensely and disagree completely with the other reviewers on Amazon who disliked it. I believe they do it a grave injustice. It makes an excellent addition to my military history collection. I liked the selection of battles and the way they were organized by geographic feature.
Rating:
Summary: Gallipoli vs. Yorktown and Bataan
Review: I disagree with the Publishers Weekly review that Gallipoli should be grouped with Yorktown and Bataan for trapped on a peninsula instead of under Coasts. At Gallipoli the British, Australians, and New Zealanders were floundering on the coast trying to get inland, while the Turks were inland trying to repel the incursion. Neither side were trapped on a peninsula. The British could have and eventually had to reembark. At Yorktown the British were trapped on a peninsula and had to surrender. Likewise at Bataan the Americans were trapped on a peninsula and had to surrender.
Rating:
Summary: Superficial is as Superficial Does
Review: I was eagerly looking forward to the premise of this book -- "the influence of terrain upon combat." Upon reading, I discovered that the actual premise is the "arrangement of a shallow analysis of battles by their dominant terrain feature". The book's structure is equivalent to arranging battles in alphabetical order and describing the approach as a "typographical evaluation of letters upon combat." The terrain analysis part was sorely missing.
I had hoped that the writers would intertwine their recouting of the battle with the operational flow and tactical impact of the terrain. In all honesty, the subject of terrain was not ignored -- it was addressed in a most superfical, overall manner -- usually in the introduction to the battle -- and then often ignored thereafter.
And the maps. Godawful! Somehow the publisher decided that quaint historical period maps with little discernable detail would add a nice touch to the text. Artistically, they mave have. What they did not do is convey information about terrain nor, largely, the battle.
I would recommend this book only as a rudimentary introdution to military operations in varying terrain. I could not, in conscience, advance it as a text that analyized the interaction of terrain and combat.
It was a great disappointment. Look elsewhere.
Rating:
Summary: Diappointing Effort by NG
Review: This book is advertised in and partially sponsored by National Geographic. However, the treatment of the subject is so superficial as to leave any individual modestly knowledgeable of historically significant battles disappointed. Simple drawings and small scale historical 'views' are used with a short summary of each of many battles. The very least they could have done is provide a current (or for the very hold sites, 'best estimated) topo of the site. I would not recommend this book.
Rating:
Summary: National Geographic should be ashamed.
Review: This slap dash compilation of short descriptions was probably put together as a quick way to make a few bucks. The authors are indeed esteemed but I bet each one wrote their part from memory on a Sunday afternoon. The battle descriptions are dry and confusing--most of the maps are useless in determining the sequence of events. Geography seems to be sort of thrown in as a catchy way to snare amateur buffs like myself. I usually read reviews before I buy a book and this time I just "assumed" good quality due to the National Geographic Society imprimatur. Stay away!
<< 1 >>
| 
