Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

The Face of Battle

4.2 of 5 stars 4.20 · rating details · 2,451 ratings · 110 reviews

The Face of Battle is military history from the battlefield: a look at the direct experience of individuals at 'the point of maximum danger'. It examines the physical conditions of fighting, the particular emotions and behaviour generated by battle, as well as the motives that impel soldiers to stand and fight rather than run away.

In his scrupulous reassessment of three ba...more

Paperback, 352 pages

Published October 7th 2004 by Pimlico (first published 1976)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

We Were Soldiers Once... and Young by Harold G. Moore

Best Non-fiction War Books

36th out of 555 books — 643 voters

Battle Cry of Freedom by James M. McPherson

The Constitution of the United States of America by James Madison

Washington's Crossing by David Hackett Fischer

U.S. Army Center Of Military History Reading List 2012

2nd out of 58 books — 15 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Apr 05, 2012 Eric rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: history, war, the-ungraspable-phantom-of-life

As a just-get-to-the-fighting teenager I tried to read The Face of Battle and was baffled by the humanist erudition of Keegan’s introduction, a long historiographic essay that, I now see, echoes Virginia Woolf’s manifesto “Modern Fiction” and applies its prescriptions to historical prose. Keegan called to writers of military history as Woolf called to the novelists of her time – “Let us record the atoms as they fall upon the mind in the order in which they fall, let us trace the pattern, however...more As a just-get-to-the-fighting teenager I tried to read The Face of Battle and was baffled by the humanist erudition of Keegan’s introduction, a long historiographic essay that, I now see, echoes Virginia Woolf’s manifesto “Modern Fiction” and applies its prescriptions to historical prose. Keegan called to writers of military history as Woolf called to the novelists of her time – “Let us record the atoms as they fall upon the mind in the order in which they fall, let us trace the pattern, however disconnected or incoherent in appearance, which each sight or incident scores upon the consciousness.” Keegan wanted historians to turn away from the construction of tidy panoptic narratives of battle and acknowledge the horizonless confusion experienced by even the most well-informed participants of those battles; wanted them to understand that most soldiers don't even know when they are engaged in battle, or at least "battle" as it was understood by the Victorians: a national apotheosis or histrionic downfall; the Hinge of Destiny; and he recommended the historian read and take to heart the chaotic combat scenes in Tolstoy’s War and Peace, just as Woolf prescribed Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Chekov to the fiction writer tempted by pat characterization, superficial psychology, all-too-conclusive action, and purely material relations.

Keegan had it in for the “battle piece” – the sonorous, superbly modulated, rhetorical-declamatory mode of recounting battle; the stagey conventions under which all action is directed and decisive, all figures victors or vanquished, steadfast or yielding; a form Romantically colored and full of movement but for all that unable to convey a credible picture of the action, the colliding bodies, and presenting an “extreme uniformity of human behavior” in situations we know to be marked by jarring contrasts and a grotesque simultaneity. In a reading I’m too ignorant to evaluate, Keegan traces the battle piece to Julius Caesar’s self-promoting, politically savvy memoirs of the conquest of Gaul (mannequin legions waxing in his presence, waning in his absence), and argues that Greek military history (Xenophon, Thucydides) can offer an alternative tradition – one more formally relaxed, decentered and diffuse, as well as more attentive to the fickle, individually wayward responses of men in battle. And when we try to visualize Napoleonic battles, Keegan cautions us to avoid the Salon painting of Second Empire France and Victorian England – the ridiculous CGI of its time, apparently – all those paintings “which by their combination of photographic observation of detail with defiance of physical laws anticipate the work of the Surrealists.” As a contemporary critic, Baudelaire was harsher, calling exhibitions of battle scenes trade fairs for army contractors, vulgar hubbub of boot- and knapsack-makers; and of the soldier-painter Horace Vernet, Baudelaire said, “I hate this man because his pictures are not painting, but a sort of agile and frequent masturbation, an irritation of the French epidermis.”

