Warfare in Antiquity: History of the Art of War (Warfare in Antiquity)

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant
Review: Delbruck's four volume History of the Art of War is both the first modern approach to military history and one of the best. His work is not a simple list and description of battles, but the exploration -- over all four volumes -- of a particular theme.

The first volume, Warfare in Antiquity, is the greatest of the four. It is the only one that can be read by itself, and remains the most brilliant work on classical warfare ever written.

Rating:
Summary: Germanophilia
Review: Delbruk took a critical look at accepted accounts of battles, did some back-of-the-envelope calculations, and showed how most of these accounts were simply implausible. This is an eye-opening read. However, readers are assumed to already be familiar with most of the battles covered. So, a second source giving those implausible accounts should be kept handy.

Rating:
Summary: Audacious Revisionist History- From the 19th Century!
Review: Hans Delbruck's "Warfare in Antiquity" is an amazing critical history. Amazing not only because of the startlingly original conclusions it draws, but also because, in the 100+ years since it was written, it still remains the best examination of the practice of ancient warfare.

Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that Delbruck, being a Prussian military officer, can instantly sniff out absurdities in the sources that most other historians just credulously accept. The best example of this is Polybius' description of Roman pre-cohort battle formations. According to Polybius, a legion would be arranged in checkerboard fashion so that, during crucial moments in the battle, rear lines of fresh troops could advance and continue the fight while soldiers in the front would withdraw to recuperate. More conscientious historians (see Osprey's "Armies of the Carthaginian Wars") have at least tried to address the problem of why an enemy wouldn't just pour through the gaps in the front line and attack the Romans in the flanks. Only Delbruck has been brave enough, though, to abandon any attempt to reconcile this fanciful description with military reality and argue that, instead of a fighting formation, Polybius' checkerboard square instead describes a pre-battle MARCH formation.

This is only one example of how Delbruck persuasively challenges classical warfare's conventional wisdom. He also argues that Darius' invading Persian army was no larger than the allied Greek one that ultimately defeated it at Marathon, that Caesar's brilliant conquest of Gaul was mostly the result of superior maneuverability and logistics, and that, far from regularly destroying barbarian armies more than five times their size, Roman legions could only achieve tactical parity with barbarians whose harsh living conditions made them naturally brave and cohesive warriors.

One need not accept all these conclusions (I myself am somewhat skeptical about the last one) to find much of value in this book. At the very least it will make one a more critical and active reader, able to question both less-than-stellar primary sources and the historians who over time have just parroted them.

Rating:
Summary: Finally someone who set the record straight
Review: I had been reading both BH Liddel's Hart book on Strategy and JC Fullers "Military History of the Western World". While these books may be more valuable for someone searching a overview of ancient struggles, Delbruk's book shines in the description of ancient warfare.

Not only Delbruk is brave enough to argue and discard many things that historians bypass or take as true, like the supossed numerical superiority of the Persians in their conflicts with the Greeks and Macedonians, the true use of elephants in battle or the way the ancient Roman maniples were an improvement to the phalanx. He practically rewrites many battles (Marathon, Salamis, Issus, Zama, Alesia), discarding absurd notions and finding a logical interpretation for the flow of the battle. I my opinion, he describes these battles much better than any other author I've read. However, as noted before, you should have an idea of the general history of the conflicts and their outcome, because Delbruk only discusses pure military aspects. But, if you ever felt that the overwhelming numerical superiority of barbarian armies is a gross exageration or Roman tactics seem absurd, you MUST get this book.

Rating:
Summary: A fantastic book on late Roman military history
Review: If you are passionate about history or military history, and if you are keen to understand how the powerful Roman civilisation transitioned to a European feudal society, then this book is for you.

Hans Delbruck writes at the end of the 19th century and follows the steps of other excellent German historians such as Mommsen. The book, though, could well have been written yesterday. Delbruck's erudition is simply incredible, and the author's intimate knowledge of ancient languages, including old German, allowed him to systematically cross-check what little remains of manuscripts written between the 3rd and 6th century AD.

For the reader, the most enjoyable aspect of the narrative is perhaps that it goes right down to a level of details rarely seen in a history book. Following Delbruck's thread of reasoning you can well imagine how Roman legions lived and fought, and how German tribes were socially organised. You can also easily understand the process by which these formidable Roman legions slowly dissolved and how the German political, social and military systems progressively took over in the course of four centuries.

