What are you currently reading ?

Started by goat major, 03 November 2012, 06:40:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Leman

Decided to re-read Oman's History of the Art of War in the C16th, as I have one 15mm project and three 10mm projects in that century.*

* someone is bound to ask what, so here goes:
15mm - earlier Italian Wars to 1525
10mm - Flodden
          - Spanish of the early Italian Wars
          - early Dutch Wars of Independence

The artist formerly known as Dour Puritan!

FierceKitty

Quote from: Leman on 10 June 2019, 02:32:40 PM
Decided to re-read Oman's History of the Art of War in the C16th, as I have one 15mm project and three 10mm projects in that century.*

* someone is bound to ask what, so here goes:
15mm - earlier Italian Wars to 1525
10mm - Flodden
          - Spanish of the early Italian Wars
          - early Dutch Wars of Independence



We have our disagreements at times, sir, but I like your choice of era.
I don't drink coffee to wake up. I wake up to drink coffee.

Cavillarius

John A. Lynn, The Wars of Louis XIV, 1667-1714.
Oddly enough, there aren’t many books on the subject, and this one is an absolute must-read, I’d say. Lynn ranges from very general historical sketches of the political situation in this era to such details as recruitment and tactics. The one thing he does not do is describe individual battles in great detail, but there are other books that do this.
This book is highly recommended to who anyone who’d like to know a little more about why his Allied troops unite against those perfidious Frenchies!
Was Louis agressive or defensive? Or maybe aggressively defensive? Read about it here...

Hwiccee

Yes Lynn's book is excellent and not read enough. A stark contrast to the hopelessly out of date Oman which is often still read apparently.

kipt

Finished "Panzer Aces" by Franz Kurowski.  Paperback, printed 1992.  The exploits of 6 German Tank Commanders, most of which you have heard of if you read WWII: Dr. Franz Bake, Hermann Bix, Rudolf von Ribbentrop (the son of), Hans Bolter, Michael Witmann and Albert Ernst.

This reads like a John Wick movie; panzers decimating T-34's and wildly moving around.  The last chapter is very good, The German Panzer Arm of World War II.  It gives a good history of the making of the panzer arm and the tactics and mindset needed to be successful.

Raider4

Just found Henry VIII and Francis I: The Final Conflict, 1540-1547 available online, so will be starting this one very soon.

kipt

Just had a quick read of "Numbers & Losses in the Civil War" by Thomas L. Livermore. This being a reprint by the Civil war Centennial Series.  This book is acknowledged as the definitive study on the ACW.  And it is primarily lists of numbers and losses with the sources he used.  He dug deep into the records, both Union and Confederate.  Union records were more complete but he had good estimates for the Confederates.

Leman

Put Oman's book down for a bit to read the new Osprey on Russian soldier v Japanese soldier 1904/5. Seems ok but I daresay someone more knowledgable would be able to pick holes. From the photos though, it is now clear to me that the French mitrailleuse with shield attached would make a better stand in for the Russian maxim than the Boer War maxim.
The artist formerly known as Dour Puritan!

kipt

Finally finished "Iena" by Commandant Henry Lachouque.  This in French (which I read rather slow).  A good account of the campaign and the battle, as well as the pursuit.  Interesting asides about Napoleon's (and some of his other officers) doings during the campaign.

Slow for me but a good bedside book.

KTravlos

Finished Geofrey Wawro's "The Austro-Prussian War". I was a familiar with his argument, but never had the chance to read the actual book. Now I did. This is the second military history of the 1866 war I have read (the other is Quintin Barry's book). Wawro is more readable than Barry, but much more opinionated. Any suggestions to counter-arguments to his Benedek is at fault thesis?

Also read my dissertation advisor's most recent work, John A. Vasquez "Contagion and War: Lessons from the First World War". I enjoyed the book and have already formulated one possible research program on it. The history of some of the cases is controversial (he pretty much takes the anti-venizelist view in his greek case study), but in general what the non-political scientist has here is a good summary of the existing arguments about why specific pairs of states ended up in war during the 1914-1918 period. It also includes a chapter discussing why some neutrals were able to escape the war, which is not something you usually have readily available for the non-specialist. I love John, and he is one of those political scientists that makes sure to write in a language lay-persons can get, without sacrificing scholarly rigor. If you want a one volume survey coverage of the argument why each state entered and did not enter the First World War this is your book.

Duke Speedy of Leighton

You may refer to me as: Your Grace, Duke Speedy of Leighton.
2016 Pendraken Painting Competion Participation Prize  (Lucky Dip Catagory) Winner

KTravlos

"say" I must had mis-written something. The chapter covers the decision making in the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, Argentina,Chile, Mexico, and Ethiopia/Abyssinia (i.e states that neither severed relations, nor entered the war on either side). The particulars are different in each case but some general discoveries are that most of the true neutral lacked some of the structural factors that were present in the cases of states that entered the war (they were not contiguous to the fighting (Switzerland and Netherlands are an exception), and/or lacked active rivalries (histories of recent repeated conflict) with a belligerent. Also most ,with the major exception of Spain, also lacked significant territorial disputes with belligerents. And finally they did not have strategic assets useful to the war that would require force to get. There are then specific element that vary from case to case including the skill of specific diplomats, the variation in economic dependence, relations with the US for Latin American states etc. One thing,I did not know but learned was about was Kriegsfall Norwegen (Haug 2016) which were plannings by the Germans in 1917 for war with Norway and Denmark.

Duke Speedy of Leighton

Very interesting.
I knew about Liechtenstein's neutrality (and 1917 switch to having Switzerland represent them internationally rather than Austria) but not Norway/Denmark situation.
You may refer to me as: Your Grace, Duke Speedy of Leighton.
2016 Pendraken Painting Competion Participation Prize  (Lucky Dip Catagory) Winner

steve_holmes_11

Quote from: KTravlos on 22 June 2019, 01:38:00 PM
"say" I must had mis-written something. The chapter covers the decision making in the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, Argentina,Chile, Mexico, and Ethiopia/Abyssinia (i.e states that neither severed relations, nor entered the war on either side). The particulars are different in each case but some general discoveries are that most of the true neutral lacked some of the structural factors that were present in the cases of states that entered the war (they were not contiguous to the fighting (Switzerland and Netherlands are an exception), and/or lacked active rivalries (histories of recent repeated conflict) with a belligerent. Also most ,with the major exception of Spain, also lacked significant territorial disputes with belligerents. And finally they did not have strategic assets useful to the war that would require force to get. There are then specific element that vary from case to case including the skill of specific diplomats, the variation in economic dependence, relations with the US for Latin American states etc. One thing,I did not know but learned was about was Kriegsfall Norwegen (Haug 2016) which were plannings by the Germans in 1917 for war with Norway and Denmark.

You'd think the Kaiser already had plenty on his plate by 1917.

Was this some attempt to gain more northern bases for the High Seas Fleet?

mollinary

Quote from: steve_holmes_11 on 22 June 2019, 03:57:05 PM
You'd think the Kaiser already had plenty on his plate by 1917.

Was this some attempt to gain more northern bases for the High Seas Fleet?

Curious how different people read different things from the same  information. I read this as a contingency plan in case Norway and Denmark joined the Allies!
2021 Painting Competition - Winner!
2022 Painting Competition - 2 x Runner-Up!