Podcasts about battle a history

Joining me in this episode is historian Trent Hone, continuing to share stories and insight of Admiral Nimitz in the Pacific and the unique challenges he faced in trying to effectively coordinate assets and work with other commanders. In this episode, Trent brings up the Battle of Leyte Gulf and the Battle off Samar, both of which have dedicated episodes coming up with Dr. Regina Akers from the Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC), US Army veteran, historian, and author Dr. James Young, and retired US Navy LCDR Parks Stephenson. There is also an episode on Kamikaze attacks with Guy Nasuti, US Navy veteran and historian with the NHHC.LinksMastering the Art of Command: Admiral Chester W. Nimitz and Victory in the Pacific by Trent Hone (Amazon)Learning War: The Evolution of Fighting Doctrine in the US Navy, 1898 - 1945 by Trent Hone (Amazon)Major Fleet-Versus-Fleet Operation in the Pacific War, 1941 - 1945 by Milan Vego (Amazon)The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost by Cathal Nolan (Amazon)The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors: The Extraordinary World War II Story of the US Navy's Finest Hour by James D. Hornfischer (Amazon)Nimitz at War: Command Leadership from Pearl Harbor to Tokyo Bay by Craig L. Symonds (Amazon)Mother of Tanks website (http://www.motheroftanks.com/podcast/) Bonus Content (https://www.patreon.com/c/motheroftanks)

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/east-asian-studies

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/national-security

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will.

Vor wem schützt uns eigentlich das Bundesheer? Wir geben Milliarden für neue Panzer und Raketen aus – aber auf welchen Gegner bereiten wir uns vor? Was müsste passieren, damit wir uns  gegen feindliche Panzer, Flieger und Soldaten verteidigen können? Darüber habe ich mit dem Militäranalysten Franz-Stefan Gady gesprochen. Franz-Stefan Gady ist unabhängiger Militäranalyst.  ***Drei Buchtipps von FranzThe Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost Deutsche Krieger: Vom Kaiserreich zur Berliner Republik - eine MilitärgeschichteEuch Steirer kenn´ ich eh ....  von Erwin Eberl ***Zusammenfassung des Podcast-Interviews mit Franz-Stefan Gady: 1. Österreich bekommt erstmals eine funktionsfähige Luftabwehr. Bisher war das Land Angriffen aus der Luft hilflos ausgeliefert. Die Beschaffung moderner Systeme hat nun oberste Priorität. 2. Das größte Problem bleibt der Personalmangel. Von den 950.000 Männern, die ihren Grundwehrdienst geleistet haben, müssten 30-40.000 regelmäßig zu Milizübungen. Doch das ist freiwillig - ein Fehler. 3. Der Grundwehrdienst von 6 Monaten reicht nicht aus. Er muss verlängert und die Ausbildung verbessert werden. Nur so lässt sich im Ernstfall die Kampfkraft aufrechterhalten. 4. Kulturell ist das Bundesheer zerrissen: Im Frieden dient es als Katastrophenschutz, doch im Krieg geht es ums Töten und Sterben. Viele verdrängen das. Doch nur realistische Übungen machen die Truppe fit für den Ernstfall. 5. Der russische Angriffskrieg zeigt: Ohne eine starke Miliz geht es nicht. In der Ukraine fehlen trotz Wehrpflicht und riesiger Personalreserven gut ausgebildete Soldaten an der Front. Die Folge sind hohe Verluste. 6. Wie wichtig Luftüberlegenheit ist, zeigt sich in der Ukraine täglich. Keine Seite kontrolliert den Luftraum. Stattdessen kommen Kampfdrohnen zum Einsatz. Auch Österreich setzt künftig auf diese unbemannten Systeme. 7. Gady fordert vor allem eines: Ehrlichkeit. Wer die Sicherheit Österreichs und Europas stärken will, muss endlich unpopuläre Entscheidungen treffen. Sonst wird das Bundesheer nie verteidigungsfähig. 8. Trotz aller Mängel ist Gady optimistisch: Im Verteidigungsministerium hat ein Umdenken eingesetzt. Wichtige Rüstungsprojekte wie der Kauf neuer Hubschrauber und der Ausbau der Cyberabwehr laufen bereits. 9. Trotzdem reicht guter Wille allein nicht. Das Bundesheer muss attraktiver werden, damit sich genug Freiwillige für den Dienst melden. Bessere Bezahlung, moderne Ausrüstung und realistische Übungen sind der Schlüssel. 10. Am Ende bleibt eine unbequeme Wahrheit: Ohne Wehrpflicht und verpflichtende Milizübungen wird Österreich nie verteidigungsfähig sein. Darüber muss die Politik nach der nächsten Wahl ehrlich diskutieren - im Interesse der Sicherheit aller Bürger. ***Weiterführende Links zum GesprächOrganigramm: So ist das Bundesheer organisiert Bundesheer kauft Panzer um 1,8 Milliarden Euro - KURIER.atÖsterreich kauft auch Langstreckenraketen für Sky Shield - derStandard.at Warum das Bundesheer verpflichtende Milizübungen braucht  - KleineZeitung.at Der Aufbauplan 2032+ des Bundesheers - truppendienst.comInterview mit Generalmajor Bruno Hofbauer zum Aufbauplan: 180-Grad-Wende - truppendienst.com ***Erklär mir die Welt hilft dir dabei, die Welt besser zu verstehen. Hilf wie 360+ andere Hörer:innen mit, den Podcast zu finanzieren. Danke an alle Unterstützer:innen! ***So kannst du noch mithelfen Schick uns deine Fragen und Wünsche für EpisodenErzähl uns von dir! Mach bei der Hörer:innen-Befragung mit ***Du willst mehr?Bewirb dich als Hörer:in des MonatsHol dir Updates zum Podcast per WhatsApp, Newsletter, Telegram oder SignalFolge uns bei Tiktok, Instagram und FacebookQuatsche mit anderen Hörer:innen auf DiscordAlle Folgen ab Mai 2023 gibt es mit Video auf YouTubeSchau im Merch-Shop vorbeiHier kannst du Werbung im Podcast buchenAndreas' Buch "Alles gut?!" darüber, was er im Kampf gegen Armut auf der Welt beitragen kann ***Das Team:Mitarbeit: Sidonie SagmeisterVermarktung: Missing LinkAudio Production: Audio Funnel Video Production: DomotionLogo: Florian HalbmayrMusik: Something Elated by Broke For Free, CC BYBeatbox am Ende: Azad Arslantas