Given the influence I’m told this book has had, Keegan would seem to have succeeded in his effort to convince historians to treat the face of battle as something fugitive and multiform, appearing in many guises to participants variously affected by simple position, by wounds, sleeplessness, hunger, cold, terror, alcohol, noise, and smoke. I was particularly struck by an account of Waterloo Keegan quotes, that of the British gunner officer Mercer:

Of what was transacting in the front of the battle we could see nothing, because the ridge in which our first line was posted was much higher than the ground we occupied. Of that line itself we could see only the few squares of infantry immediately next to us, with the intervening batteries. From time to time bodies of cavalry swept over the summit between the squares, and, dispersing on the reverse of the position, vanished again, I know not how.

So appeared the grand French cavalry charges – an irresistibly operatic subject for later painters of the battle – to one veteran. This book’s classic status is understandable because Keegan installs battle as a image of life itself – a welter of particulars we suspect must mean something, decide something, must in the end make a shape, a shape about which we hazard and discard, or fiercely cling to, guesses and theories and stories. Something is happening to us – over the ridge, through that smoke – just at the edge of our grasp.
(less)

27 likes · like · see review

Jul 14, 2012 Contrarius rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

I read this as part of an "expand your horizons" challenge, and I very much enjoyed it. Keegan has an engaging style and is very easy to listen to (audio format) -- and the narrator, one of my all-time favorites (Simon Vance), didn't hurt any either.

This is a classic book of military history/analysis...but it almost seems blase in some ways, today, because so many writers have learned from Keegan's insights. While I was listening, I kept thinking that any writer of fiction who wanted to include...more

5 likes · like · see review

Feb 14, 2012 Mike Gottert rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: military, history

A classic in military history which I was supposed to have read for a class back in 1986, I thought this was a reread however I either never read it when I was in college (beer) or forgot it in it's entirety (beer?).

Keegan (back when he was really good) does more then just describe the three battles. He explains what it was like to actually fight in the each battle, at least as much as he can, it is still a book. In addition to highlighting the similarities and differences between each battle,...more

1 like · like · see review

May 18, 2013 Sylvia rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, war-book

This book is allegedly about 3 battles, but it's really a large-scale analysis of the historical changes in warfare through the arc of human history. If this kind of grandiose thesis isn't your cup of tea, just read the middle part of the book: there is a healthy section describing three battles.

I noted two main things while reading:

(1) The battles and analysis in this book are SO BRITISH. Yes, that is because British soldiers are involved, and most of the sources of information are from the Br...more This book is allegedly about 3 battles, but it's really a large-scale analysis of the historical changes in warfare through the arc of human history. If this kind of grandiose thesis isn't your cup of tea, just read the middle part of the book: there is a healthy section describing three battles.

I noted two main things while reading:

(1) The battles and analysis in this book are SO BRITISH. Yes, that is because British soldiers are involved, and most of the sources of information are from the British side. However, it goes beyond that--something about the overall tone of the book, and the sympathies of the writer, perhaps. Some examples: a compare-and-contrast of stoic British soldiers with the grotesquely loquacious French, a quick cut at the non-British detachments at Waterloo who ran away, a detailed opinion on the proper conduct of generals in war.

This one-sidedness is not really a flaw--as an American, I found it very enlightening, in fact, since the American military historical perspective is quite similar but NOT identical to the British. On the other hand, I feel it undercuts the universality of his conclusions: do NOT expect any detailed analysis of a non-British perspective in battle (even of other Western European countries) and DEFINITELY don't expect any mention of warfare in any other part of the world, in even the vaguest of terms.

(2) Despite what I expected, Keegan does NOT adopt the narrative strategy of following a particularly "average soldier" in each of the battles. Instead, he tries to straddle the line of conveying a large picture at many points on the battlefield, and also narrating the individual fears, forces, sensations, and experiences of many discrete individuals within the fight.

I like the approach, but it has its drawbacks. There is no coherent "story" per se, as in reading you jump around in location, time, and topic constantly. Although the human element is emphasized, it is hard to collect all the disparate descriptions into a single picture of what the day was like for any particular person, which limits the empathetic connection of the reader.

