The Art of War.
Mike Lawson
> I've just got hold of a copy of The Art of War in the Middle Ages by
> C.W.C. Oman, published first in 1885, the edition I have was a reprint
> in 1968.
> Has anybody read this book, and is It reliable ?
Oh, crap. Here we go again...
<dons flame retardant suit>
--Mike L.
--
Michael Lawson | "We fight, get beat, rise,
Software QA Engineer II - SDRC | and fight again."
e-mail: mike....@sdrc.com | -Nathaniel Greene
Michael W Cook
C.W.C. Oman, published first in 1885, the edition I have was a reprint
in 1968.
Has anybody read this book, and is It reliable ?
Michael
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~mwcook
===============================================
David Read
<mwc...@globalnet.co.uk> writes
>I've just got hold of a copy of The Art of War in the Middle Ages by
>C.W.C. Oman, published first in 1885, the edition I have was a reprint
>in 1968.
>Has anybody read this book, and is It reliable ?
R. Allen Brown read it apparently, and he didn't like it much. But the
definitive version is the 1924 one, currently in print from Greenhill
Books. Check on DejaNews for lots of recent posts about Sir Charles Oman
for details.
Is it reliable ? No.
cheers,
--
David Read
Mary Gentle
> I've just got hold of a copy of The Art of War in the
>Middle Ages by C.W.C. Oman, published first in 1885, the
>edition I have was a reprint in 1968. Has anybody read this
>book, and is It reliable ?
<choke>
<thud>
:-)))
(Sorry, Michael, I suspect you're now going to be told just
how many people have, and how recently... there is something
of a large thread waiting for you on Dejanews.)
Michael W Cook
A quick slip to deja has answered my questions.
Kindest regards
Michael
I'll still read it all the same, but with caution ;-)
--------------------------------------------
============================================
----------
In article <FA950...@cix.compulink.co.uk>,
Paul J Gans
>I've just got hold of a copy of The Art of War in the Middle Ages by
>C.W.C. Oman, published first in 1885, the edition I have was a reprint
>in 1968.
>Has anybody read this book, and is It reliable ?
>Michael
This is a troll, right?
In case you've been on Mars for a while, check Deja-News
for one of the longer threads around. It started before
the Bannockburn bruhaha and continued well after. Check
under David Read and my name and I think you'll get a
variety of opinion.
If yours is the two-volume edition being sold in the
U.S. by Barnes and Noble in paper, you've got a bargain.
It seems to be a photoreproduction of the 1924 Second
Edition, complete with photographs.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@panix.com]
Alex Milman
Mary Gentle wrote:
> In article <7f5jt8$ajo$2...@newnews.global.net.uk>,
> mwc...@globalnet.co.uk (Michael W Cook) wrote:
>
> > I've just got hold of a copy of The Art of War in the
> >Middle Ages by C.W.C. Oman, published first in 1885, the
> >edition I have was a reprint in 1968. Has anybody read this
> >book, and is It reliable ?
>
> <choke>
> <thud>
>
> :-)))
I think, this is an understatement. :-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
(start digging a very deep bomb shelter)
Benjamin Maso
Paul J Gans wrote in message <7f7rq2$l69$2...@news.panix.com>...
>Michael W Cook <mwc...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>I've just got hold of a copy of The Art of War in the Middle Ages by
>>C.W.C. Oman, published first in 1885, the edition I have was a reprint
>>in 1968.
>>Has anybody read this book, and is It reliable ?
>
>>Michael
>
>
>This is a troll, right?
>
>In case you've been on Mars for a while, check Deja-News
>for one of the longer threads around. It started before
>the Bannockburn bruhaha and continued well after. Check
>under David Read and my name and I think you'll get a
>variety of opinion.
>
>If yours is the two-volume edition being sold in the
>U.S. by Barnes and Noble in paper, you've got a bargain.
>It seems to be a photoreproduction of the 1924 Second
>Edition, complete with photographs.
I can't be that. The 1924 edition is about six times as long as the 1885
version Michael Cooke is referring to. The reprint isn't really a reprint
either, but a new edition, revised and edited by John B. Wheeler in 1953. In
spite of these revisions it's still a reliable source for the way people
were thinking about the Middle Ages about a hundred years ago.
Benjo Maso
Vance McAlister
--
Vance McAlister
Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote in message
news:37177F9A...@gte.com...
>
>
> Mary Gentle wrote:
>
> > In article <7f5jt8$ajo$2...@newnews.global.net.uk>,
> > mwc...@globalnet.co.uk (Michael W Cook) wrote:
> >
> > > I've just got hold of a copy of The Art of War in the
> > >Middle Ages by C.W.C. Oman, published first in 1885, the
> > >edition I have was a reprint in 1968. Has anybody read this
> > >book, and is It reliable ?
> >
Paul J Gans
>Paul J Gans wrote in message <7f7rq2$l69$2...@news.panix.com>...
>>Michael W Cook <mwc...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>I've just got hold of a copy of The Art of War in the Middle Ages by
>>>C.W.C. Oman, published first in 1885, the edition I have was a reprint
>>>in 1968.
>>>Has anybody read this book, and is It reliable ?
>>>Many thanks,
>>
>>>Michael
>>
>>
>>This is a troll, right?
