A History of Strategy: From Sun Tzu to William S. Lind

by Martin van Creveld

A History of Strategy From Sun Tzu to William S Lind

Genres: History, War, Nonfiction, Political Science, Military Fiction, Politics, Philosophy

144 pages, Hardcover

First published March 25, 2015

About the author

Martin Levi van Creveld is an Israeli military historian and theorist.

Van Creveld was born in the Netherlands in the city of Rotterdam, and has lived in Israel since shortly after his birth. He holds degrees from the London School of Economics and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he has been on the faculty since 1971. He is the author of seventeen books on military history and strategy, of which Command in War (1985), Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton (1977, 2nd edition 2004), The Transformation of War (1991), The Sword and the Olive (1998) and The Rise and Decline of the State (1999) are among the best known. Van Creveld has lectured or taught at many strategic institutes in the Western world, including the U.S. Naval War College.

- wikipedia.org

Reviews

[Rachel]

This book was actually pretty disappointing. It read, more or less, like a college class syllabus, with brief references to each of a number of military strategists, and (for the most part) a few paragraphs explaining why they were stupid or limited. Apparently van Creveld likes Sun Tzu and Jomini, and otherwise thinks the history of military strategy is a bit of a wasteland. I disagree with him on almost every point he made (except on Sun Tzu, who I do think is well worth reading, pseudonym or not), and found the book pretty frustrating. Still, if you want a list of interesting writers on military strategy, and are willing to ignore the snide comments, the book is an okay place to start your reading list. And the reference list in the back is useful, though I think I still have one sitting around from my Intro to Strategy class in grad school that's just as good.

(For those who care, more specifically, he thought Livy and Polybius had nothing to say, dismissed Thucydides with a sentence, thought Clausewitz was overblown and misguided (and his explanation of Clausewitz's ideas was truly bizarre), dismissed maneuver warfare in a sentence (Boyd isn't even mentioned in the book), claimed nothing interesting came from America (I just started a biography of William Sherman that described him immediately as a brilliant military strategist with copious writings, for an easy counter-example), and dismissed a number of brilliant military writers as having no real strategy, just tactics and operations.)

[Chris Esposo]

A short and sweet summary of the history of thought on warfare, mostly from the western tradition, with an obligatory chapter on Sun Tzu in the beginning. The author identifies Von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu as the two archetypical thinkers in the subject, one emphasizing a maximalist philosophy with respect to force, befitting the maximalist tradition of western thought prior to the 20th century, and the other emphasizing an antithetical stratagem centred around minimalist force, whereby physical conflict is viewed as a fundamental failure of policy.

This is an interesting point-counterpoint, but given the brevity of the book, not much is dealt on deeper comparative analysis. The rest of the book goes through tactical thought prior to Clausewitz in Europe, which has a big lull after the fall of Rome, and is mostly relegated to cookbooks to follow, and thought since Clausewitz, mentioning Johmini and other central European thinkers on land, and the thought applied to air and sea war after the 20th century. Some care is made to explaining 2 prevailing thoughts on sea warfare, whether its main drive should he to disrupt enemy commerce, or if vessels should he pointed to directly confront enemy vessels. The section on air war is even briefer, though there is some cautionary notes on thinkers of the WWI era over-weighting the potency of aircraft, giving them 2 orders of magnitude value over a battleship say. This ended up being wrong because of the complexity of combat.

Last 30 mins on some modern thought, including Linds 4th generation theory. Seemed interesting, probably the motivation for the now defunct "Transformation" and RMA of Rumsfield era 15 years ago. A good book for reference and author names, and an intro summary on the subject

[Dennis Murphy]

A History of Strategy: From Sun Tzu to William S. Lind by Martin van Creveld is a competent, abridged, survey of military thought. It is not Strategy: A History by Lawrence Freedman, but then again it does not even try to be that. The book is very short, and reads as an introduction to the bare outline of the history strategy. It has been described as a syllabus, and while I can understand the criticism, it is unfair. One should not look to this for depth, but rather breadth. At times the personality of the author, Creveld, enters into the material. Sometimes it is interesting, but for a couple of thinkers it gives an attitude different from the expected norm. This can cause friction, so the book exists in a gray space where beginners should perhaps avoid reading it, while advanced learners will derive little from it apart from Creveld's judgments.

Still, no harm in reading it.