I listened to the audio version, so I can't effectively comment on the density of the prose or how difficult it would be to read. Overall, I thought it was a great book, if a bit limited in scope, and I'm going to look into Keegan's other works as well. (less)

like · see review

Mar 03, 2013 Roland Allnach rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

For those curious as to the exact experience of standing on a battlefield, Keegan's 'The Face of Battle' is an essential addition to your book collection. Spanning the experiences of three of history's momentous battles (Agincourt, Waterloo, the Somme), Keegan brings the reader right into the boots of the men fighting the battles and the conditions they endured. Every little detail is here, which, although some may find distasteful, I believe only highlight this book's relevance in terms of mili...more

like · see review

Nov 13, 2012 Mike Hankins rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: military-history

Originally released in the mid 1970s, this book is beginning to show its age a little, but only because it had such a huge impact on the field of military history, spawning so many imitators in its wake. Before John Keegan's groundbreaking work, military history tended to focus on generalship, top-down views, and "great man" hero-worship. Not that there's anything wrong with such approaches, they have their own usefulness and drawbacks. But Face of Battle sought to apply an entire new -- for the...more Originally released in the mid 1970s, this book is beginning to show its age a little, but only because it had such a huge impact on the field of military history, spawning so many imitators in its wake. Before John Keegan's groundbreaking work, military history tended to focus on generalship, top-down views, and "great man" hero-worship. Not that there's anything wrong with such approaches, they have their own usefulness and drawbacks. But Face of Battle sought to apply an entire new -- for the the time -- approach to the writing of military history: an approach that centered on the viewpoint of the individual soldier in battle.

Keegan examines three famous battles: Agincourt in the fifteenth century, Waterloo in the early nineteenth, and the Somme during World War One. In each case, Keegan attempts to paint a detailed picture of what the battle was like for the average soldier in the crowd--what the individual saw, felt, smelled, heard. From the pressure of massive crowds of sword-wielding knights pushing each other in a mosh-pit-like mass, to the loud sounds of muskets and cannon at Waterloo, where soldiers blind-fired into the huge clouds of smoke that covered the fields, to the terrifying creeping barrage advances to enemy trenches in World War One, Keegan paints a vivid picture of what battle is really like for the average man in the line. This is a fascinating look, which accomplishes several huge feats at the same time.

Most of all, it puts a human face on war. Reading accounts of battles can often distance a reader from the brutality and reality of war itself, and Keegan does a remarkable job of putting readers in the shoes of various soldiers -- a perspective which is at once terrifying and enlightening. This re-focus places the agency of victory back on individual soldiers. Generals may do all the right things and make all the right decisions, but victory can often be won or lost by individuals at the front, who have no direct communication with their generals. That is not to diminish the role of a general, but merely to emphasize that the men in the lines are just as important. Keegan is also able to track the evolution of warfare across time, from a medieval battle featuring knights and archers, through the devastating mechanization of killing seen in trench warfare. New technology brought new tactics and new experiences to warfare. Yet through these changes, one can see similarities between soldiers of all eras: a desire for safety, for belonging, the power of strong leadership, genuine fear, and hope.

The effect this book had on the field of military history is difficult to overstate, not necessarily because of new information regarding these specific battles, but because of Keegan's overall approach. He opened a door into examining battles from a bottom-up perspective, emphasizing not only the experience, but the role of the common soldier in battle. The influence of this approach is felt across the whole field. Some works tend to apply the same approach to other battles, where many other works simply incorporate this perspective into other elements of their studies. In any case, if reading this book now might feel a little bit "normal," it's because Keegan made it normal to use this approach. This is a great book which holds up well even almost 40 years after its release. Sure to please the academic and the hobbyist, its a classic book that every history fan will want to have on their shelf.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Aug 21, 2012 Boris rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is basically a compare and contrast study of three battles, Agincourt in 1415, Waterloo in 1815, and the Somme in 1916. The first 78 pages is a review of the state of military history. You can skip it. The rest is fascinating. Keep in mind that the book was first published in 1976 so it doesn't take into account all the wars since then.
What I came away with from this book is that battles are won by the side that has the superior combination of technology and tactics. Horses won't charge int...more

like · see review

Jun 19, 2012 Smcleish rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: owned

Originally published on my blog here in January 2000.

