In this major and wholly original contribution to military history, John Keegan reverses the usual convention of writing about war in terms of gene...
read full description
reviews
Jan 25, 2011
Laura
rated it: 
It’s a rare day that I become smitten with a 75-year old historian, but that day came when I read the introduction to The Face of Battle. I have several of John Keegan’s books, most of them featuring lots of photographs, but this is the one that made him famous – and for good reason. His elegant prose has the right amount of wit and clarity, scholarship and humility, gripping description and hard facts. After an introduction to military historiography that left me – I'm not even kidding – think
More...
0 comments
like
(3 people liked it)
Apr 10, 2009
Jeff
rated it:
The classic examination of battlefield experience. The obvious, logical, and instinctual thing to do in the face of mortal danger is to flee. Why do men stand and fight in the face of death? What compels them to act against all reason?
Keegan looks at three battles fought in close geographical proximity. The English victory against the French at Agincourt, Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, and the British and French offensive against Germany along the Somme. This is not about strate More...
Keegan looks at three battles fought in close geographical proximity. The English victory against the French at Agincourt, Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, and the British and French offensive against Germany along the Somme. This is not about strate More...
Dec 17, 2009
Mark
rated it: 
By examining three different famous battles from three different eras -- Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme -- military historian Keegan explores the fascinating ways in which our brutality has remained constant, but our ability to exercise it has become magnified. The material and his undoubted mastery of the subject are strong points. Like many specialists, though, I felt he couldn't help himself when it came to piling on unnecessary detail.
Dec 28, 2010
Adam
rated it:
Absolutely amazing. Anyone joining the military who will see combat, and especially anyone who enjoys military history and science would enjoy this book. John Keegan is one of the world's most prominent military historians and this book is an excellent display of his understanding of what happens on the battlefield even though he's never served in the military.
In this book Keegan analyzes four famous battles throughout history. And when I say "analyzes" I mean he really ge More...
In this book Keegan analyzes four famous battles throughout history. And when I say "analyzes" I mean he really ge More...
Feb 08, 2011
Geoff
rated it: 
John Keegan opens with the point that although he has never been a combatant, military history writing is rife with inaccuracy because most writers either regurgitate the facts baldly without consideration for context or prejudice their story by applying personal filters and perceptions to the antagonists. His research is impeccable, he picks three battles that occur in roughly the same location in three different time periods and explains the circumstances surrounding the ranks in terms of thei
More...
0 comments
like
(1 person liked it)
Jan 03, 2012
Ted
rated it:
This was the first book I read by John Keegan, and it became the first of many. In it he describes three different historical battles (Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme, if memory serves) and describes what we know (or can guess) about what the battle experience was like for the men involved. Of particular interest is the way he breaks this down into sub-topics like "infantry vs. archers", "infantry vs. cavalry", "cavalry vs. artillery" etc.
This is pr More...
This is pr More...
Dec 02, 2010
Steve
rated it:
Meh. It's ok. Written in 1976, The Face of Battle is badly in need of an update. In addition, the battles are all very British (Agincourt, Waterloo, and The Somme). This is understandable, since the book is probably an outgrowth from Keegan's teaching notes. The focus is on the experience of the individual soldier, which is pretty standard stuff in current battle books. The Face of Battle can be a bit dry at times (the first 20 pages are a real slog), but it can also be quite fascinating. It was
More...
4 comments
like
(2 people liked it)
Jul 31, 2011
Michael
rated it:
What history should be; careful empirical analysis using a variety of methods to get at what actually happened. Keegan looks at Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme and dissects each battle, using not only primary sources, but stepping outside the box to view things from unusual angles. Not content with Lady Butler's view of the charge of British cavalry, he examined video footage of British police on horseback and determined that real horses simply wouldn't act that way for real. In short, he used
More...
Aug 10, 2011
Matthew
rated it:
Incredibly hard to read - the prose is so dense with subordinate clauses that it becomes perilous to search for a continuous thread of syntax.
But, as a masterpiece of critical thinking, it is without parallel. In the world where every history book is "The Story of Salt" or a bio, it stands out even more. Written in the 70s, it is really looking back, but has some great insights into the future of man to man armed combat.
If you are into military works, it is essential. If you are not, More...
But, as a masterpiece of critical thinking, it is without parallel. In the world where every history book is "The Story of Salt" or a bio, it stands out even more. Written in the 70s, it is really looking back, but has some great insights into the future of man to man armed combat.
If you are into military works, it is essential. If you are not, More...
Aug 03, 2010
Steven
rated it:
Keegan examines three battles--Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme--to explore (Page 78) "how and why the men who have had (and do have) to face. . .weapons control their fears, staunch their wounds, go to their deaths. It is a perpetual attempt to catch a glimpse of the face of battle."
Agincourt. . . . Keegan briefly describes its place in Henry V's campaign. He then goes on to discuss what happened at Agincourt from the perspective of the combatants. It is a sobering analy More...
Agincourt. . . . Keegan briefly describes its place in Henry V's campaign. He then goes on to discuss what happened at Agincourt from the perspective of the combatants. It is a sobering analy More...
Sep 17, 2011
William
rated it: 
A book about battles like the Somme and Waterloo has no business being this boring. Keegan's long winding, multi-claused sentences suffocate all the excitment out of what should be a thrilling topic. I love history and I thought this, from what I'd read about it, would be an interesting book, but dear God it is awful.
I can only recommend this to the biggest of history nerds - the kind that have busts of Napolean on their desk and closet-full of old Civil War uniforms from their reenacting More...
