military science

I like this book, even though, at times it was difficult for me to follow. I like the translation. I have read other translated books where I find it difficult to read the book. First, I want to say that this is the first military instruction book I have read, and second, that I read this book to find out how people fought before there were weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, I thought this book was an excellent tool in describing ancient military tactics. But even if you aren't interested in military tactics as much, this book was also interesting because I enjoy history. I thought it was going to describe how to march, train, and fight, which it did, but it also made numerous references to the actions of past military leaders. I enjoyed reading about the successes and failures of people whose names I recognized from history class. Additionally, I enjoyed the style. Niccolo uses a different style of writing then American authors, and on occasion I like to read something different. It is a good book that I would recommend to anyone who enjoys learning about history.

Today, when you mention The Art of War, people refer immediately to the book by Sun Tzu. However, the only works published for the general public during Macchiavelli's life are the Decennale Primo, the Mandragola, and this one. The work being review was published in Florence by Macchiavelli in august 1521 and it had an immediate success and many reprints.
Having completed already The Prince and the Discorsi, and not foreseeing any possibility of returning to public service, Macchiavelli decided to write a book about warfare, in part as a result of his meetings and conversations with a group of young alumni and friends at the Orti Oricellari. Some of these were involved, in 1522, in a conspiracy to kill Cardinal Giulio de'Medici,Master of Florence.
The Art of War is not a textbook, but rather a humanistic treatise on the subject, written under the form of dialogues, divided in seven books. The interlocutors are Fabrizio Colonna, Cosimo Ruccellai and the young men Buondelmonti, della Palla and Alamanni. The first book deals with recruitment, the second with the weapons of infantry and cavalry, the relationship between this corps and military exercises. Colonna and Ruccellai are the protagonists of the dialogues here, while in the III book the role of interlocutor to Colonnais vested upon the younger Alamanni. Alamanni inquires about the role of the artillery and is substance Macchiavelli's judgement (through Colonna's words) is negative. In the IV book Buondelmonti inquires about the importance of military formations and other possible combat formations (different from the traditional roman and others).
The final three books deal with logistics, accommodations, military discipline, fortifications, sieges and defensive tactics.
The language of this opus is the most polished and conventional, opposed to the one in other works by the author. Modern critics, in spite of the original success of the book, have pointed out the wrong perception that Macchiavelli had about the growing importance of artillery and the role of military reforms that were enacted in France at the time. He also wrongly criticized, as a whole, the professional army alongside the mercenaries and Compagnie di Ventura. The admiration of M. regarding roman legions and classic institutions is also questionable, in view of the evolution of warfare at the time. So why was this book so popular, until the anti-M. revisionism took a clearer look at reality, discarding abstract and moralistic propositions about warfare?
Because the treatise provided a clear and fresh (at the time) view about the intimate connection between military art, politics, war and religion, in a global context.

Niccolo Machiavelli is commonly known as an abstract, political thinker, but this work shows an entirely different side, being a compendium of Renaissance military tactics and equipment.

If you were ever transported in time and place to 16th century Italy, this book would be an excellent guide in how to raise, train, and equip a citizen army that could fight for your city state. He also goes into some depth abvout military fortifications, as well.

Macchiavelli argues in the book for a citizen-army; given the troubles of Italy with roving mercenary armies in his day, one can see why his arguments make sense.

A profound work for a military historian to read, although a casual reader might find it too pedantic.