Today, John Keegan is widely known as a military historian, and has quite a reputation both in the field and among the public. The Face of Battle is the book which made his name. He sought to show his readers something of the reality of battle, in contrast to the usual concentration on strategy and technology. This is far more difficult to do, for several reasons. Even in these days of near-universal literacy (in the West, at least), generals...more Originally published on my blog here in January 2000.

Today, John Keegan is widely known as a military historian, and has quite a reputation both in the field and among the public. The Face of Battle is the book which made his name. He sought to show his readers something of the reality of battle, in contrast to the usual concentration on strategy and technology. This is far more difficult to do, for several reasons. Even in these days of near-universal literacy (in the West, at least), generals are far more likely to write about their careers than private soldiers. On a modern battlefield, which can often cover several square miles, confusion reigns so far as the ordinary soldier is concerned. The air is full of smoke and noise, and any attempt to gain a good vantage point from the ground courts immediate death. Much of what can be said is the product of inference and supposition rather than direct testimony, and also involves and facing of rather unpleasant facts about what men can do to other men. The traditional emphasis is understandable, but it does need to be challenged every now and then.

The book itself contains an introductory essay on military historiography, accounts of three battles, and a concluding essay on the way battles have changed over the centuries. The three battles (Agincourt, Waterloo, and the first day of the Somme) are carefully chosen. They took place in a small area of north west Europe, between soldiers of similar cultural backgrounds. (There are anthropological arguments that imply that these are different from battles between widely differing cultures.) They are all, importantly, well documented for their times. Several independent chronicles include accounts of Agincourt, an effort was made to question all the British officers who survived Waterloo, and the impressions of British survivors of the Somme still alive in the sixties were sought out and recorded.

The opening section is distinctly reminiscent of the historiographical essays of M.I. Finley. This is only to be expected, for ancient history and military history bear similar relationships to the mainstream of the subject. Both are traditionally subjects studied by specialists other than historians, both suffer from poor contemporary documentation.

The accounts of the battles, which do not make pleasant reading, are expertly constructed so that the reader is put into the position of the men on the ground while still having an idea of what is going on at a broader level. The principal lesson, as has been indicated, is that battles are far more chaotic and brutal than is implied by traditional accounts, and that this has always been the case.

The trend seems to be that these factors are constantly increasing, and with them the percentage of soldiers made ineffective for reasons other than death and physical suffering. This is the subject discussed in the final essay, along with the question of why men take part in battles at all. There has usually had to be coercion from the rear; the amount of effort expended to stop men escaping from the Western Front was quite considerable, for example. In the late twentieth century, it has reached the point where traditional battles have become virtually impossible, and increasingly scarce. Most modern wars seem to consist of guerilla style operations - which have the advantage of being far cheaper - or massive air bombardments.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jan 25, 2011 Laura rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: assigned-reading, world-war-i, war, history

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 – thinki...more

7 likes · like · see review

Apr 10, 2009 Jeff rated it 5 of 5 stars

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 strategy or even much a...more

like · see review

Sep 25, 2012 Marcos rated it 2 of 5 stars

I thought that this book was an account of those three battle from the standpoint of the soldiers who fought and died in the field instead of the aloof narrative that characterizes other military history books where the battles are narrated and analyzed mostly from a HQ's point of view. The book has some of what I was looking for, but all I found interesting could be resumed in about 50 pages.

The name of the book should be "The Face of Battle: A Study of Military History, The Future of Battle,...more I thought that this book was an account of those three battle from the standpoint of the soldiers who fought and died in the field instead of the aloof narrative that characterizes other military history books where the battles are narrated and analyzed mostly from a HQ's point of view. The book has some of what I was looking for, but all I found interesting could be resumed in about 50 pages.

