Are the non-technical military history book series useful as introductions to the field of study?

Yes MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca I concur with your assessment of Cornelius Ryan. As far as Osprey the Essential History series seems to fit your description well. I like the Fortress, Weapon and other more technical series as well. I have also enjoyed the fact that Osprey queries readers about which subjects to pursue.

LTC Stephen F. - Colonel; One way of looking at the "Tripolitan War" is NOT that the states were "harbouring pirates" and demanding "tribute" but that the United States of America refused to pay those states to provide the military force required to suppress piracy and simply had to suffer the consequences of failing to protect its own shipping. [That could be described as THEIR view of the matter.]

Their view of the matter is analogous to the British view of the fact that the American colonies were demanding that Britain provide (and pay for) the military forces necessary to oust the Native Americans from the lands that the American colonists (and British government) had agreed belonged to the Native Americans as "independent and sovereign states" so that the American colonists could then make massive profits out of selling the land to other people. ["Our" view of the matter was that it was "Taxation without representation" when Britain forced the American colonists to pay for what the American colonists were demanding - "Their" view of the matter was that a bunch of greedy upstarts were whining because they weren't getting their "entitlement".]

It's also analogous to the situation during the Napoleonic Wars when BOTH the French and the British viewed American commerce as "trading with the enemy" while the Americans considered it merely "normal business". [ASIDE - The American government generally gave the French a "pass" even though the French were seizing American ships and cargoes just as frequently (pro rated against the effectiveness of the French Navy vis a vis the RN) as the British were.] Generally speaking, the American attitude (where people had actually heard about the Napoleonic War and gave a damn about it) was that American commerce with France was "free trade" in support of a "republic" in its struggle against monarchic oppression (even after Napoleon had abolished the Republic and proclaimed himself Emperor) - besides there was more money to be made by selling stuff to the French (who were short of almost everything) than there was to be made by selling stuff to the British (who could make more of it [of better quality {and cheaper}]) than the American suppliers could.

One of the problems which many people have in "understanding war" is that they start from the (unstated and unshakable) position that "they" had exactly the same view of what was happening as "we" did.

COL Ted, I generally concur with your post and thank you for your analysis. I was trying to post a relatively concise answer to MAJ Ted Landgren's questions. My short term goal was to bound the question between the Triplolitan War and our entry into the ground war in North Africa in 1943 where our relatively new mechanized forces had their baptism of fire in the Kasserine Pass.

History is an onion that you think you have peeled back, but you have not.

MAJ Ken Landgren - Major; It's also almost enough to make you cry when you peel off more layers that people want you to.

"Revisionist History" consists of "re-writing" history to include the stuff that was left out (and mostly hidden) because it was embarrassing.

I mean, do people REALLY want to know that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was a direct consequence of President T. Roosevelt (and every successor President right down to President FD Roosevelt whose "family money" - from the Delano side at least - came from dealing in Opium) encouraging Japan to assert a hegemony over Asia and a bunch of civil servants - who simply didn't understand the Japanese mind set - directly frustrating the official policy (appeasing the Japanese and doing everything possible to avoid a situation where the Japanese would feel that they had no option but to attack the United States of America) of the Executive Branch of the US government - although that policy was never stated quite that bluntly - because it was "obvious" that the Japanese would never go to war with the United States of America?

[And, besides, "everyone knew" that the Japanese were runty little guys with buck-teeth and bad eyesight who couldn't possible be as good pilots as the American pilots - even if they had had aircraft which was as good as the American pilots flew - and wouldn't be able to manage a complex naval operation at all.

Mark, that is an interesting idea from both perspectives - the pre-republican Roman Army through the end of the Caesar's Armies. It is always interesting when somebody establishes hard dates for the beginning and end of conflicts. Similarly, I would have begun the history of the American Armies earlier in the 18th century - certainly by the time Washington fought for the British in the colonial armies. It will be interesting if there is a US Army 723 years afterwards.

LTC Stephen F. We view the Army as having been officially established in 1775 and the Romans saw 753BC as thier birth date, however the Republic wasn't really started until around 507BC.

I also miscounted the number in my head, it should be 1229 or 1230 (depending on the existence of a 0 year) years not 723.