Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age

In my experience, anthologies are always a sort of doing toss with essays being either very good or very bad, due to the fact that its a collection different authors with different ideas and different styles. It's rare to find one where all the essays are great and interesting reads, but this book is one of those. A collection of essays on military history, strategy, and strategies starting with Machiavelli in the 16th century all the way to the end of the Cold War. Every major military leader and thinker in Western history during this time period is there and topics are varied enough so that it is not always Army tactics that are covered. It also includes essays on the Navy and Air power that are fascinating. It even includes a chapter on modern revolutionary wars, or insurgencies as we would call them today, that is not to be missed. And, I have to say, there wasn't one essay that I felt was superfluous or boring., an achievement for an anthology of this size. The only thing that I would say is that, since this was most recently updated in 1986, it does need to add a few new chapters on robotics and cyberwarfare. In spite of its age and length, this was a great read and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the development of modern, Western military strategy over the centuries.

Book was in better condition than expected and arrived super fast!

This is an essential book for strategic studies, political science, history, and international studies from the third or fourth year of college through to Phd studies. It's academic with an assortment of essays that are entertaining to read. There is a consistency in the contributing authors' essential prose without recourse to run-on to absurdum academic annoyances. I enjoyed the stripped down without being dumbed down writing style. On a surprise note, Dr. Condoleza Rice contributed a good, sturdy essay on the Soviet military starting in 1918, and carrying through to the Cold War. This particular essay allows one to understand some of her rationale for the Iraq War of 2003 which proved to be highly problematic. I gave this four stars simply because the edition I was sent is over twenty five years old, and the sheer size of the book translates to a lot of stress on the binding. The pages don't feel as securely fastened as they should, and with repeated use for research, the binding weakness is a concern. Also, please note, there are two editions of "Makers Of Modern Strategy." The earlier edition contains entirely different essays that are still important for research, but they will not match your needs for academic assigned readings!

I purchased this book as it was required for USMC Command and Staff Course, but it is a good resource for anyone who wants a selection of articles and pieces from a wide range of time periods who has an interest in military strategy. The book is divided into eras and within each era there are a number of articles. As a result, it is fairly easy to find what you want without a huge hassle. It doesn't go into extreme detail on any one topic or era, but is a great resource for a general overview and enough of an understanding that you feel pretty good about the topic.

This is an outstanding comparative analysis of Clausewitz, Sun Tzu and Mao, and is a great companion volume while reading any of these theorists, but especially Clausewitz. Handel clearly illustrates his analysis by using quotes from the works of the major theorists. The most rewarding parts of the book to me were the sections on the importance of politics to the military commander, moral forces in war as found in Clausewitz, and chapter 9: "The Supreme Act of Judgement: Understanding the Nature of War and the Trinitarian Analysis." This is an essential companion and well worth one's time to read in order to achieve a deeper understanding of Clausewitz beyond a few pithy quotes misapplied.

This second version of the book is disappointing. I would have thought that it being edited by an historian as good as Peter Paret would have improved on the original, which was edited by Robert Earle. However, it is weaker both in scholarship and accuracy, especially John Shy's essay on Jomini. Old myths are resurrected about the Swiss renegade whose own works are generally historically inaccurate.Many of the older, more professional, historians, who are unfortunately no longer with us were much more careful in their research and writing, hunting down sources that newer historians either refuse to look for or refuse to use. they also were more blunt, calling a spade a spade, and weren't worried about offending people or in 'revisionist' (read inaccurate) history. Political correctness was unknown to these stalwarts.Books of this type are highly useful. If you are looking for this particular volume, get the first version edited by Earle, even if you have to go looking in second hand book stores or on the internet in used book services. I did, and it is well worth the effort.

If you want a comprehensive, concise review of the major thinkers of military strategy, this is THE book to purchase. Each chapter provides a quick bio of the thinker, along with an explanation of the strategy. Chapters flow in chronological order, so you can understand how strategy, tactics and technology developed. Actually an enjoyable book to read, and has become a "ready reference" for me to keep handy.

Came as advertised, no issues.

The media could not be loaded.

Fantastic collection of essays which really focus on theory and its implementation. If you are a student of war or defense studies, or just have a real interest in military theory and its key personnel, this is great for you.

Per chi lo dovesse acquistare per sostenere l'esame di studi strategici all'Uni consiglio di fare solo gli argomenti principali perché non è per niente semplici da leggere.

great book...compilation of historical writings on strategy

I did not read all the essays in the book, I needed it for specific research - the essays I did use (on the time up to and including Jomini and Clausewitz) were good and very useful, and while I may not agree with all judgements and emphases, a short essay cannot possibly capture all nuances of a life's oeuvre.My main motivation for writing this review is that I was struck by how much the threat of nuclear war has receded from our consciousness. The book came out in 1986, and in the years leading up to that time, the possibility of all-out nuclear war was our ever-present reality - and it is only subsequently that we have learnt how many times there were close, and extremely close shaves, not from deliberate aggression but from technical foul-ups mitigated only by sane human intervention. I had forgotten how real that risk was for us at the time, and of course, in 1986, it was inconceivable that by the end of the decade, the Iron Curtain would be no more. From that point of view, the book itself is historical.