You know those books in the discount section of Barnes & Noble, or when you're desperate and waited for the last minute gift for the family conservative and military buff? A Rage to Conquer: Twelve Battles That Changed the Course of Western History joins these overfilled sections with Michael Walsh's selective list of history. (Walsh spent eight years writing for the National Review and has collaborated with Andrew Breitbart).

For each chapter, 12 as one could guess, Walsh expands beyond the battles offering biographies of the key generals and leaders and general context for that point in history. Among those profiled are Achilles, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Pershing and Patton. A list with no big surprises, but disappointing for its lack of variety.

While Walsh is detailed and has made efforts to be accurate in his depictions, in presenting his own opinions or conclusions he goes to some surprising places. While war, as Clausewitz puts it, is a continuation of politics by other means, here war serves to emphasizes Walsh's politics. Some of his claims or foci: women in combat leads to the loss of that conflict, Patton was a great general never mind his foul mouthed presentation, it was man speech! American war policy since 1945 is misguided and has never resulted in a victory.

Can't say I'd recommend this book, but it might appeal to conservative readers of military history.

Thanks to NetGalley and Macmillan Audio for the Audio ARC!

So, I have to say that I'm a little disappointed. I really liked this book, right up until I didn't.

Let me explain: the author is obviously very interested in and knowledgeable about war and great historical leaders. And the breakdown of the 12 battles that changed the shape of history was interesting and fantastic. And then came the afterword, where the booked veered sharply into the author's strong opinions about the modern military prowess (or lack thereof) of the US, the aftermath of 9/11, the ineptitude of all presidents post-Reagan, and several other fringe topics. Now it's not that I don't think that the author has the right to his own opinion, or to express that opinion in his book, but this was quite a polarizing and inflammatory rant. Even more so in audio form, with the author himself narrating. I just think it would have been more appropriate to end the book after the last chapter and leave the ranting for an op-ed, or a podcast, or a post on X. A great example of this is another history buff who I highly respect: Dan Carlin. In his Hardcore History podcast, you get history. Obviously, any account of history is somewhat influenced by the narrator's worldview, but it's pretty straight forward history. If you want to hear all about Dan's personal opinion on the state of our democracy, or the mistakes we're making because we didn't learn from history, or any number of other reasons to share ones opinion, you listen to Common Sense, his other podcast. A little separation of fact and opinion in this case would have left a better impression, in my opinion.