The name of the book should be "The Face of Battle: A Study of Military History, The Future of Battle, Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme" since the author spends more than 1/3 of the book giving an extensive, boresome, and subjective dissertation on military history (first chapter) and the future of warfare (last chapter. The whole book is impregnated of a dull, verbose, and awkward grammatical style, but in these two chapters the author takes that style to its acme with sentences like (verbatim from the book):

"In the Second World War, however, the psychiatrists of the British and, to an even greater extent the American, medical corps were able to insist on a proper recognition and treatment of psychiatric cases, their hand being much strengthened by their success in teaching the armies how to identify among recruits those particularly suited of the specialist military functions it was increasingly necessary to fill and those most likely to make no sort of soldier at all."

or

"May we not understand this bepistolled, risk-taking general's outburst as a transmuted expression of his disgust that he, who shared his soldiers' lot, sought them out in the front-line to praise their courage, stood ready to sacrifice his life as readily as any, should have been repaid for identifying himself with them by bahaviour which questioned his sincerity -which silently accused him of not knowing the ultimate reality of the ordeal he asked his soldiers to undergo and so made a mockery of his impersonation of the hero?"

The chapters on the battles themselves are not chronological narrations of the battle (though there's an sketch of this at the begging of each chapter). They're more of an analysis of certain aspects of the battle (the will to fight of the combatants, the deadly effectiveness of machine guns on large masses of infantry, etc). The author infers that you are familiarized not only with the battle, but also with the English culture and military history. It seems as if the book had been written for an specialized audience.
(less)

like · see review

Aug 13, 2007 Mark rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

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.

like · see review

Dec 28, 2010 Adam West rated it 5 of 5 stars

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 gets into every little d...more

like · see review

Jan 31, 2013 Jose rated it 4 of 5 stars

John Keegan describe como ha evolucionado la experiencia que un soldado vive en una batalla, tomando como referencia las batallas de Agincourt, Waterloo y Somme.
No se trata de describir una visión general de la guerra, ni de sus causas, ni sus consecuencias a nivel político o militar. Es un análisis desde el punto de vista de los hombre que participan en ellas, mucho más limitada, caótica y humana. Para ello analiza el terreno en el que se desarrolla la batalla; en qué condiciones anímicas y fí...more

like · see review

Nov 12, 2012 Nicholas During rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I'm probably not the best person to review this book since my knowledge of military history (and militohistiography) is minimal, but here goes.

Keegan attempts to recount what happened at three major battles (Agincourt, Waterloo, Somme). His aim is to do this, not from the pov of the generals and leaders, though there is plenty of that, but what it would be like to be a soldier in the field there. Pretty easy answer: not fun.

It's well written and so is engaging, it's almost a cliche that military...more

like · see review

Feb 08, 2011 Geoff rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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 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 their social and religious, their preparedness, how they were motivated (fear being one way), the weapons which were employed as hand to hand, single missle, or multi-missle, and in tight detail. His opening is rather drawn out by his stretching back in time to show which military historians have either failed or succeeded in getting it right and why (greeks did, romans didn't).

Then the battles, epic battles that changed history. Agincourt, Waterloo, Somme; each more bloody than the previous and all to be massively surpassed 30 years later in the second world war.

There are sections in each battle which were new to me, Agincourt with it's class distinction between archers and men at arms, Waterloo with english infrantry squares maintaining position in the face of repeated artillery and cavalry charges, and the Somme with Keegan's exploration of what motivated the soldiers to climb out of the trench when it was clear their chance of survival was slim. Interestingly, the US Army interviewed and studied their troops extensively and drew amazing conclusions about the society within the army. From the stories told by my father in law, the pacific theatre was much the same. It's also not surprising that the "hands on" generals of WWII were captains and colonels in WWI and felt first hand how degrading authority could be when detached from reality. According to Keegan, Rommel often started battles in the first tank, patton, montgomery, marshall, eisenhower, all interacted and identified closely with the foot soldier. Montgomery preferred fatigues to dress, Patton packed weapons usually reserved for lower ranking officers.

I skimmed the detailed listings of which brigades were present and their relative strength and locations during each battle. This is much more than a book of military history, pages and pages written describing in detail through these three battles why a man will fight or not fight.

finally, i read this book because of the war poets. World War I had the highest concentration of literate infranty men of any war. there is a huge body of writing from these intelligent men who had time to committ their thoughts to paper. Keegan doesn't disappoint here either.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Sep 16, 2012 CD rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: sociology, psychology, war, millitary-history

The book that is complimentary to author John Keegan's The Mask of Command examining the experience of the participants in the battle 'royale'. Examination of the actions of individuals as can best be done in three great battles, Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme extends the range of the classification of 'military history' in ways that require that parts of this work be evaluated as other disciplines.

