Education
Alfred Burne was educated at Winchester School and Royal Military Academy Woolwich, before being commissioned into the Royal Artillery in 1906.
(Henry V’s stunning victory at Agincourt was a pivotal bat...)
Henry V’s stunning victory at Agincourt was a pivotal battle of the Hundred Years War, reviving England's military fortunes and changing forever the course of European warfare. In this exciting and readable account Colonel Burne recreates the years leading up to Agincourt and its bitter aftermath. He also puts the battle in the perspective of the other important, yet less well known, engagements of the war such as the battles of Verneuil and Fresnay. As with the battles, so with its commanders: Henry V is known to all, but Colonel Burne gives rightful honour to Talbot, Salisbury, Bedford, Chandos and many others. On the French side he details the parts played by Bertrand du Gueschlin and of course Joan of Arc. Colonel Burne’s outstanding reconstruction of the war is written for layman and historian alike and conveys the drama that Agincourt and its heroes have always so vividly evoked. This new edition of a classic text includes a new introduction by Anne Curry, the world's leading authority on the battle of Agincourt.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/184832765X/?tag=2022091-20
(Crecy, the Black Prince’s most famous victory, was the fi...)
Crecy, the Black Prince’s most famous victory, was the first of two major victories during the first part of the Hundred Years War. This was followed ten years later by his second great success at the Battle of Poitiers. The subsequent Treaty of Bretigny established the rights of the King of England to hold his domains in France without paying homage to the King of France. In this hugely acclaimed military history Colonel Burne reestablishes the reputation of Edward III as a grand master of strategy, whose personal hand lay behind the success of Crecy. He convincingly demonstrates that much of the credit for Crecy and Poitiers should be given to Edward and less to his son, the Black Prince, than is traditionally the case. With his vigorous and exciting style, Colonel Burne has chronicled for the general reader as well as for the military enthusiast, one of the most exceptional wars in which England has ever been engaged. This book firmly restores the Crecy campaign to its rightful place near the pinnacle of British military history. ‘A most important book – a work of original research, written by a master of his subject … A model of how history should be written, packed with accurate information and common sense.’ Sir Arthur Bryant in The Sunday Times
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1848328869/?tag=2022091-20
(Light wear to boards. Content is clean and bright. Good D...)
Light wear to boards. Content is clean and bright. Good DJ with minor edge wear in protective sleeve. Previous owners name to ffep.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01NBA5O7D/?tag=2022091-20
(Had Lee enjoyed the manpower or materiel advantages of Gr...)
Had Lee enjoyed the manpower or materiel advantages of Grant, would the South have triumphed? Had Hood possessed strength superior to Sherman's, would he still have lost their encounters in Georgia? Popular sentiment has long bowed to the military leadership of the Civil War's victorious generals a view that has been disputed by modern scholarship. Many might be startled to learn that a British army officer also called these opinions into question long ago. Out of print for more than fifty years, Lee, Grant and Sherman is an unrecognized classic of Civil War history that presaged current scholarship by decades. Alfred H. Burne assesses the military leadership of Grant, Lee, Sherman, Hood, Johnston, Early, and Sheridan from mid-1864 to Appomattox, contradicting prevailing perceptions of the generals and even proposing that Grant's military capabilities were inferior to Lee's. Burne sought to challenge the orthodox views of other historians J. F. C. Fuller on Grant and Basil Liddell Hart on Sherman but his assessments were so unorthodox that even with the endorsement of preeminent Civil War historian Douglas Southall Freeman, his book received scant attention in its day. He sees Sherman as more concerned with the geographical objective of capturing Atlanta than the military goal of smashing the Confederate army, lacking Grant's understanding that the principal object of war is to conquer and destroy the enemy's armed forces. Yet he asserts that "Grant in his heart of hearts feared Lee" and also suggests that Jubal Early's Valley campaign might have been the most brilliant of the whole war. In his analysis of the Georgia campaign, Burne views Sherman as a general who avoided risk and was too obsessed with raiding to wage an all-out offensive battle. Refusing to dismiss Hood as incompetent, as many historians have done, Burne points to his brilliance in military planning and claims that most of his defeats were merely the result of inadequate resources. Burne's book was ahead of its time, anticipating later shifts in historical evaluations of Civil War leadership. Now available in a corrected edition, with Freeman's original introduction and a new foreword and endnotes by Albert Castel, it is a rich source of insight for scholars and for anyone willing to reconsider traditional views of these generals.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0700610731/?tag=2022091-20
(Good condition book with like DJ. Boards are clean with m...)
