Customer Reviews

The Battle 100: The Stories Behind History's Most Influential Battles

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This was a most engrossing book. It lists the 100 most important battles, in the author's order of importance. He begins with the Battle of Yorktown in 1781, where the colonies won their independence. (The Battle of Saratoga is #15, and ths shots fired at Lexington and Concord are #74.)

Second is the Battle of Hastings in 1066, with the Norman Conquest of England. This would be the last time that England was every invaded. (The Spanish Armada in 1588 is #16, and the Battle of Britian in 1941 is #40.)

Third is the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942-43, which was the turning point of World War II. (Normany in 1944 is #13, the Seige of Moscow in 1941 is #22.)

Fourth is the Battle of Leipzig in 1813, which was the first significant cooperation among European nations against Napoleon.

Fifth, is the Battle of Antietam, where the United and Confederated States suffered 23,000 casualties, the most of any day in history for America, outnumbering the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War combined. (The Battle of Gettysburg in 1863 is #17, and the Battle of Vicksburg in 1863 is #49.)

Sixth is a battle that I had never heard of, the Battle of Cajamarca in 1532 where the Spanish were able to claim most of South America. (The Battle of Tenochititlan in 1521, where Mexico City was captured, is #12.)

Seventh is the Atomic Bombing of Japan in 1945. (The Battle of Midway in 1942 is # 44, Pearl Harbor in 1941 is #62.)

Eighth is the Battle of Huai-Hai in 1948 which was the final major fight between the Chinese Communists and the forces of Chiang Kai-shek.

Ninth is Waterloo in 1815, after Napolean escaped from his exile in Elba.

Tenth is the Ottoman Turks' unsuccessful siege of Vienna in 1529 which marked the end of the march of Islam into eastern Europe. (The Battle of Tours which halted the Muslim invasion of France in 732, is #24, and the Battle of Granada in 1491-92 which ended seven centuries of Muslin control of Spain, is #35.)

This is a great book. I couldn't put down. I recommend it highly.

Anytime you put together a list of the "100 Most" anything, you can expect to start arguments, and this collection of two- and three-page summaries of military and naval engagements is no exception. The coverage ranges from Megiddo, around 1479 BC, to only one more recent than the Golan Heights in 1967. All the obvious choices are here, including Gettysburg, Inchon, Trafalgar, Plassey, Normandy, Stalingrad, and Hastings, but many others are probably new even to many military history buffs, like Alexander's victory at Arbela-Gaugamela in 331 BC, which spelled the end of the Persian Empire, or Muhammad's success in battle at Mecca in 630, which virtually guaranteed the continued existence of Islam in the Near East, or Yenan in 1934, where Mao Tse-Tung ended the Long March by destroying the Nationalist Chinese army and ensured the survival of the People's Republic of China, with enormous repercussions on the second half of the 20th century. However, Lanning shows an uncomfortable America-centrism in ranking battles. The Number One spot goes to the Battle of Yorktown in 1781 -- which, while a key event in establishing the United States as an independent nation, may turn out to have been considerably less important if it's looked back on a thousand years from now. On the other hand, without Charles Martel decisively bringing to a halt the Muslim advance into Western Europe at the Battle of Tours in 732 (only no. 24 on his list), Medieval and Renaissance Europe would never have taken place and the entire cultural and philosophical milieu which gave rise to the American Revolution -- or even, perhaps, to the colonization of the New World in the first place -- would never have happened. I count twenty-two battles in the list -- nearly a quarter of the total -- in which the U.S. or the American colonies played a major role, and that's far too many when you consider the whole history of the world. While I don't see any important engagements that were omitted, some, like San Jacinto (which is certainly important to Texans like me), are much too minor on the global scale to be included on this list in the first place. Likewise, Desert Storm in 1991 is turning out to be much less significant in the long run than the present U.S. administration would like us to believe.

While one may disagree with Lt. Col Lanning's rankings, no one will disagree with the fact that he has done all of us "armchair historians" a yeoman's service. There is no need to continually consult and re-consult the Wikipedia every time a war or a battle of history is mentioned.

Here, in one well-crafted volume covering 3000 years of history, are the 100 most influential battles. The author lists them in rank order providing summary analysis of the causes, key aspects of the fighting including order of battle information with battlefield maps and well-thought out strategic and tactical analysis. Each battle is evaluated in terms of its long-term contribution to history rather than to any single battle's outcome, no matter how decisive. This rationale is hard to argue with, and the author is consistent in applying his rule.

The narrative (as well as the analysis), is high quality, well researched and short - no longer than two to three pages. While it is easy to detect a slight U.S.-centric bias, that is only a minor and expected nuisance which does no harm to an otherwise excellent summary of the most influential battles in history. For my need: which is to have a handy reference of summaries of history's key battles in one volume, this book serves perfectly. Three stars

Attempting to rank important events or individuals in history always ignites debate, and this book is no exception. There are numerous reasons why-how do you compare the importance of something that happened, say, 2000 years ago, with something that happened in the last century. Events from thousands of years ago have demonstrated their effect on history, but many recent events may prove to be more or less significant as time progresses. Thus one has to always take into account the author's bias, and a certain set of standards must be applied when judging the impact particular battles have had (or will have) on history.

This particular author's bias seems to lean toward the importance of the United States. The number one battle is Yorktown, and several other battles, ranging from the Civil War to the Spanish American War to battles on the Western Frontier have prominence in these pages. That's well and good if you consider the establishment and continuation of the United States as one of the central events in human history-if you don't, well, the rankings lose a lot of their value. I for one agree with the author's assessment of the United States's importance, and thus find his ranking system, for the most part, appealing.