Cathal J. Nolan is a Non-Resident Fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, Professor of History and Director of the International History Institute at the Pardee School of Global Studies, Boston University. Cathal's newest book is Mercy: Humanity in War. He also is the author of 14 books of diplomatic and military history. The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars are Won and Lost (Oxford 2017), received the Gilder Lehrman Prize in Military History. It was also the first winner of the Distinguished Book Award from War on the Rocks. Nolan has guest lectured at various universities across the United States and internationally. He has also spoken to the Chautauqua Institute, Marine Corps University, National World War II Museum, New York Historical Society, New York Military Affairs Symposium, Smithsonian Journeys (Normandy), U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, U.S. Army War College, National Intelligence University Alumni Association, World Affairs Forum, Center for Military and Diplomatic History, and run a training course for young diplomats at the MoFA in Kabul, Afghanistan in 2011. He has been interviewed on CBS Radio, Radio Free Europe, Newstalk (Ireland), BBC Mundo, PBS, C-Span, New Books Network, The East-West Institute, The Dead Prussian and Dangerous History. He consults on military history to the PBS science series NOVA, and is principal military history adviser to the American Heritage Museum. His teaching has won multiple awards, at different universities. His overseas community service started as a volunteer teacher for two years in rural northern Nigeria, with the Canadian University Service Overseas. He returned to development work as faculty adviser to BU Global Water Brigade and Public Health Brigade, leading five student groups to Honduras to build potable water pipelines and infrastructure in arid, isolated mountain villages. https://www.bu.edu/history/profile/cathal-j-nolan/ https://youtu.be/s2Nne8yUk_k

I can't introduce Cathal Nolan's book Mercy: Humanity in War any better than he does himself, with these words: This is not a book about war. It is about mercy and humanity… Mercy happens in a microsecond, wrapped inside a surprise moment of mortal danger; it restrains baser instinct and reminds us about higher things. This book shows that mercy limits cruelty in ways laws and honor codes seldom do, because mercy is the highest personal and moral quality any of us achieves. It is above all other virtues, even justice and courage. It is superior to bravery, especially in a soldier. It is the greatest gift we give to those we meet in civilian life who are suffering and for whom it is in our power to aid or harm. Greater still when offered to the defenseless in war. Mercy is the grace that happens between those who have a fleeting superiority of physical power and those who cannot save or protect themselves. It is greater than a gift to the helpless and the innocent, for as Shakespeare wrote, it elevates the merciful, too. Cathal J. Nolan is Director of the International History Institute at the Pardee School of Global Studies and Professor of History at Boston University. His most recent book was The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost, which we discussed in Episode 79.

In the lecture Dr. Nolan will discusses the misconception that major battles determine clear-cut outcomes of wars, questioning the decisive power of even the most lopsided battles and debunking the concept of prodigies and geniuses of military strategy.

