What Are You Currently Reading? 2009

**Tom Odom** · 10-18-2009

Since I am in an Anglophile trend with the Sharpe's series, I started Carlo D'Este's Warlord on Churchill.

Also reading Bernard Cornwell's small auto-biographical essay on how and why Sharpe came to be.

The parallel role of parents (or lack of) is startling

Tom

**davidbfpo** · 10-18-2009

Rifleman and Tom,

You'd enjoy 'Fusiliers: How the British Army lost America but learned to fight' by Mark Urban (Pub. 2007 hardback and 2008 paperback).

My copy has a cover quote 'Superb. An inspiring account' Bernard Cornwell.
Enough said.

I did mention this book before, so apologies if aware already.

davidbfpo

**Tom Odom** · 10-18-2009

Fusiliers: The Saga of a British Redcoat Regiment in the American Revolution (Paperback) by Mark Urban (Author)

Is this the book, David? I could not find one that matched your title exactly

Tom

**M-A Lagrange** · 10-18-2009

I just re read the Nomos of the Earth by Carl Schmitt. Not easy reading but amazing.

**davidbfpo** · 10-18-2009

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

Is this the book, David? I could not find one that matched your title exactly

Tom

Yes, sorry I didn't check Amazon etc for variations.

david

**pjmunson** · 10-19-2009

Anyone have a recommendation for a book on complex adaptive systems or systems/complexity theory that is worth reading? I'm looking for something that will be helpful for applying as a frame of reference/analysis, rather than getting into the nuts and bolts of how to really set up the mathematical/modeling sort of analysis that this can get into.

On a reading note, just (finally) finished Rashid's "Descent into Chaos" and found it relatively informative and useful, although I did skim over a lot of his details. Picking Sheehan's "Bright and Shining Lie" back up to finish off the parts I haven't read once and for all. I think it is an excellent and topical book.

wm · 10-19-2009

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

Yes, sorry I didn't check Amazon etc for variations.

david

What I found most interesting in Urban's book was the discussion on the fact that the British Army of the 18th and early 19th Century kept forgetting what it had learrned about "small wars" and underwent a debate similar to the current debate in the US Army about what kind of force structure to maintain.

The more things change . . .

**Tom Odom** · 10-19-2009

Originally Posted by wm

What I found most interesting in Urban's book was the discussion on the fact that the British Army of the 18th and early 19th Century kept forgetting what it had learrned about "small wars" and underwent a debate similar to the current debate in the US Army about what kind of force structure to maintain.

The more things change . . .

No doubt because they wanted to get back to fighting "real" wars

**davidbfpo** · 10-19-2009

No doubt because they wanted to get back to fighting "real" wars.

I am not a military historian but after 1815 (Battle of Waterloo mainly) the British Army (which then did not include the Imperial Indian Army) did not fight a "real" war till the Crimean War 1853-56, which was in alliance with France, Turkey and part of Italy. Then there was a long gap till 1914. Post-1945 there has only been one year when the Britsih Army was not on active operations.

Just a point.

davidbfpo