The Face of Battle [Paperback]

 

 

Create your own review

John Keegan has written many books about the conduct and outcome of wars. In this, he focuses on the question: what is it like to be in a battle? Why do studies show that even at the height of a battle, typically no more than one in four soldiers ever fire their gun? And why, on the other hand, do so few soldiers run away?

To answer the questions, he studies three different battles, representing three different types of combat: the hand-to-hand combat of Agincourt, the single-shot guns of Waterloo, and the mechanised destruction of the Somme. He talks about the kind of men who found themselves in each battle and the kind of experiences they had. You learn about the overwhelming noise of Waterloo, about how the raw recruits of Kitchener's army made it necessary to rely on artillery barrages to win the Somme, about the technical miscalculations that made this strategy go desperately wrong.

It's striking and moving, and unlike any other book about battle -- Victor Davis Hanson's recent "Carnage and Culture" does almost as good a job of capturing the experience of battle, but without the same level of compassion. Recommended.

If you are going to start reading Keegan books then start with this one. His best work in my opinion. I read this book a long time ago, but revisited it recently to get Keegan's take on Agincourt. In this volume Keegan looks at warfare from a human perspective focusing on soldiers and less on leaders. It is a relatively easy read. If you have an interest in this subject of how battle's are fought and won then you should probably read this. Keegan is a great writer of military history. Originally published in 1976 this book is still a standard. The photos in the book are not that good, but it does have a few useful maps.

It is unusual for an historian to write a work critical of the methods of his own institution; it is even more unusual for a military historian to write a work that is pacific and anti-military. I see both of these characteristics in Keegan's work. The author goes at great length to stress his own lack of practical experience with battle and his lack of sympathy with the idea of the Great Battle as the foundation for military history writing. Drawing from a liberal mode of thought, he seeks not to re-humanize battle or to see the "face of battle," as one is led to believe, but instead to dehumanize battle and thus to call forth a pacifist argument against warfare in the modern age. By arguing that battle has become so mechanistic and deadly as to be fought between "things" rather than men, he paints the portrait of modern battle as so impersonal as to be abolishing itself from practice. Warfare is no longer fought between individuals on the battlefield.

In essence, Keegan is calling for a moralistic treatment of warfare. He criticizes much military history writing for depicting battle stereotypically, with emphasis on the outcome. In countries that have never faced national extinction, war remains something apart from society's heart. Keegan insists that battle is inherently a "moral conflict." As such, military schools, with their attempts to make war into a science, cannot prepare an individual for actual battle. Such attempts at rationalization, Keegan objects, in fact only dehumanize the future officer. Thus, battle accounts tend to describe the course of battle; such "rhetoric of history" offers little or no analysis of the events and players.

Keegan wants to put a human focus on battle. He argues that the action of fighting has remained a constant over the centuries, which he attempts to show in a treatment of three episodes of battle--Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme. Although the "face of battle" has remained unchanged--men still must conquer their fears of death, endure, persevere, etc.--the scope of battle has been magnified--battles last longer, involve more men and machines, and are fought over a wider area. It is precisely this increase in scope, along with an increase in personal danger to the individual combatant, that has served to change the very nature of warfare. No longer is battle a contest between two equal parties, who respect and empathize with each other. The personal, hand-to-hand combat of the past has been replaced by a battle of machines--instruments of destruction. The enemy is now demonized into something other than human; the enemy becomes "them," an impersonal, nonhuman party. War is no longer noble, Keegan would say; it is only bloody, for men are sacrificed in the thousands to the instruments of destruction. Due to the impersonalization of warfare, many soldiers must now be coerced if they are to fight at all; forced to take part in such horrors, the soldier loses his humanity and displays a large degree of cruelty to his fellow man. For these reasons, Keegan concludes by arguing that men can no longer abide the stresses of battle placed on them by a warfare of instruments of destruction--that "battle has already abolished itself." This conclusion seems problematical at best. While Keegan explores the human experience of battle, he ignores the forces that lead to battle. By portraying battle as an evil god of destruction borne in and of itself, he fails to acknowledge the inhuman acts of cruelty and aggression that in fact precipitate warfare.

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 48 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

 

3.0 out of 5 stars Keegan is not impartial
I have read many books from him, and always enjoyed it (orginal, beautiful style etc...). But I often realized I got one part of the truth through these readings: Keegan defends... Read more

Published on Mar 21 2002 by Thomas Fontaine

4.0 out of 5 stars scientific look into the psyche of the soldier. Gritty!!
I can taste the dirt, and smell the gunpowder. Keegan asks the question, "how would you react?" From the Generals headquarters to the soldiers foxhole, a thorough, vivid,... Read more

Published on Feb 9 2002 by damn_jim

5.0 out of 5 stars The Face of Genius
I bought this book a long time ago, but only read it recently because it is on the Chief of Staff of the Army's suggested reading list for Cadets, Soldiers, and Junior NCOs. Read more

Published on Feb 1 2002

4.0 out of 5 stars Engaging, Illuminating, Essential
This book is near the pinacle of popular historiography. It is written at an engaging level appropriate for the interested amateur historian. Read more

Published on Jan 22 2002 by Chris Rapier

4.0 out of 5 stars Changes the way you read military history
"The Face of Battle" is not what I would consider a main stream book about military history. Read more

Published on Jan 22 2002 by neil_johnson

5.0 out of 5 stars A Great Primer for all History Students
A must read. Clearly illustrates lasting themes of history, about those who make it, yet are usually absent in our books.

Published on Jan 2 2002 by samuelgrant

5.0 out of 5 stars Female peacemonger loves this ultimate battle book
I'm more a reader of fiction than of military history, but when I read a passage in Margaret Atwood's The Robber Bride about Keegan, I decided to try it out. Read more

Published on Sep 25 2001

4.0 out of 5 stars What It's Like to Battle -- Unique, But Overwritten
John Keegen is an expert military analyst with an original and insightful mind. In the "Face of Battle," both traits are on display. Read more

Published on Sep 24 2001 by Wayne A. Smith

4.0 out of 5 stars Keegan's review
This book provide an interesting perspective of Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme. Once you get through the dry introduction, Keegan relates some intriguing ideas. Read more

Published on Sep 18 2001

5.0 out of 5 stars Don't miss this book
I first read Keegan's Face of Battle when it was published more than a decade ago. His descriptions of the life of the man on the front lines was both shocking and compelling... Read more

Published on July 13 2001 by steve estvanik

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 48 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

Search Listmania!