Psychological reaction, though always a concern for military leaders, is given added twists a...more The book that is complimentary to author John Keegan's The Mask of Command examining the experience of the participants in the battle 'royale'. Examination of the actions of individuals as can best be done in three great battles, Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme extends the range of the classification of 'military history' in ways that require that parts of this work be evaluated as other disciplines.

Psychological reaction, though always a concern for military leaders, is given added twists and importance in this work. Sociological behaviors too play a role in Keegan's writings on Battle. These each are part of his carefully defined and structure oriented definition of battle and when it has and has not occurred.

The psychology of why people will go into battle and perhaps more to the point, why they stay is one of the topics examined. Is it a group dynamic? Is it a personal glory and self testing? Students of this author at Sandhurst one can almost see hanging on his words as the lectures continue. Though many things can point to this being a distillation of an academic approach to young future military leaders, this is anything but a simplistic psych 101 adjunct course.

Groups of people behave differently both willingly and subconsciously during a stress filled time. There is a subtle introduction to group dynamics included in this work. The subjugation of individual will through conscription and related training produced a very different corp during 20th Century wars than training of the individual combatant of the middle-ages. Different requirements and goals. Survival versus glory and profit. Yet both willingly to a greater degree engaged in the ultimate risk behavior by putting their life at peril for a common goal. Victory in battle.

Battle. Keegan states clearly his purely academic expertise in never having personally experienced battle. This is quite important to the work in avoiding hero worship of certain individuals. This too adds to and is equally important to the companion work, The Mask of Command(see above for links) as this military expert is viewing the analysis from at least an arm's length and is not bound by the fog of command, battle, and war. Most importantly Keegan establishes a definition of what is and is not battle. He separates combat and hostility, which many military people will experience, from the grand battle fields of history.

This work breaks up the generations and numbers who have experienced battle into distinct groupings. In doing so he illustrates the changing approach to active hostility and its needs in a way that is prescient of the current non-linear and asymmetrical warfare that is todays reality. Post WWII fewer and fewer individuals will engage in Battle. Of course the Korean War and Vietnam had battles and invasions, but the number of Westerners involved was probably at the lowest total both numerically and in percentage that had been part of the general population, for centuries! It changes everything about the approach to military analysis. As with the Mask of Command, this book The Face of Battle's analytic end goal and conclusion is summed up best by its own closing sentence: "But the suspicion grows that battle has already abolished itself."

Keegan writes a far more complex, but as always elegant, book than this or the 'paired' book at first reveal. On further careful review there is a tremendous amount of vital information contained within. This work has some inconsistencies in the analysis of each of the three case studies which lowers the overall rating to 3, but nearly 4, stars at this time. It remains even at a slightly lower rating an important work for anyone reading history military or otherwise.(less)

like · see review

Dec 12, 2012 Au Yong Chee Tuck rated it 5 of 5 stars

This was probably the book that established the reputation of military historian John Keegan.
In this book, he argued that it was not possible for a commander in the field to be aware of all that was happening in the battlefield. At best, the commander only had limited knowledge of the unfolding events and he had to make his judgments and decisions accordingly.
His main examples are taken from Agincourt (1415), Waterloo (1815) and the Somme (1916).
The irony is that Mr Keegan has admitted in his f...more

like · see review

Dec 02, 2010 Steve rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: history, non-fiction, war

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

2 likes · like · see review

Oct 16, 2012 Kevin rated it 5 of 5 stars

It is an interesting look at what is happening around and in the minds of those who are actually fighting the battles. Keegan delves into the idea that commander's intent and how things are supposed to go and look like they go on the map are a part of military studies, it is also essential to grasp the experience of the common soldier. He moves through three battles, though this is not a history. In each he breaks them down and tries to examine different facets such as infantry vs infantry engag...more

like · see review

Jul 31, 2011 Michael Dorosh rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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

like · see review

Aug 10, 2011 Matthew Roche rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

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, it will lik...more

like · see review

Aug 03, 2010 Steven Peterson rated it 4 of 5 stars

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 analysis of the challenges...more

like · see review

Sep 02, 2012 John rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: undergrad