80/100

[Timothy]

Good survey of the history of military thought

I liked the overarching survey of military strategic thinkers and writers throughout the ages. I now have many more titles to read in my personal studies. This book is great as an intro to strategy prior to beginning a more in-depth study.

[Gaspar]

Brief overview of the evolution of strategic thought in history. In a light, easy to read tone, Creveld creates a solid base from which one can follow up with further reading.
Entertaining and direct.

[Brian W]

Crevald gives a fundamental outline of strategy over the beginning from Sun Tzu. Very concise with no depth at all. I already knew and had read a lot about the people and ideas he had discussed, and offered additional reading resources for more personal, in-depth study. Was ok.

[Russ]

A dry list of people who wrote on strategy with associated comments on them. Disappointed.

[Ted Smith]

Very broad, somewhat of a list at times, but overall an excellent examination of strategic writing over human history.

[Chris McDonald]

A fine little study by a first-rate man.

[Strick]

Great survey

[Nunya]

A solid if brief overview. A thread is retained throughout where, in his survey, he asks what each thinker really had to say on strategy, not just tactics or troop organisation. The biggest lesson I learned is how little military strategy we have, in the West, on record at least. It's as if generals mostly operated by the same playbook and kept marching soldiers and running horses at each other.

Definitely gave me some jumping off points for where I want to learn more, particularly: the difference between European and Chinese attitudes towards the goal of warfare. Crushing the enemy through glorious combat versus the settlement of an upsetting, unwanted element in the world by any means necessary.

Eager to read my book on 4GW now.

[The American Conservative]

“We’re winning.” “We can win.” “We will win.” “We must win.” This was the constant talk of American generals in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and now Syria. The failure of U.S. strategy is obvious to the whole world. America violates nearly all the precepts of history’s lessons, wreaking chaos and misery upon more nations, but not “winning.”

An excellent little book is a must-read for our generals and members of Congress. It is titled A History of Strategy: From Sun Tzu to William S. Lind. Sun Tzu was the Chinese author of the world’s most definitive study of military strategy. Lind is TAC’s own famous military historian and analyst. The author is Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld, one of today’s most prestigious and prolific military analysts.

http://www.theamericanconservative.co...

[Russell]

It's surprisingly short for as much as it covers. The writing is tight and to the point. I've dabbled a little in this field, van Creveld's outstanding skill and deep knowledge is readily apparent to even a layman such as myself. This book acts more a gateway into the world of strategy than anything else. If you want to learn about military history and strategy, this book covers who and what you need to read, and why.

Martin van Creveld's writing is clear, he doesn't overwhelm the reader with the specialized jargon of his field, but rather gently uses the proper language for his craft at the right times, quite often after preparing the reader to understand the context of the unfamiliar terminology.

If you have any interest in this subject, it's a must have book.

[John Schneider]

If you are at all interested in learning about strategy, then this book is for you. In "A History of Strategy: From Sun Tau to William S. Lind," Martin van Creveld chronicles how man has conceived of warfare. Although van Creveld does not attempt to decide which great thinker came closest in his conception of strategy, he does an excellent job of clarifying who thought of which strategic insight. A short but dense read, this work will introduce the reader to every significant thinker on strategy as well as his major contribution. I know of no other work that so succinctly recounts so many important thinkers and works on war. That alone makes the book worth reading and owning.

[Terry Tucker]

Decent Reference Short Course

This book was first published in 2000 and again in 2015. If you are an experienced student of war studies this would make a good desk reference. For the novice, I am inclined o dissuade you from this book as it does not provide enough context and will lead you down the wrong path. The bibliography in the book is sparse but adequate. The author on occasion speculates on why or why not a classical author addresses certain topics but provides no source reference.

[Fred Leland]

Great Introduction to the History of Strategy

I am a fan of Martin Van Creveld. In this book he walks you through ancient strategist up to modern times giving short essays on strategy and how it has evolved over time. The book makes a great introduction to strategy.

[Jeromy Peacock]

5 stars = Yearly re-read
4 stars = Re-read eventually
3 stars = Very Good
2 stars = OK
1 stars = Pass on this one.
0 stars = Couldn't finish it.

[Joe Murphy]

A wide review of historical literature on strategy with an emphasis on writings from impactful state and military strategists.

[Chris]

Very broad strokes overview, but interesting. A good reference for more detailed future reading.

[Dia420071501566]

nice book but if you have no interest in military history dont read it

[Mick]

An ok overview. Worth reading as a primer to focus further study.