Customer Reviews

Battlegrounds : Geography and the Art of Warfare

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

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!

A book with short story coverage of historic battles needs two things: 1) a coverage of the battle with the applicable geography and it's effect on the combatants, and 2) a map or maps showing the terrain, troop location at battle initiation, movement through the combat phase and troop distribution at combat conclusion. Without all of those, I suppose, a period map showing troop distribution at the start of combat and all of the important sites located on one map is the next best thing. When I first looked at this book, some of the maps appeared nearly useless. The map of the Battle of Cedar Creek in the Shenandoah Campaign was as close to unintelligible as about any I have tried to decypher. As I continued to read the book, however, I was particularly struck by some of the other period maps. There were some awesome inclusions. Iwo Jima and Chancellorsville were two of the many that absolutely provided a picture worth a thousand words. Some showed terrain in shaded relief, some in hachure typical of the period of the battle (one decade (Omdurman, Sudan, 1898) different than another (Gettysburg, 1863 and Balaklava, 1854)), molehills, contours, bathimetrics, monochromatic patterns, and numerous period paintings of troop distribution and terrain. The depth of the discussion varied from battle to battle, but was generally not too deep for some one looking at the geography of the battle and not the planning, logistics, course of the combat phase and the aftermath. I would say the value of the book is the combination of observable geography, the study of combat events and the delightful discovery of a hisory of the evolution of combat maps through the ages.

Did the same reader write all the reviews with one star? They sound suspiciously similar.

I bought this book as a gift for a person who is fascinated by history and the art of war. He absolutely loved it! He said he didn't give it five stars only because the fifth star needed an emotional component to it.

Since I'm not sure how there can be an emotional component to a reference book, my interpretation, then, is it should be five stars...but since he read it and I didn't, there ya go. :)

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.

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.