In his book The Face of Battle, historian John Keegan calls for the methods in which military history is written and read to change dramatically. Part history book and part critique on modern military history, The Face of Battle asks of its readers to change the way military history is approached by its students and practitioners, by looking at the experience of battle as a phenomena wherein all participants throughout history have been tested and stressed to extreme mental and physical limits d...more

like · see review

Jan 07, 2013 Odhran rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: history, military, non-fiction, war

This is an excellent analysis of military historiography and a curative to those who think coherent narratives are easily formed from battles, or that (insert film here) is militarily accurate. Probably more closely converys a vague understanding of what battles are like than any other history. Some of the waffle about what a battle is is overly ponderous and not very illuminating, but on the whole a fascinating book.

Also, I learned not to read Goodreads reviews unless I want to be annoyed. Peop...more

like · see review

Mar 18, 2012 Checkman rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Those interested in military history and the experience of battle

Recommended to Checkman by: the U.S. Army

Shelves: military-history, non-fiction, history

I first read The Face of Battle in 1991. I was a young 2nd Lieutenant attending the Armor Officer's Basic Course at Fort Knox, Kentucky. As a 2nd Lieutenant my focus was on the small world of the armor platoon leader (four tanks - sixteen soldiers) and the type of combat that I would encounter as a platoon leader. Battle was amazing for it addressed many of the issues that I found myself wondering about. It was a breath of fresh air. I have since read it several times both in it's entirety and i...more I first read The Face of Battle in 1991. I was a young 2nd Lieutenant attending the Armor Officer's Basic Course at Fort Knox, Kentucky. As a 2nd Lieutenant my focus was on the small world of the armor platoon leader (four tanks - sixteen soldiers) and the type of combat that I would encounter as a platoon leader. Battle was amazing for it addressed many of the issues that I found myself wondering about. It was a breath of fresh air. I have since read it several times both in it's entirety and it's different sections.

Thirty-six years after it was first published Keegan's The Face of Battle might seem like old hat. There are no lack of critics who will point out the mistakes in Keegan's methodology; that he examined three British battles that were victories (I would argue that The Somme was hardly a victory) and so on and so forth.Then there are those who have issues with the man himself and allow their personal opinions to influence their critiques of his books. I readily acknowledge that John Keegan is not perfect and I have found many of his more recent books to be flat, but The Face of Battle is something special.

To understand why Keegan wrote Battle all you have to do is read the first twenty pages. Keegan examines contemporary military history (mid - 1970's) and it's depiction of the physical reality of combat. Military historians interests were more on the macro rather than the micro. Many of them used sweeping generalities and cliches when describing the experiences of the soldiers in battle. There were exceptions of course. Historians who were looking at the existence of the individual soldier. Most notable (at the time of the book being written) would have been writers Cornelius Ryan and John Ellis, but for the most part historians had not examined the battlefield empirically.

With The Face of Battle Keegan moved into new territory. It's hard to understand in 2012 just how groundbreaking his book was at the time. It's hard to understand because his work has been so influential that it has been seamlessly incorporated into other historians research. That in itself is probably the greatest compliment possible.

The book is very readable. Each battle is analyzed methodically, but it never drags. Different aspects of each battle is looked at. Such as the experience of the infantry, cavalry, commanders, artillery and so on. He looks at the conditions of the battlefield itself when the fighting begins and how it changed as the fighting went on. He also examines the effect of the physical conditions (of the battlefield) on the tactics and the how it effected the moral of the soldiers involved in the fighting. Again there had been historians before Keegan who had examined these things, but not as methodically nor had such an examination been the thesis of the earlier books.

All in all a fascinating read and one that is deserving of it's place in military history.

(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Sep 16, 2011 William Johnson rated it 1 of 5 stars

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 days,...more

like · see review

Aug 02, 2012 Lobstergirl rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Tagg Romney

Shelves: own, european-history, historiography

John Keegan was an instructor at Sandhurst when he wrote this in the early 1970s. As he notes, he was someone who had never seen battle himself, teaching those who would. He writes about battles in a nuts-and-bolts, but also a deeply human way, investigating their moral aspects: why were prisoners sometimes killed, sometimes not? When it quickly became clear that soldiers were dying needlessly in some of the attrition battles of WWI, why were those particular offenses not stopped? Why did the of...more

2 likes · like · see review

Jun 05, 2008 Jake rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: history-european, history, history-medieval, history-military, history-renaissance

“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).

