Take a photo of a barcode or cover
15 reviews for:
Masters of Command: Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, and the Genius of Leadership
Barry S. Strauss
3.74 AVERAGE
15 reviews for:
Masters of Command: Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, and the Genius of Leadership
Barry S. Strauss
3.74 AVERAGE
informative
fast-paced
informative
reflective
slow-paced
This was a very interesting look at the rise and eventual fall of three of the greatest military commanders on the ancient world in Alexander, Hannibal, and Caesar. Strauss manages to lay his summary out in a very logical fashion, although I admit that I found it a bit jarring to be shuttled among the generals in each chapter as he tried to make his points. Still, his scholarship was sound and he had a fairly decent grasp of the level of detail needed for an audience of laypeople and did not stray from it, even when it might have made the narrative slightly more exciting. He also had a readable style, if a little dry, but I suppose that is often to be expected.
The thing I found the strangest about this entire treatise is that while Strauss shows, at times, marked distaste for both Alexander and Caesar, he seems very fond of Hannibal. I'm not sure if this is influenced by the fact that Hannibal was not the victor of his war, but I did find it markedly strange that Strauss spent far more time berating Alexander and Caesar posthumously for starting largely unnecessary wars that he did Hannibal, especially since it seems all three commanders started wars that were equally unnecessary. (Arguably in Alexander's case, since the Macedonian state was broke when Alexander attacked Persia, a point which Strauss goes out of his way to emphasize.)
His choice of Caesar as the greatest commander of all time seemed strange to me as well since of the three generals he chose to discuss at length, Caesar seemed to be the one for which Strauss holds the most disdain. (Or possibly the least affections, although those situations are often read similarly.) Furthermore, Strauss spends a great deal of time emphasizing Caesar's military weaknesses in comparison to the other two generals--his inability to secure appropriate resources, his reliance on blind luck in many cases, etc--and seems to judge Caesar as good but not great at any one of the attributes he identifies as important. Hannibal is the greatest tactical genius, the one most able to inspire loyalty in his men, and the one best able to move into statecraft after his final loss at Zama. Alexander is almost as tactically sound, the best able to adapt his army and understand how to proceed throughout the war, and the best at what may perhaps be defined as branding. However, it appears for Strauss that being the best at any of these things is not as important as being good at all of them. Caesar also holds the distinction of having, perhaps, influenced the modern world the most through his line of descent.
Overall, this was an interesting summary of the abilities of three of ancient history's best generals, true geniuses in their field. As Strauss suggests, however, none of these generals were able to navigate the unique problems of peacetime with any success, whether that was due to ego (as in the case of Alexander and Caesar) or fear (as in the case of Hannibal).
The thing I found the strangest about this entire treatise is that while Strauss shows, at times, marked distaste for both Alexander and Caesar, he seems very fond of Hannibal. I'm not sure if this is influenced by the fact that Hannibal was not the victor of his war, but I did find it markedly strange that Strauss spent far more time berating Alexander and Caesar posthumously for starting largely unnecessary wars that he did Hannibal, especially since it seems all three commanders started wars that were equally unnecessary. (Arguably in Alexander's case, since the Macedonian state was broke when Alexander attacked Persia, a point which Strauss goes out of his way to emphasize.)
His choice of Caesar as the greatest commander of all time seemed strange to me as well since of the three generals he chose to discuss at length, Caesar seemed to be the one for which Strauss holds the most disdain. (Or possibly the least affections, although those situations are often read similarly.) Furthermore, Strauss spends a great deal of time emphasizing Caesar's military weaknesses in comparison to the other two generals--his inability to secure appropriate resources, his reliance on blind luck in many cases, etc--and seems to judge Caesar as good but not great at any one of the attributes he identifies as important. Hannibal is the greatest tactical genius, the one most able to inspire loyalty in his men, and the one best able to move into statecraft after his final loss at Zama. Alexander is almost as tactically sound, the best able to adapt his army and understand how to proceed throughout the war, and the best at what may perhaps be defined as branding. However, it appears for Strauss that being the best at any of these things is not as important as being good at all of them. Caesar also holds the distinction of having, perhaps, influenced the modern world the most through his line of descent.
Overall, this was an interesting summary of the abilities of three of ancient history's best generals, true geniuses in their field. As Strauss suggests, however, none of these generals were able to navigate the unique problems of peacetime with any success, whether that was due to ego (as in the case of Alexander and Caesar) or fear (as in the case of Hannibal).
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
adventurous
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
relaxing
fast-paced
What an AMAZING read!!!! While other history books remain at the retelling level, this one analyzes in depth what makes these generals great, their use of resources and their many faults. What an immersive journey into ancient warfare, in the hands of their best representatives. I have read a lot of history books, but this one is by far the best one.
Only issue is that it is not great for someone without a lot of previous knowledge of ancient warfare, the historical context behind the military campaigns thematized here and the political landscape of the ancient world.
