Yours To Reason Why takes an interesting approach to military history, focusing on decision points in battle. In campaigns stretching from 1066 (Hastings) to 1944 (Anzio), Seymour offers his analyses of the options facing commanders, and the consequences of the choices that they made.

It's an amazing idea, but it doesn't quite jell. With so many battles to cover, Seymour can't really give any one battle of period comprehensive coverage. I was hoping for a full Duffer's Drift style CYA, but at each point, Seymour goes with what actually happened and discards his counterfactuals.

But the broader point is that if what matters in battle are commanders, then there must be differences between Great Captains like Napoleon (and Napoleon at Waterloo), and mediocrities like General Burgoyne at Saratoga. There are platitudes about energy, boldness, and inspiring troops, but not enough insight. And with a sweep of centuries, there should be something to say about command beyond "it gets more complex". Napoleon's forces were capable of tactical evolution which William the Conqueror's knights only have dream of, yet tactical brilliance in a Napoleonic sense could not avail General Lee victory in the civil war, where industrial might over years proved superior. And General Clark at Anzio had to command infantry, artillery, armor, navy, and aviation units as part of a World War, with infinity more complexity than what Grant faced.