The topic itself is extremely complex, not least because of the scarcity of reliable contemporary testimonials. The legends and exagerated tales of huge German hordes crossing the Rhine to destroy a flourishing civilisation are nowadays so entrenched in our Western culture that it takes the patience and intelligence of someone like Delbruck to disentagle the facts.

Finally, be warned that this is no historical romance. Delbruck's style is as dry and precise as Germanic scientific litterature can be, and each section is followed by an Excursus in which the author argues around alternative theories.

Highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Narrow, Ethnically Biased ... Great
Review: Splitting the classical era into two separate volumes was an ingenious move. Delbruck allowed himself enough room to explore the downfall of the Roman Empire (and clear up some misconceptions about it) and the warfare of the Germanic tribes that had become the Roman armies. The bad side to this work is that it focuses exclusively on Europe, leaving aside any investigation of what was going on in the Eastern portion of the Empire -- events that led to the recruitment of the Germans. This should not dissuade you too much from reading this book. It is important to keep in mind that Delbruck was doing all of this on his own, without assistance (and often in the face of opposition) or previous scholars to rely upon. If Dlebruck's "Germanness" is disappointing, his scholarship is still amazing.

Rating:
Summary: Impressive (with some reservations)
Review: The debate over the accuracy of Delbruck's revisionist approach to historical battle accounts aside, Warfare in Antiquity is an impressive effort by a meticulous author.

First of all, it should be made clear that these volumes are not "History of War" or "the Art of War", but "History of the Art of War." That is, you must already have or be prepared to obtain a historical context for the subject matter - Delbruck spends virtually no time providing background or summaries of the subject matter. In addition, Dulbruck does not address (at least, in his initial volumes) how war ought to be waged (ala Clausewitz). Rather, the focus of his work in on the evolution of the art of war employed at key historic events.

These volumes are at their most engaging in the study of ancient warfare. The analysis of the evolution of tactics in response to weapons, fighting styles, population, and geography is fascinating.

I have two major gripes with these books (and yes, I realize the author is long dead and unable to satisfy my deficiencies): First is the serious need of editing and revision. So much information is crammed into the footnotes, addenda, and revised responses that it makes the read of each chapter something like transcendant deja-vu. It makes for a multi-tiered reading experience that is quite unique, and disconcerting. Secondly, a few diagrams, maps, or plots would have been extremely helpful. I'm afraid that I'm a product of an educational system that limits my ability to conceptually distinguish between knolls, hillocks, rises, and a plain-old hill.

As to Delbruck's penchant for demythologizing ancient battles, I can only say that he is fairly convincing, most notably with regard to Marathon.

Rating:
Summary: Delbruck's Logical approace to Military History is perfect.
Review: This book and its sister volumes are a must have for any serious or amature historian. He is methodical in the extreame in fully backing up the conclusions he reaches. Some may be upset by his debunking of long held myths i.e. Barbarian numerical superiority in battles with Rome, and many people will confuse his use of terminology but he never makes a claim with out strong support. You will rarely see such research and footnoting in the commonly free-wheeling military history world. One commentor attacked his use of the term Phalanx for example. It is unfortunate that so many people have fallen into incorrect common references for such fundamental ancient battle formations. Delbruck is absolutely correct in his use of the term Phalanx since its correct usage is to reference the mass of the formed infantry in any ancient army and not individual units as so many have come to believe as a result of poor scholarship by many casual historians. This is a particular problem in the wargaming world where much terminology, phalanx among them, is incorrectly used. In fact Delbruck does one of the best jobs you will find pointing out the reasons to be skeptical regarding army size reports through out history and is very methodical in showing where these exagerations most notably occur and why. He does all this while not dismissing the core importance of the first hand accounts he is referencing. If you want to begin to understand ancient warfare this is the book you should start with and all others should be held to its high standard.

Rating:
Summary: interesting, but I would'nt take it too seriously.
Review: While Delbruck does offer some interesting theories, his scheptic attitude toward Roman historians, ie Livy, while not to be taken too literally, does offer some merit. Hans simply tends to call " fable" to many Roman achievments. For instance, the punitive expedition to recover the Roman standards after the disaster of the teutoburger forest in 15 AD. by Germanicus resulting in Arminius's defeat... Hans also calls "phalanx" to caesar's formations in the battle of pharsalus?? Clearly by this time the Romans had abandoned the Phalanx! He also does not believe the Romans used manipular formations after the battle of Cannae, belittles the achievments of Marcellus after Cannae. Offers no tactical explanation on how the Romans defeated Hasdrubal at the Metarus!

If you want a revisonist view, read this book, otherwise I would'nt take it seriously.