Good condition book with like DJ. Boards are clean with minor bumping to corners and spine ends. Content clean with price clipped ffep and a solid binding. Good DJ with light edge wear including small closed tears and chipping to spine ends.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01MDR4DAI/?tag=2022091-20
(This is not a facsimile or Print-on-Demand copy. It is th...)
This is not a facsimile or Print-on-Demand copy. It is the original publication printed in 1939 by Charles Scribner's Sons and includes over two dozen maps, some of which foldout. Had Lee enjoyed the manpower or materiel advantages of Grant, would the South have triumphed? Had Hood possessed strength superior to Sherman's, would he still have lost their encounters in Georgia? Popular sentiment has long bowed to the military leadership of the Civil War's victorious generals a view that has been disputed by modern scholarship. Many might be startled to learn that a British army officer also called these opinions into question long ago. Lee, Grant and Sherman is an unrecognized classic of Civil War history that presaged current scholarship by decades. Alfred H. Burne assesses the military leadership of Grant, Lee, Sherman, Hood, Johnston, Early, and Sheridan from mid-1864 to Appomattox, contradicting prevailing perceptions of the generals and even proposing that Grant's military capabilities were inferior to Lee's. Burne sought to challenge the orthodox views of other historians J. F. C. Fuller on Grant and Basil Liddell Hart on Sherman but his assessments were so unorthodox that even with the endorsement of preeminent Civil War historian Douglas Southall Freeman, his book received scant attention in its day. He sees Sherman as more concerned with the geographical objective of capturing Atlanta than the military goal of smashing the Confederate army, lacking Grant's understanding that the principal object of war is to conquer and destroy the enemy's armed forces. Yet he asserts that "Grant in his heart of hearts feared Lee" and also suggests that Jubal Early's Valley campaign might have been the most brilliant of the whole war. In his analysis of the Georgia campaign, Burne views Sherman as a general who avoided risk and was too obsessed with raiding to wage an all-out offensive battle.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004KSUXNW/?tag=2022091-20
Alfred Burne was educated at Winchester School and Royal Military Academy Woolwich, before being commissioned into the Royal Artillery in 1906.
He invented the concept of. In battles and campaigns where there is some doubt over what action was taken, Burne believed that the action taken would be one which a trained staff officer of the twentieth century would take. He was awarded the Defence Science Organisation during the First World War and, during World World War II, was Commandant of the 121st Officer Cadet Training Unit.
He retired as a Lieutenant-Colonel.
He was Military Editor of Chambers Encyclopedia from 1938 to 1957 and became an authority on the history of land warfare. He was a contributor to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
Burne lived in Kensington and his funeral was held at Street Mary Abbots there. Burne introduced the concept of (Interface Message Processor) to the study of military history.
He himself defined it thus:
My method here is to start with what appear to be undisputed facts, then to place myself in the shoes of each commander in turn, and to ask myself in each case what I would have done.
This I call working on I then compare the resulting action with the existing record in order to see whether it discloses any incompatibility with the existing facts. If not, I then go on to the next debatable or obscure point in the battle and repeat the operation
More succinctly, John Keegan defined Interface Message Processor as
The solution of an obscurity by an estimate of what a trained soldier would have done in the circumstances
Burne"s approach has been criticised on the grounds that his concept of puts modern military thinking and doctrine into the minds of mediaeval monarchs. However, it does treat war leaders as intelligent, thinking creatures, and veteran mediaeval leaders were often likely to come to the same conclusion as British staff officers, albeit by different thought processes.
(Had Lee enjoyed the manpower or materiel advantages of Gr...)
(Henry V’s stunning victory at Agincourt was a pivotal bat...)
( This book concentrates on the English struggle to contr...)
(Crecy, the Black Prince’s most famous victory, was the fi...)
(Light wear to boards, content clean and sharp with owner ...)
(This is not a facsimile or Print-on-Demand copy. It is th...)
(Good condition book with like DJ. Boards are clean with m...)
(Boards have little wear. Content toned with some spotting...)
(Light wear to boards. Content is clean and bright. Good D...)
(War & Military)