No general can say they will use the central position, and therefore, they will win. There is no plug and play preset list of maneuvers to fit all circumstances that guarantee victory. Victory relies on much more, and Napoleon understood that. His ability to sense the enemy's intention and force them to act against their own will is spooky at times. He had an intuitive feel for combat readiness, not just with the enemy but, maybe more importantly, in his ranks. His innate understanding of the weight and physics of battle, timing, and morale is hard to explain. The vision to see the picture, both strategic and tactical, and react with uncommon speed was unique for the time. And beyond the general's tent and the map-room, Napoleon displayed what was probably his most remarkable traits as a leader. With a playwright's understanding of men's passions, he could give heart or strike fear with a few well-placed words. His glance, produced at the right moment to the right man, could expose a weakness or inspire courage. Like Hannibal and many others, he was a commander that lived and suffered very much with his men, at least at the beginning of his career. All these things mark Napoleon out as a uniquely gifted general. At the battle of Rivoli in mid-January 1796, we see them all come together at once, on full display for the first time in the "Little Corporal's" career.100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present by Paul K. DavisThe Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost by Cathal J. NolanMasters of the Battlefield: Great Commanders From the Classical Age to the Napoleonic Era by Paul K. DavisStrategy by B. H. Liddell HartThe Napoleonic Wars by Gunther E. RothenbergThe Rise Of Napoleon Bonaparte by Robert B. AspreyFighting Techniques of the Napoleonic Age: Equipment, Combat Skills, and Tactics by Robert B BruceWars of Napoleon. West Point Military History Series by Thomas (ed). GriessA Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars by Brig. Gen. Vincent EspositoMusic - At Launch by Kevin McCloud 

This week Patrick covers the best in Irish and International history publishing for September 2019. Books covered on the show include: 'The Allure of the Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost' with Cathal Nolan, 'Women’s War: Fighting and Surviving the American Civil War' with Stephanie Mc Curry,  'Medieval Dublin XV11' with Sean Duffy, 'Lady Butler: War Artist and Traveller 1846-1933' with Catherine Wynne and 'Cricket Country: An Indian Odyssey in the Age of Empire' with Prashant Kidambi.

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will.

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Marathon, Cannae, Tours, Agincourt, Austerlitz, Sedan, Stalingrad--all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But were they? As Cathal J. Nolan demonstrates in The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost (Oxford University Press, 2019), victory in major wars usually has been determined in other ways. Even the most legendarily lopsided of battles did not necessarily decide their outcomes. Nolan also challenges the hoary concept of the military "genius," even of the Great Captains--from Alexander to Frederick and Napoleon--mapping instead the decent into total war. The Allure of Battle systematically recreates and analyzes the major campaigns among the Great Powers, from the Middle Ages through the 20th century, from the fall of Byzantium to the defeat of the Axis powers, tracing the illusion of "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and conflict brief. Such as almost never been the case. Even one-sided battles have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating erosion of the other side's defenses, resources, and will. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this DHP episode, CJ talks with Cathal J. Nolan, associate professor of history at Boston University and author of the book The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost. Join CJ & Professor Nolan as they discuss: How leaders & nations are often seduced by 'the allure of battle' and a 'short war delusion'The ways in which much existing historiography on warfare since ancient times have contributed to the glorification of the ideas of decisive battle and military genius, and how The Allure of Battle challenges these tendenciesHow wars are actually won most of the time -- namely, through things like logistics, attrition and endurance over relatively long time spans -- in contrast to the concept of decisive battleSome historical examples of alleged military geniuses who succumbed to the allure of battle, including the Duke of Marlborough, Frederick the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, and the various German leaders of the late-nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth centurySome of the ways in which warfare has changed (and, perhaps more importantly, not changed) since the Second World WarWhether or not world leaders have learned any of the important lessons about the dangers of falling for the allure of battle and the short war delusionSupport the Dangerous History Podcast via Patreon, SubscribeStar, or Bitbacker. CJ's Picks (Amazon Affiliate Links) The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost by Cathal NolanThe Age of Wars of Religion, 1000-1650 [2 volumes]: An Encyclopedia of Global Warfare and Civilization (Greenwood Encyclopedias of Modern World Wars) by Cathal NolanThe Orion War (7 Book Series) by Kali AltsobaInvasion!: The Orion War by Kali AltsobaCrater: Battle Scene 1 (Battle Scenes) by Kali Altsoba Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today's conversation is about battles, but much more than that. It is a conversation about how we interpret history, often not interpreting it so much as imposing our will upon it. And it's a conversation about the modern world, and our fascination with genius, and with finding quick and sure answers to difficult problems. My guest today is Cathal Nolan, Professor of History at Boston University, and we discuss his book The Allure of Battle: A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost. Nolan believes that few battles are actually decisive, meaning that victory in battle does not necessarily determine who wins a war. It follows from that, he argues, that wars are rarely short. But, by focusing on model of decisive battles won by military genius, modern people (politicians, generals, and citizens alike) have deluded themselves time and time again that "the boys will be home by Christmas." But stalemate and attrition are as much a feature of modern warfare as it was in ancient or medieval warfare. Victory always requires suffering and immense sacrifice on the part of those who would be victorious. And no general, however brilliant, can change that.