Here is a book that is not exactly a novel, not exactly a history, not exactly an adventure tale; in fact, the main character is literally three tons of finely worked brass. I prefer to view the work as an examination of the use of force. Not being particularly well read or skilled in military strategy, I will leave it to other reviewers to judge as to whether it succeeds as an exposition of method but I will say that it was a very interesting read.
The Gun is, of course, the force. Dropped along a mountain road by a retreating army it is picked up by Spanish guerillas fighting against the French occupation of Spain and the later history of the Gun becomes the book. What is startlingly modern about this book is that it demonstrates conclusively that war requires the will to match forces. When one side is allowed to retain an advantage the fighting concludes. For some reason not quite explained, the French have been allowed uncontested possession of a fertile plain in the south of Spain. When guerillas manage to obtain this huge piece of artillery, figure out how to obtain ammunition, as well as how to move the thing, they promptly upset the balance of power by assaulting the hitherto untouchable French fortifications. Their efforts throw both sides into disarray. The Gun provides a focus to the Spanish attack as well as the necessary power to press the advantage. Instructively, the very existence and control of power, i.e. the weapon, is itself the source of further power--the allegiance of other irregulars who are emboldened by their newfound ability to succeed. The means whereby the Gun is brought to bear are thought-provoking and lead one to ponder on the usefulness of modern weaponry given the utter lack of societal will to bring any force to bear on the problems at hand. The will to fight with nuclear and chemical weapons (chemical weapons make a surprising and gruesome appearance in this work) is thankfully gone--but have we risked descending into a perpetual detente only to be nibbled continually at the edges by less-circumspect powers?
Perhaps some readers find the denouement of the book somewhat unsettling. The ending is quite abrupt. But by the time you reach the end you realize that you have been exposed to various styles of leadership--some more successful than others, various kinds of battle--again with varying degrees of success, siegecraft, the use of artillery, etc. Forester is a gifted author--his narrative decisions are purposeful and directed towards an end that seems to be lost on many readers. In my opinion the author's purpose was to use this interesting episode in a very long conflict to invite debate on leadership styles and the very nature of war itself.
I found the book fascinating and it has sparked a desire to read more military history as it is clear that as a country and people we Americans at least are continuing to place ourselves into situations that require an historical context in order to understand the value of the position. Absent a context in history, we risk being diverted from worthly goals by a cost that is misunderstood. Wars are fought for a reason that has not disappeared with the rise of modern technology. We cannot win merely by churning out fantastic weaponry--"The Gun" teaches that it is not enough to merely possess force, once must understand how best to press the advantage thereby created.