50 Battles That Changed the World
The Conflicts That Most Influenced the Course of History
authors
data
Product: Book
ISBN-10: 0-7607-6609-6
ISBN-13: 9780760766095
Publisher: Barnes & Noble Books
Country:
Year: January 1, 2005
Edition: First Edition
Size: 18.54 x 25.65 x 2.79cm
Weight: 816gr
Binding: Hardcover
ISBN-10: 0-7607-6609-6
ISBN-13: 9780760766095
Publisher: Barnes & Noble Books
Country:
Year: January 1, 2005
Edition: First Edition
Size: 18.54 x 25.65 x 2.79cm
Weight: 816gr
Binding: Hardcover
editions
William Weir
ReadHowYouWant; 2009
Paperback
William Weir
ReadHowYouWant; 2009
Paperback
William Weir
ReadHowYouWant; 2009
Paperback
William Weir
ReadHowYouWant; 2009
Paperback
William Weir
ReadHowYouWant; 2009
Paperback
William Weir
ReadHowYouWant; 2009
Paperback
William Weir
ReadHowYouWant; 2009
Paperback
William Weir
ReadHowYouWant; 2009
Paperback
William Weir, Rick Turner (narrator)
Playaway; 2009
Preloaded Digital Audio Player
order
reviews
A Decent Read … 
THE BOOK DID HAVE SOME FLAWS IN IT, MOSTLY IN EDITING. IF YOU CAN GET BY THAT, THE REST IS PRETTY DECENT INFO. I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO EDIT THIS BOOK BEFORE IT WENT TO FINAL PRINT! C'EST LA VIE! AS SOME OF THE OTHER REVIEWERS QUESTIONED SOME OF THE BATTLES THAT WERE WRITTEN ABOUT, THEY HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF WEIR HAD INSERTED THE BATTLES THEY WANTED, OR THOUGHT HIGHLY OF, THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER GROUP OF REVIEWERS COMPLAINING THAT HE DIDN'T INCLUDE SUCH AND SUCH A BATTLE! NOT EVERYONE IS GOING TO AGREE WITH HIS CHOICES, BUT IT CERTAINLY OPENS UP THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN HISTORIANS/ENTHUSIASTS OF WHAT SHOULD/SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THE BOOK! FOR INSTANCE, THE BATTLE OF DUBLIN, SEEMED A RATHER CURIOUS CHOICE. HOWEVER, WEIR WRITES FOR EVERY BATTLE »WHAT WAS AT STAKE«, AND THIS KIND OF GIVES THE READER A WINDOW INTO WHAT HE WAS THINKING AS FAR AS THE IMPORTANCE OF EACH BATTLE HE CHOSE. FOR DUBLIN HE QUESTIONS: »CAN A SMALL NATION WIN ITS INDEPENDENCE AGAINST A MAJOR POWER?« AT THE END, HE SHOWS THE CONNECTION TO NGUYEN AI QUOC (A.K.A. HO CHI MINH) AND OTHER LEADERS, WHO PAID CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE BATTLE THAT OCCURS IN DUBLIN. THAT WAY THE READER CAN SEE THE OVERALL EFFECT THE BATTLE HAD ON THE WORLD. THE CLINCHER FOR THIS BOOK IS THE »WHAT WAS AT STAKE« PART. IT COMPLETELY ELIMINATES THE SEEMINGLY RANDOMNESS OF THE AUTHOR'S CHOICES. THE BOOK IS GOOD BECAUSE THE BATTLE SUMMARIES ARE JUST THE RIGHT LENGTH. NOT SO LONG AS TO BORE A READER TO TEARS, YET LONG ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU A FEEL FOR THE EVENTS AND THEIR IMPORTANCE. NOW TIME FOR ME TO EXPRESS MY SURPRISE: NO ARAB-ISRAELI BATTLES MADE THE LIST? I THOUGHT SOMETHING THAT PRESERVED AN ENTIRE COUNTRY, SUCH AS ISRAEL, MIGHT MAKE THE LIST. PERHAPS ACCORDING TO THE AUTHOR THAT CRITERIA MIGHT BE TOO MYOPIC OR NARROW IN FOCUS.