Of course I disagree with some of the rankings (that is, I believe, part of the point of these books), but I do have to take exception to one thing. What exactly does the author define as a "battle?" This, I believe, is an important question, and one that would certainly change the makeup of this list if it were examined more thoroughly. Shouldn't military action that actually PREVENTS the shedding of blood but still accomplishes the military goals qualify for this list? It seems to me that, by limiting the scope of the work to actions where blood was actually shed is being a bit nearsighted, and the avoidance of bloodshed should not disqualify military action from this work. That the nuclear bombing of Japan is included, when little actual fighting took place, further puzzles me-why include that when other military action is excluded, unless its inclusion to the list has something to do with the hundreds of thousands of casualties?

An example is General William T. Sherman's taking of Atlanta and March to the Sea in late 1864 and 1865. Many prominent historians have argued that Sherman's actions did as much or more to bring about the end of the Civil War than anything else, yet no action in those campaigns gets treatment in the book. Had there been an epic battle outside Atlanta, with tens of thousands of casualties on either side it may have been ranked, but why should the fact that Sherman accomplished his objectives with relatively little fighting disqualify him from the list? One can also certainly make the argument that the entire face of warfare was changed, as European commanders in both World Wars at various times employed Sherman's tactics with success.

This is simply one example of how the lack of an actual clattering of swords produced great military success. There are more, to be sure, and in my opinion disqualifying these great accomplishments for the simple reason that casualties were limited makes little sense. In doing so this list seems lopsided, and I think the subject would have been better treated had the standards for "battle" been better defined. Regardless of this flaw I thoroughly enjoyed the book, and would recommend it to anyone looking for a casual and thought-provoking read.

Lanning is a pretty good writer, and his summaries of these 100 engagements are capably done. However, an historian Lanning is NOT, and it certainly does show in his interpretive work in this book. First and foremost, can anyone really say what the #1 battle in world history was in terms of importance? Of course not! Lanning tries to do so but it seems the more he tries and goes down his list (and why stop at 100?), the sillier this book becomes. Is Yorktown really the #1 most important battle in military history? No! In fact, it wasn't even the most important in the American Revolution, but don't tell that to Lanning. The book is written from an American-centric perspective, not from a world history perspective. This is why he ranks San Jacinto as #23, but the battle that kicked France out of Canada, made Britain the world super power of the second half of the 18th century, and set the stage for American independence (Quebec) is #29. San Jacinto?!?! Please!

Anytime a book of lists is published, everyone has their own opinion about the content. As with the author, I'm a retired Lieutenant Colonel with an interest in military history. However, my view concerning influtential battles differs somewhat from his. When any historian looks at a battle, one has to decide whether the result of a battle was inevitable or not. In other words, if the result of the conflict was a foregone conclusion, then the battle wasn't all that influential. it just happened to be fought there. This doesn't mean that they weren't decisive; many of the battles I would have left out of this book were decisive, they just weren't influencial and this book lists influential battles. Examples include Waterloo (Napoleon was bound to lose, question was when), Huai-Hai, Mexico City, Sedan, and Carabobo. Other battles I would have left off include: San Juan Hill (extremely overrated), Kursk (did not change the situation in the Eastern Front), Cerignola/La Bicocca (one or the other not both), Golan Heights (no more influential than other parts of 73 war), Agincourt (did not influence the eventual victory by France), Desert Storm (I have to cut some slack here, because the book was written before the current situation there and greatly reduces its impact), Malplaquet (was not influential), San Pasqual (same), Paardeberg (same), and Little Big Horn (no way).
Now before I'm roasted over the coals, the following are my substitutes (in no particular order) and why they are more INFLUENTIAL. Judge for your self.
Sluys-1340-Established England's control of the English Channel until now.
Diu-1509-Established European Dominance in the Asian Naval Theater until the end of WWII.
Hakata Bay-1281-Prevented the Mongol conquest of Japan.
Meggido-1917-The first successful use of combined arms (integrating ground and air power).
Cape St Vincent-1797-Ended threat of invasion of England by Revolutionary France.
Sekigahara-1600-Created a unified Japan.
Borodino-1812-Lead to Napoleon's defeat in Russia and his final defeat.
Lake Peipus-1242-Alexander Nevesky's defeat of the Teutonic Knights kept Russia Orthodox and isolated from Catholic Europe.
Assaye-1803-Established Wellington's reputation as a field commander.
Mohacs-1526-Ottoman Turks's farthest advance into Europe.
Gravelotte/Saint Privat-1870-Instead of Sedan; this battle established Prussian superiority over France.
Barfluer/LaHague-1692-Trafalgar of the 17th Century; ended naval warfare by Louis XIV.
Mount Badon-5th Century- prevented Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britian for a century.
Alamo-1836-what would have been the outcome, if they abandoned the site as originally ordered.
Bunker Hill-1775-Boosted the morale of the Americans and lead to the withdraw of the British troops in Boston to Canada.

Whereas the actual battle accounts are reasonably worthy, Michael Lanning's ranking system is a farce making this book historically irrelevant. Accepting the USA is the most powerful nation in the world today does not justify that every battle fought in history revolves around that fact. To begin with, ranking battles at all is a risky business bearing in mind that it is often based upon opinion which is very evident here. Even ranking battles within the context of the rise of the United States would put a battle such as Blenheim in 1704 above Yorktown because, had Marlborough not defeated Louis XIV's plans to dominate Europe (and its overseas possessions), Lanning's book, had he even been able to write it, would have probably been in French!! It is actually a sad reflection on American's understanding of history that such a book would be written. His other book on the Top 100 Military Leaders is equally ridiculous. His No. 1 spot given to George Washington, indeed a great man in most ways, confirms that for many U.S. historians jingoism trumps scholarship at every turn.