> Can anyone point me to some good reading that describes the detailed strategy and nuances that led to wars being won or lost?
This is a whole field of political science.
> Things like not planning for muddy terrain contributing to a battle being lost
That really has nothing to do with how wars are won and lost. Wars are won or lost when the politicians or depending how you look at it society at large stops fighting.
A muddy terrain might be a tactical consideration that could help you win one battle, or campaign and that you can then maybe leverage into something you could then call a victory. In every war millions of mistakes are being made, pointing to 1 of them and assigning and extra ordinary relevance to it, is very difficult.
What I can tell you is that there is no universal answer neither in political science, nor economics, nor military theory. In fact, this very question has baffled military theorists for literally 1000s of years.
The most popular reference is from Carl Von Clausewitz, a Prussian military theorist, he claimed you have to identify the 'center of gravity' and and then do what is in your power to shift that.
> The definition of a CoG is "the source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act."[2] Thus, the center of gravity is usually seen as the "source of strength".
Of course you will notice that this is incredibly vague and provides little practical guidance.
This is the difference between historians, who try to find the end of individual wars, and military theorist and political scientist who try find more abstract descriptions.
You can read something like 'Strategy: A History' to get a general overview of how people have thought about it.
I highly recommend going to reddit.com/r/AskHistorians. They have a great wiki and reading list, or you can ask for books.
This is a whole field of political science.
> Things like not planning for muddy terrain contributing to a battle being lost
That really has nothing to do with how wars are won and lost. Wars are won or lost when the politicians or depending how you look at it society at large stops fighting.
A muddy terrain might be a tactical consideration that could help you win one battle, or campaign and that you can then maybe leverage into something you could then call a victory. In every war millions of mistakes are being made, pointing to 1 of them and assigning and extra ordinary relevance to it, is very difficult.
What I can tell you is that there is no universal answer neither in political science, nor economics, nor military theory. In fact, this very question has baffled military theorists for literally 1000s of years.
The most popular reference is from Carl Von Clausewitz, a Prussian military theorist, he claimed you have to identify the 'center of gravity' and and then do what is in your power to shift that.
> The definition of a CoG is "the source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act."[2] Thus, the center of gravity is usually seen as the "source of strength".
Of course you will notice that this is incredibly vague and provides little practical guidance.
This is the difference between historians, who try to find the end of individual wars, and military theorist and political scientist who try find more abstract descriptions.
You can read something like 'Strategy: A History' to get a general overview of how people have thought about it.
I highly recommend going to reddit.com/r/AskHistorians. They have a great wiki and reading list, or you can ask for books.