THE BOOK DID HAVE SOME FLAWS IN IT, MOSTLY IN EDITING. IF YOU CAN GET BY THAT, THE REST IS PRETTY DECENT INFO. I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO EDIT THIS BOOK BEFORE IT WENT TO FINAL PRINT! C'EST LA VIE! AS SOME OF THE OTHER REVIEWERS QUESTIONED SOME OF THE BATTLES THAT WERE WRITTEN ABOUT, THEY HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF WEIR HAD INSERTED THE BATTLES THEY WANTED, OR THOUGHT HIGHLY OF, THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER GROUP OF REVIEWERS COMPLAINING THAT HE DIDN'T INCLUDE SUCH AND SUCH A BATTLE! NOT EVERYONE IS GOING TO AGREE WITH HIS CHOICES, BUT IT CERTAINLY OPENS UP THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN HISTORIANS/ENTHUSIASTS OF WHAT SHOULD/SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THE BOOK! FOR INSTANCE, THE BATTLE OF DUBLIN, SEEMED A RATHER CURIOUS CHOICE. HOWEVER, WEIR WRITES FOR EVERY BATTLE »WHAT WAS AT STAKE«, AND THIS KIND OF GIVES THE READER A WINDOW INTO WHAT HE WAS THINKING AS FAR AS THE IMPORTANCE OF EACH BATTLE HE CHOSE. FOR DUBLIN HE QUESTIONS: »CAN A SMALL NATION WIN ITS INDEPENDENCE AGAINST A MAJOR POWER?« AT THE END, HE SHOWS THE CONNECTION TO NGUYEN AI QUOC (A.K.A. HO CHI MINH) AND OTHER LEADERS, WHO PAID CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE BATTLE THAT OCCURS IN DUBLIN. THAT WAY THE READER CAN SEE THE OVERALL EFFECT THE BATTLE HAD ON THE WORLD. THE CLINCHER FOR THIS BOOK IS THE »WHAT WAS AT STAKE« PART. IT COMPLETELY ELIMINATES THE SEEMINGLY RANDOMNESS OF THE AUTHOR'S CHOICES. THE BOOK IS GOOD BECAUSE THE BATTLE SUMMARIES ARE JUST THE RIGHT LENGTH. NOT SO LONG AS TO BORE A READER TO TEARS, YET LONG ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU A FEEL FOR THE EVENTS AND THEIR IMPORTANCE. NOW TIME FOR ME TO EXPRESS MY SURPRISE: NO ARAB-ISRAELI BATTLES MADE THE LIST? I THOUGHT SOMETHING THAT PRESERVED AN ENTIRE COUNTRY, SUCH AS ISRAEL, MIGHT MAKE THE LIST. PERHAPS ACCORDING TO THE AUTHOR THAT CRITERIA MIGHT BE TOO MYOPIC OR NARROW IN FOCUS.
Amateur History 
William Weir's »50 Battles that Changed the World« is a compilation of short blurbs on some of the most famous or important battles in world history. Although the book is informative and highlights some lesser-known battles, the battles lack context and he fails to explain why or how some of these battles »changed the world.« Each battle blurb is well-written, short, and informative. Each also includes a small entry on »What was at stake« in the battle. While well-written and informative, Weir too often makes minor factual errors or baseless assertions. For example, under »Cannae« he said that the »survival of Rome« was at stake; but Rome lost the battle and survived. His sole Civil War battle is Chickamauga, and he said that the »survival of the United States« was at stake; but again, the Union forces lost (an indecisive battle) yet the United States of course survived. He claims (falsely) that Hitler was treaty-bound to declare was on the US after Pearl Harbor, and he discusses the Battle of the Atlantic without discussing the key role played by the Ultra intercepts. But ultimately where this book fails to deliver is that the 50 battles listed didn't change the world; or, if they did, Weir doesn't explain how. Was Chickamauga really history-changing? Or Cannae? (Especially because, as mentioned above, the winner of both of these battles lost the war.) Or the Battle of New Orleans, which was fought after the Treaty of Ghent had set the terms ending the War of 1812? Or many of the myriad lesser-known battles that he lists? This book is a decent read with some nice, succinct histories of the various battles. However, this is amateur history written by an amateur historian.
