A Military History of the Western World, Vol. III: From the American Civil War to the End of World War II

I have just completed reading all three volumes of this eminently readable and enjoyable tome so I preface this review by asserting that the remarks apply to all three volumes. First of all, this is essentially one large "Decisive Battles of the West" type of study. Even at three large volumes, it is impossible for a "military history" to even approach comprehensiveness, but virtually every consensus "decisive battle" of history is present and fleshed out with prelude, narrative, and analysis. Fuller never loses sight of the context and meaning of the battle in the war in which it took place or in the greater history of the West. The battle narratives are generally thrilling and well discussed with ample geographical and battle maps to aid the reader. The massive nature of the study allows for Fuller to slowly unveil the evolution of military weaponry and its effect on both strategy and tactics (as well as political and social organization) but it would have been more helpful to the reader to have some pictures of the weapons. I had a hard time understanding terminology like "matchlock" and "flintlock." Fuller, a general himself, does get bogged down in the minutiae of the military narrative at times, with too much detail about formations and military organization and the marching chronology from town A to town B. Unless one is intimately familiar with the local geography or is an expert in a particular war, such details are pretty much useless. Nevertheless, the narrative is generally fluid and is punctuated by 'between battle" chronicles which are a nice refresher course in general Western political history. When Fuller is not speaking like a general talking to his officers about battle chronology, he is an enjoyable read. Either way, such portions can be easily skipped over without missing much of the story. Regarding the choices of battles for discussion, one wonders how a monumental battle like Milvian Bridge (where Constantine won while using the sign of the Cross) is omitted. The battle is never even mentioned. Yarmouk (636 AD) is another one that Fuller missed but deserves mention since, if the battle was lost, it could have made the Muslim ArabConquests stillborn. If Manzikert is decisive, why not Yarmouk? Caesar was almost defeated at the siege of Alesia by Vercengetorix, but incredibly survived by his brilliant double circumvallation. Yet Alesia is never mentioned. It is debatable whether Watling Street should have been omitted. Had the outnumbered Romans not annihilated the Boudica-led Iceni, could Britain have been lost to Rome and a Celtic stronghold been established? I think it deserves merit but Watling Street is never mentioned. If memory serves me correctly, the Siege of Vienna was likewise omitted from discussion. One can also criticize Fuller for his inclusion of the Russo-Japanese War, which took place in Asia, and the decision to discuss Chattanooga instead of Gettysburg in the American Civil War

Those who wish to understand not only the military history but also the underreported political undercurrents of those times will love this book and read it over and over again. By examining the failures by both military leaders and politicians in understanding the obvious lessons of their relatively recent past, they will gain valuable insights into our current condition.

Good Basic Book on Western strategy, Easy to read and focussed.

Good grounding book in strategy.