I can only recommend this to the biggest of history nerds - the kind that have busts of Napolean on their desk and closet-full of old Civil War uniforms from their reenacting More...
Jun 05, 2008
Jake
rated it:
“But I have never been in a battle. And I grow increasingly convinced that I have very little idea of what a battle can be like.”
Thus ends the opening paragraph of Face of Battle, in which military historian John Keegan attempts to explore, as best one can absent the experience, what it is like to be involved in real military combat. He does this by examining three historically significant battles in North-western Europe: Agincourt (1415), Waterloo (1815) and the Somme (1916).
More...
Thus ends the opening paragraph of Face of Battle, in which military historian John Keegan attempts to explore, as best one can absent the experience, what it is like to be involved in real military combat. He does this by examining three historically significant battles in North-western Europe: Agincourt (1415), Waterloo (1815) and the Somme (1916).
More...
0 comments
like
(1 person liked it)
Aug 04, 2011
Susanne
rated it:
The book contains - in great detail, which is Keegan's forte - accounts of three famous battles, but looking at what the actual soldier in the field saw and experienced.
I focussed mostly Waterloo (the other two being Azincourt and Somme) and found it extremely informative without being boring or over-extended. This aspect is the one you never get to know when learning about famous battles, but maybe the one that readers should keep in mind the most.
Highly recommended.
I focussed mostly Waterloo (the other two being Azincourt and Somme) and found it extremely informative without being boring or over-extended. This aspect is the one you never get to know when learning about famous battles, but maybe the one that readers should keep in mind the most.
Highly recommended.
Nov 09, 2010
Arieltsmith
rated it:
A comparison of the battle of Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme from the soldier's perspective and from a strategic perspective. Very accessibly written and couldn't put it down. An unexpected result of reading this book on my bus commute was that 3 different men interrupted me to comment they had never seen a woman interested in military history before . . .
Jul 30, 2009
Paul
rated it: 
As he confesses in the first few pages, John Keegan has never been in war, but he sure writes about it a lot. I'd always wanted to read a book by this eminent British historian and, to be honest, I chose this one because it was the shortest. For what it is, it's very good.
After a longish critique of how poorly history is generally written, especially by the Brits, Keegan gets down to the business of describing three historically significant European battles - Agincourt, Waterloo an More...
After a longish critique of how poorly history is generally written, especially by the Brits, Keegan gets down to the business of describing three historically significant European battles - Agincourt, Waterloo an More...
Feb 21, 2009
Deborah
rated it:
I read this book to research what battle would be like in previous eras for the average soldier. This book certainly did that. I liked that the author quoted primary sources about the battle or from those who had been in the battles so the reader could better understand what those battles looked like first-hand.
Nov 02, 2011
Stutley
rated it:
Though newer research has been done in this field John Keegan's efforts contained in this volume can not be dismissed. The research and analysis are excellent and certainly are not "dry history". Well worth the read for historian and history buff alike.
Feb 23, 2010
Jordan
rated it:
John Keegan approaches battle analysis from a different angle: how a battle would have been experienced by various participants. More than any other book this will give you an idea of what it was like to be a participant in historic battles like Waterloo.
Jul 26, 2008
Alain
rated it:
If you have the time to read only two books on the nature of war, then you read this one and Hanson's "The wars of the ancient greeks".
Hanson covers the Greeks and, to a certain extent, those who learned from them, and that's enough until you reach the middle ages, where Keegan picks up.
Normally, I find history of "great battles" to be absolutely useless and dull. Keegan manages to make three important battles interesting becasue he puts in the histo More...
Hanson covers the Greeks and, to a certain extent, those who learned from them, and that's enough until you reach the middle ages, where Keegan picks up.
Normally, I find history of "great battles" to be absolutely useless and dull. Keegan manages to make three important battles interesting becasue he puts in the histo More...
Aug 26, 2010
Ajj
rated it:
A must read if you are interested in military history. Keegan's breakdown of the three battles provides insight into the trials facing soldiers throughout history.
Mar 19, 2009
Egbert
rated it:
This is the best book of it's kind. Keegan proves why he is the master. It is detailed, researched and well written. I cannot recommend this book more highly.
Dec 04, 2007
Justin
rated it:
This book was recommended in the Atlantic Monthly in an interesting mini-section. A professor drew up a list of "male" books that women should read and vice versa. This one was for the ladies. I suppose the intention would be to give women a perspective in what war is like from a soldier's (man's) experience on the battlefield over the centuries. (Keegan analyzes several important battles from Hastings to The Somme.)
The book read like it was written for specialists, an More...
The book read like it was written for specialists, an More...
Apr 08, 2011
Aimee
rated it:
I've never read a battle book like this. I couldn't put it down and I didn't want it to end.
Dec 09, 2010
Mackay
rated it:
A study of war through the ages, in all its never-ending similarities and horror.
Jan 30, 2009
Shep
rated it:
An instant classic that changed the writing of military history forever.
Oct 27, 2011
Huw
rated it:
This book is the "prequel" to History of Warfare. In it he compares the logisitcs and actions taken during three battles separated by time. The whole book revolves around the increase in numbers required to wage successful warfare. The absence of Gung-Ho (cf Viscount Montgomery who takes delight in telling you where things went wrong and, by implication, what he would have done) is laudable. Allowing for the dry style and academic approach to his subject this is a fascinationg and
More...
Dec 19, 2011
Kent
rated it:
The best history on what it was like to be a soldier at Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme. Keegan never lets you down.