William Weir's »50 Battles that Changed the World« is a compilation of short blurbs on some of the most famous or important battles in world history. Although the book is informative and highlights some lesser-known battles, the battles lack context and he fails to explain why or how some of these battles »changed the world.« Each battle blurb is well-written, short, and informative. Each also includes a small entry on »What was at stake« in the battle. While well-written and informative, Weir too often makes minor factual errors or baseless assertions. For example, under »Cannae« he said that the »survival of Rome« was at stake; but Rome lost the battle and survived. His sole Civil War battle is Chickamauga, and he said that the »survival of the United States« was at stake; but again, the Union forces lost (an indecisive battle) yet the United States of course survived. He claims (falsely) that Hitler was treaty-bound to declare was on the US after Pearl Harbor, and he discusses the Battle of the Atlantic without discussing the key role played by the Ultra intercepts. But ultimately where this book fails to deliver is that the 50 battles listed didn't change the world; or, if they did, Weir doesn't explain how. Was Chickamauga really history-changing? Or Cannae? (Especially because, as mentioned above, the winner of both of these battles lost the war.) Or the Battle of New Orleans, which was fought after the Treaty of Ghent had set the terms ending the War of 1812? Or many of the myriad lesser-known battles that he lists? This book is a decent read with some nice, succinct histories of the various battles. However, this is amateur history written by an amateur historian.
Unfulfilling
History is about context, and Mr. Weir provides precious little for his 50 vignettes. For battles I was familiar with this was adequate, otherwise it was annoying or confusing. The book would benefit from additional historical, political, and cultural background. Also from maps, diagrams – anything making it clear how and why the battle »Changed the World«. I also didn't find any particular value in his ordering of battles by »importance« to the modern world. I suspect that writing the book was a rewarding personal endeavor, but reading it, not so much.
History is about context, and Mr. Weir provides precious little for his 50 vignettes. For battles I was familiar with this was adequate, otherwise it was annoying or confusing. The book would benefit from additional historical, political, and cultural background. Also from maps, diagrams – anything making it clear how and why the battle »Changed the World«. I also didn't find any particular value in his ordering of battles by »importance« to the modern world. I suspect that writing the book was a rewarding personal endeavor, but reading it, not so much.
A Summary of World History 
William Weir was a combat correspondent in the Korean War, a newspaper reporter-photographer, and a public relations specialist for a telephone company. He is now a freelance writer. Some of these battles are well known, others will be news. Battles are human drama that include interesting characters. Any list by one writer, or a team, is subjective (p.7). Wars are conflicts over property, to get it or to keep it. The 'Introduction' explains his reasoning for these selections. There is a 'Glossary of Military Terms', 'Timelines' that classify these battles, a 'Bibliography' with nearly 300 references, and an 'Index'. Each battle has a few pages so it is limited in scope. This book is entertaining and educational. Chapter 7 does not mention the breaking of the Enigma cipher and its effects on the Battle of Britain. Weir says the after effect of the conquest of Constantinople in 1203 were the domestic crusades and religious wars (p.50). The victory at Saratoga led to American independence and inspired revolution in France and Latin America (p.59). Louis XVI summoned Parliament because he needed new tax money (p.60). The Goths were not barbarians (p.64). »The fall of the Western Roman Empire marked the birth of Western civilization as we know it« (p.66). Weir notes the effect of Hannibal's destruction of the countryside was to increase the wealth and property of the rich Senators (p.132). The landless proletariat provided the professional soldiers for Imperial Rome (p.142). [The destruction of family farms in America was followed by a large standing army.] The weather caused the greatest harm to the Spanish Armada (p.155). The German invasion of Belgium and the atrocities turned the neutral nations against Germany (p.158). The siege of Vienna in 1529 marked the high tide of the Turkish invasion of Europe (p.168). The battle of Tanga showed African soldiers could defeat European forces (p.179). 'Battle 32' explains the events that led to the fall of the Western Empire. Could a booming economy with paper money create a revolution (p.218)? Was it due to gross mismanagement (p.219)? Or was it caused by masses of armed peasants (p.220). The end of the war saw the end of many monarchies (p.228). The chapter on the Taiping Rebellion will be news to many. There is a summary on the Thirty Years War (Chapter 45). The reason for the Spanish-American War was to get colonies, but this could not be admitted in republican America (p.266). Weir summarizes the Têt Offensive and its political consequences (p.274). 'Timeline 1' shows about half of these 50 battles occurred in the last 300 years. I think this book would be better if the battles were presented in chronological order.