This is not your ty...more “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).

This is not your typical book on military history: absent are long discussions about troop deployment patterns or elaborately colored maps detailing the movements of soldiers. With some minimal exceptions, there are very few discussions of supply lines, tactical or strategic maneuvers, or the thoughts of the great leaders of the battles. This is not about the politics that lead to battle, nor the morality behind it. Instead, Keegan’s focus is solely and firmly fixed on the experience of the average infantryman. The grunt soldier who sees, not abstract movements of mathematically defined units, but the chaos and destruction that is part of all warfare. Where Keegan’s discussions do veer off, they often do so into the realm of psychology, or even biology, more than they do into traditional military tactics and doctrine. In several cases, particularly in his discussions of the more modern battles, he draws on primary sources in order to enhance his picture of what the battlefield experience is like. It’s a very different way of looking at military history.

Keegan’s writing itself is excellent—he manages to keep the writing engaging and flowing, without resorting to the over-romanticized prose that sometimes accompanies military writing. His use of primary sources allows him to paint a convincing and vivid picture of what the battle field experience would have been like for most soldiers in these engagements, and give the reader at least a greater understanding of what the average soldier experiences on the battlefield.

Keegan ends the book with some broader discussions of military history, theory, and the future of warfare, most of which are very interesting. The discussion of the future of warfare will seem a bit dated to modern readers (the book was first published in 1976), but in general, Keegan’s observations about the nature of warfare seem to hold up well enough in the modern day. For those interested in a slightly different outlook on military history, this is well worth the read.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Mar 25, 2013 Thom rated it 4 of 5 stars

I think even non-military historians might enjoy this book with its careful look at the experience of individual soldiers. Keegan is able to show that even in the world of modern weapons, it remains predominantly a struggle of infantry. Victory continues to remain in the hands of the army that can maintain its moral certainty and not break in the face of tremendous stress. He ends by positing that "traditional" battles may be over because they have become so impersonal, that warfare will revert...more

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
Face of Battle	1	26	Jul 10, 2009 08:13am

combine
Other Editions (32)

More editions...

Genres

History

196 users

Non Fiction

73 users

Military > Military History

60 users

War > Military

55 users

War

42 users

Psychology

6 users

Literature > 20th Century

3 users

History > World History

3 users

Cultural > France

3 users

History > European History

3 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About John Keegan

Sir John Desmond Patrick Keegan OBE is a British military historian, lecturer and journalist. He has published many works on the nature of combat between the 14th and 21st centuries concerning land, air, maritime and intelligence warfare as well as the psychology of battle.
-Wikipedia

More about John Keegan...

Books by John Keegan

The Mask of Command: Alexander the Great, Wellington, Ulysses S. Grant, Hitler, and the Nature of Leadership

Six Armies in Normandy: From D-Day to the Liberation of Paris; June 6 - Aug. 5, 1944; Revised

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About The Face of Battle

18 trivia questions

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from The Face of Battle

“Visually Agincourt is a pre-Raphaelite, perhaps better a Medici Gallery print battle - a composition of strong verticals and horizontals and a conflict of rich dark reds and Lincoln greens against fishscale greys and arctic blues.” — 2 people liked it

“One of Picton's officers fell asleep the instant the halt was sounded and did not think of food until later in the night, when he woke to eat some chops cooked in the breastplate of a dead cuirassier (meat fried in a breastplate was very much à la mode in the Waterloo campaign, rather as rats spitted on a bayonet were to be in 1871 or champagne exhumed from chateau gardens in 1914).” — 2 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: The Face of Battle
avg rating	preview: The Face of Battle Goodreads rating: 4.20 (2451 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/275833.The_Face_of_Battle?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320502539l/275833.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/275833.The_Face_of_Battle?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Face of Battle by John Keegan[/url]

The Face of Battle

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website