>>
>>In case you've been on Mars for a while, check Deja-News
>>for one of the longer threads around. It started before
>>the Bannockburn bruhaha and continued well after. Check
>>under David Read and my name and I think you'll get a
>>variety of opinion.
>>
>>If yours is the two-volume edition being sold in the
>>U.S. by Barnes and Noble in paper, you've got a bargain.
>>It seems to be a photoreproduction of the 1924 Second
>>Edition, complete with photographs.
>I can't be that. The 1924 edition is about six times as long as the 1885
>version Michael Cooke is referring to. The reprint isn't really a reprint
>either, but a new edition, revised and edited by John B. Wheeler in 1953. In
>spite of these revisions it's still a reliable source for the way people
>were thinking about the Middle Ages about a hundred years ago.
>Benjo Maso
I think we have several reprints here. Mine is a two volume
paperback published by Greenhill Books, London. The
publisher's page says:
"_A History of the Art of War in the Middle Agges_ originates
with Oman's essay _The Art of War in the Middle Ages_ first
published in 1885 (Blackwells). The work was expanded and a
new edition was published as _A History of the Art of War_
in 1898 (Methuen). A further revised and expanded two-volume
edition was published in 1924 (Methuen) and was reprinted
in 1991 by Greenhill Books, complete and unabridged. It is
reproduced now in paperback exactly as the first Greenhill
edition."
I can verify the last statement as I also have a library
copy of the 1924 edition and the Greenhill edition looks
like a photoreproduced copy. Everything including the
typefaces are identical.
So it looks like we have here three editions. The first,
the 1885, was likely Oman's prize essay. The 1898 editon
was an expansion of the prize essay, but still one
volume. This is the firt *History* of the art of war.
The 1924 Edition was a two volume work and the last
overseen by Oman himself.
There is clearly another reprint of the 1924 edition
out there, as indicated by Ben Maso. I also know of
yet another edition, a reprint of the FIRST or 1898
edition put out by Cornell some years back. I'd
appreciate the bibliographic information for those
two editions if anyone has them. Only that way can
we keep our Oman's straight.
Alex Milman
Vance McAlister wrote in message ...
>Now, I was wondering about the Order of Battle . . .
it's very simple. Run!
>
>--
>Vance McAlister
>
>
>
>Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote in message
>news:37177F9A...@gte.com...
>>
>>
>> Mary Gentle wrote:
>>
>> > In article <7f5jt8$ajo$2...@newnews.global.net.uk>,
>> > mwc...@globalnet.co.uk (Michael W Cook) wrote:
>> >
>> > > I've just got hold of a copy of The Art of War in the
>> > >Middle Ages by C.W.C. Oman, published first in 1885, the
>> > >edition I have was a reprint in 1968. Has anybody read this
>> > >book, and is It reliable ?
>> >
Alex Milman
Paul J Gans wrote in message <7f8kio$6qe$1...@news.panix.com>...
[10,000 lines of text snipped]
>Only that way can
>we keep our Oman's straight.
D. o. P., are you saying that he was not "straight"? :-)
Paul J Gans
>Vance McAlister wrote in message ...
>>Now, I was wondering about the Order of Battle . . .
>it's very simple. Run!
I'm sorry, but I must disagre with Alex. What
he's described is the DISORDER of battle. ;-)
Michael W Cook
----------
In article <7f8bi0$2atd$1...@beast.euro.net>, "Benjamin Maso"
<benj...@euronet.nl> wrote:
> I can't be that. The 1924 edition is about six times as long as the 1885
> version Michael Cooke is referring to. The reprint isn't really a reprint
> either, but a new edition, revised and edited by John B. Wheeler in 1953. In
> spite of these revisions it's still a reliable source for the way people
> were thinking about the Middle Ages about a hundred years ago.
Indeed it is the reprint.
Thanks for all your concern, I understand why, but only 10 posts,
surely such a mishap on my part due to me not being active and
catching up on the gossip deserves more than 10 posts ;-)
I'll try to do better next time.
Anyone up for Azincourt!!!!!
Regards
Laura Blanchard
> Anyone up for Azincourt!!!!!
I think they're gearing up for it on Late-Medieval-Britain. Right,
Chris? I mostly lurk there, on digest mode, and scroll quickly past
things that aren't of interest to me at the moment but I think I saw the
A-word three or four times this morning.
Regards,
Laura Blanchard
lbla...@pobox.upenn.edu
CG Luxford
On Sun, 18 Apr 1999, Laura Blanchard wrote:
> Michael W Cook wrote:
>
> > Anyone up for Azincourt!!!!!
>
> I think they're gearing up for it on Late-Medieval-Britain. Right,
> Chris?
They seem to be. There was a brief diversion into the story about the
origin of the "2 finger salute", but it looks like it might be heading
back into the fray. Whether it'll develop in the way that partivular
thread did here is another question. I hope not.
Chris,
Alex Milman
Paul J Gans wrote:
> Alex Milman <am...@gte.com> wrote:
>
> >Vance McAlister wrote in message ...
> >>Now, I was wondering about the Order of Battle . . .
>
> >it's very simple. Run!
>
> I'm sorry, but I must disagre with Alex. What
> he's described is the DISORDER of battle. ;-)
>
"Order, counterorder, disorder." [Nappy]
I simply jumped to the last component :-)