William Weir was a combat correspondent in the Korean War, a newspaper reporter-photographer, and a public relations specialist for a telephone company. He is now a freelance writer. Some of these battles are well known, others will be news. Battles are human drama that include interesting characters. Any list by one writer, or a team, is subjective (p.7). Wars are conflicts over property, to get it or to keep it. The 'Introduction' explains his reasoning for these selections. There is a 'Glossary of Military Terms', 'Timelines' that classify these battles, a 'Bibliography' with nearly 300 references, and an 'Index'. Each battle has a few pages so it is limited in scope. This book is entertaining and educational. Chapter 7 does not mention the breaking of the Enigma cipher and its effects on the Battle of Britain. Weir says the after effect of the conquest of Constantinople in 1203 were the domestic crusades and religious wars (p.50). The victory at Saratoga led to American independence and inspired revolution in France and Latin America (p.59). Louis XVI summoned Parliament because he needed new tax money (p.60). The Goths were not barbarians (p.64). »The fall of the Western Roman Empire marked the birth of Western civilization as we know it« (p.66). Weir notes the effect of Hannibal's destruction of the countryside was to increase the wealth and property of the rich Senators (p.132). The landless proletariat provided the professional soldiers for Imperial Rome (p.142). [The destruction of family farms in America was followed by a large standing army.] The weather caused the greatest harm to the Spanish Armada (p.155). The German invasion of Belgium and the atrocities turned the neutral nations against Germany (p.158). The siege of Vienna in 1529 marked the high tide of the Turkish invasion of Europe (p.168). The battle of Tanga showed African soldiers could defeat European forces (p.179). 'Battle 32' explains the events that led to the fall of the Western Empire. Could a booming economy with paper money create a revolution (p.218)? Was it due to gross mismanagement (p.219)? Or was it caused by masses of armed peasants (p.220). The end of the war saw the end of many monarchies (p.228). The chapter on the Taiping Rebellion will be news to many. There is a summary on the Thirty Years War (Chapter 45). The reason for the Spanish-American War was to get colonies, but this could not be admitted in republican America (p.266). Weir summarizes the Têt Offensive and its political consequences (p.274). 'Timeline 1' shows about half of these 50 battles occurred in the last 300 years. I think this book would be better if the battles were presented in chronological order.
Some good points, but mostly poor 
Although not entirely bad and containing some interesting historical information, this book contains many questionable choices of battles and poor scholarship. The best example is its section on the battle of Chickamauga, which is the only battle of the American Civil War included inside. Not only was the battle not very decisive (its greatest effect was to halt the Union advance into Georgia for a few months), but the author's justification of it is laughable. He brushes aside Gettysburg and Vicksburg by saying »[it] proved only what Lee had already demonstrated at Antietam: that he couldn't conquer the North« for the former and »But the Union already controlled 99% of the great river« for the latter. Both have many factual errors, such as the fact that Lee never intended to conquer the North with his invasion and that the nature of a river means that even one stronghold can block it off entirely. The rest of the book has errors of a similar nature. Midway is listed, while Guadalcanal is not. Never mind that the former was purely defensive, while the latter was a draining engagement that wrecked the Japanese air force and showed the Americans that Japan could be beaten decisively on land. Overall, a book with more bad points than good ones.
Although not entirely bad and containing some interesting historical information, this book contains many questionable choices of battles and poor scholarship. The best example is its section on the battle of Chickamauga, which is the only battle of the American Civil War included inside. Not only was the battle not very decisive (its greatest effect was to halt the Union advance into Georgia for a few months), but the author's justification of it is laughable. He brushes aside Gettysburg and Vicksburg by saying »[it] proved only what Lee had already demonstrated at Antietam: that he couldn't conquer the North« for the former and »But the Union already controlled 99% of the great river« for the latter. Both have many factual errors, such as the fact that Lee never intended to conquer the North with his invasion and that the nature of a river means that even one stronghold can block it off entirely. The rest of the book has errors of a similar nature. Midway is listed, while Guadalcanal is not. Never mind that the former was purely defensive, while the latter was a draining engagement that wrecked the Japanese air force and showed the Americans that Japan could be beaten decisively on land. Overall, a book with more bad points than good ones.
related products
Miguel Leon-Portillo, J. Jorge Klor De Alva (foreword), Lysander Kemp (translator)
Beacon Press; 2007
Paperback
© 1994–2010 Sascha Hendel
last update: 3/19/2010
URL: http://www.book-info.com/isbn/0-7607-6609-6.htm
- search