LAUSR

specifically German? There would surely have been scope here to bring in transnational perspectives; at the very least, the book should demonstrate that, for example, drawings and paintings of military conferences or battle exhortations (or depictions of war graves) in other national cultures during this period emphatically did not possess the supposedly German traits that Fox ascribes to them. Second, what do we actually know about the nineteenth-century artists’ intentions, or the contemporary reception of these images? Would “reader-viewers” really have divined the complex psychological relationships in these engravings, and the meanings and interpretations of Prussian martial virtue, which Fox ascribes to them? Did many readers ever do more than take a cursory glance at the illustrations? For Fox’s argument to be fully convincing, therefore, more contextualization and historicization, as well as detailed discussion of a much wider source base, would be necessary. Ultimately, this attempt to fuse military microand macro-history with art-historical modes of analysis represents something of a missed opportunity, though it could provide a potential starting point for future research.