Only issue is that it is not great for someone without a lot of previous knowledge of ancient warfare, the historical context behind the military campaigns thematized here and the political landscape of the ancient world.
informative
tense
medium-paced
An outstanding comparison of the three greatest military generals of the ancient western world and a comparative study of various battles and milestones in their lives ( though I am personally loathe to compare any battle to the sheer brilliance of Hannibal at Cannae)
adventurous
informative
inspiring
medium-paced
Very enjoyable, especially the portions on Alexander the Great! 1 star deducted because, while I understand the reasoning behind telling the stories of the 3 generals side by side, I still found it organizationally confusing.
From a purist's perspective on history... no!
An interesting premise as a comparison. The intro to the book commits the sins of applying psuedo modern/christian morals to a pre christian world and its cultures.
It also applies a "war is inherently evil" undertone, blatantly stated early in the book. That in itself is a gross misunderstanding of not only the fundamental nature of the ancient world, but a realisiltic understanding on the foundations and mechanics of what keeps modern civilization lumbering forward.
Like any "... it be evil I tells ye" viewpoint, a number of misunderstandings exist in the text.
This book attempts to normalize the nature of three monumental individuals in history. God like in status... to then try and dissect how you too can try and understand and apply those qualities in your day to day life, or business dealings.
Reality check, no matter how toxic your workplace, it ain't the cut throat and regressive environment of the Roman senate during Caesar's life. This book at times completely misunderstands Caesar's political motives as well, mistaking the whim for mischief and self destructive defiance (ie his personally defined standards for stoicism) for ego and miscalculation.
No matter how bold you think you are, adapting to Alexander's guerilla warfare mindset and exterminating Afghan villages due to his addiction to a never ending life of "conquest" that went well beyond even ancient standards does not translate into sane choices within a modern society. He did do those things, and that is a genuine part of his nature that you cannot neatly ignore.
And as for Hannibal, the research is still based on Roman and post-ancient-but-pro-Roman sources, and thus lacks an appreciation on how dramatically different Carthaginian customs and attitudes were (and are now being discovered/considered) in contrast to the genocidal and earth scorching militant state of Rome. Bare in mind that the modern western world is also predominantly influenced by the rituals and customs of ancient Rome. That gives Carthage an added element of the exotic and alien. A major civilization that was thriving in a way that the Romans thought inherently at odds with themselves and deserving of total annihilation. That would indicate they would have thrived in ways that our modern world is also at odds with, and could not co-exist along side of.
Hannibal is the only Carthaginian anyone has ever properly known about. That says a lot about what little we truly know about the sole representative of a city, a civilization ... of an entire race of humans that were "erased" from existence.
If you know your ancients, this book will offer nothing but frustration. Another reader's digest attempt to skim over some of the most enduring "public" personalities to have walked this earth.
An interesting premise as a comparison. The intro to the book commits the sins of applying psuedo modern/christian morals to a pre christian world and its cultures.
It also applies a "war is inherently evil" undertone, blatantly stated early in the book. That in itself is a gross misunderstanding of not only the fundamental nature of the ancient world, but a realisiltic understanding on the foundations and mechanics of what keeps modern civilization lumbering forward.
Like any "... it be evil I tells ye" viewpoint, a number of misunderstandings exist in the text.
This book attempts to normalize the nature of three monumental individuals in history. God like in status... to then try and dissect how you too can try and understand and apply those qualities in your day to day life, or business dealings.
Reality check, no matter how toxic your workplace, it ain't the cut throat and regressive environment of the Roman senate during Caesar's life. This book at times completely misunderstands Caesar's political motives as well, mistaking the whim for mischief and self destructive defiance (ie his personally defined standards for stoicism) for ego and miscalculation.
No matter how bold you think you are, adapting to Alexander's guerilla warfare mindset and exterminating Afghan villages due to his addiction to a never ending life of "conquest" that went well beyond even ancient standards does not translate into sane choices within a modern society. He did do those things, and that is a genuine part of his nature that you cannot neatly ignore.
And as for Hannibal, the research is still based on Roman and post-ancient-but-pro-Roman sources, and thus lacks an appreciation on how dramatically different Carthaginian customs and attitudes were (and are now being discovered/considered) in contrast to the genocidal and earth scorching militant state of Rome. Bare in mind that the modern western world is also predominantly influenced by the rituals and customs of ancient Rome. That gives Carthage an added element of the exotic and alien. A major civilization that was thriving in a way that the Romans thought inherently at odds with themselves and deserving of total annihilation. That would indicate they would have thrived in ways that our modern world is also at odds with, and could not co-exist along side of.
Hannibal is the only Carthaginian anyone has ever properly known about. That says a lot about what little we truly know about the sole representative of a city, a civilization ... of an entire race of humans that were "erased" from existence.
If you know your ancients, this book will offer nothing but frustration. Another reader's digest attempt to skim over some of the most enduring "public" personalities to have walked this earth.