Rating: 
Summary: A Travesty
Review: Lionising Sherman while dismissing Grant as a plodding General is laughable.I am far from being a knowledgeable military historian but even I know the reason Sherman's March was so successful was because George H. Thomas destroyed Hood's army at Nashville, leaving him no effective resistance in his front. It was Grant who destroyed a CSA army at Chattanooga and captured two others at Donelson and Vicksburg and was the one man in the Union Army to consistently win victory after victory by sheer determination and will. The March was an excellent logistical triumph but Hanson's chapter on Sherman could be dismissed by a high-school student. For a real look at who was responsible for the Union's triumph read John Keegan's essay on Grant in The Face of Battle.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting thesis
Review: This book is one that belongs on any armchair military historian's shelf. It makes a persuasive argument in favor of the sueriority of militias organized from democratic societies. Hanson argues that the moral power of the three armies led by Epaminondas, a Theban, Sherman, a Union general in the American Civil War, and Patton, commanding the 3rd Army in Europe in WWII, was decisive in their ability to vanquish three slave states - Sparta, the Confederacy, and Nazi Germany. The democratic militias were ideological warriors fighting for a cause. One of the particularly interesting features of Hanson's analysis was the fact that the democratic militias were able to demobilize so quickly. Their generals were not leading armies of conquest with imperial designs. One problem with the book is that the sources Hanson used were narrow. The works cited are small in number. The book is well written in a prose that is easy to read. It does suffer from a couple of glaring mistakes that should have been caught by an editor. But overall it is a very engaging book.
Rating: 
Summary: Three good biographies - held together by a thin thread.
Review: One might be mistaken by thinking that Hanson wrote three biographies of Epominandas, Sherman, and Patton, and threw them together when none was long enough to be published separately. Nevertheless, these are good, consise summaries of these three great generals' campaigns to victory. The one weakness is that the string used to tie them together, using themes well-known to readers of Hanson's other great books, is a bit thin. The contexts, causes, and final goals of the three wars described are simply too different to draw some of the conclusions that Hanson tries to apply to all three. The chapters on Patton are bound to be the most controversial all but the most unreconstructed southern Sherman-hater. Hanson effectively describes Patton's hidden strengths unknown to so many: well-read, intellectual, and using tactics that saved more lives than those of his more cautious counterparts. While the unflattering portrayal of Omar Bradley is well-deserved, SOME of his criticisms of Eisenhower are unfair. Unlike Patton, Ike had mind-boggling problems of allies (especially Montgomery), overbearing civilian chiefs, and other theaters to compete and contend with. One can only picture Patton attempting to lead the coalition briefly before his weaknesses and Ike's strengths become apparent. Still, Hanson's points about Patton's underutilized talents are all to correct.
Rating:
Summary: A Must Read for Students of Military History
Review: This is a great book, and don't let anyone tell you different. (Especially those reviewers who don't actually give books good reviews.)
Rating:
Summary: RIGHT makes MIGHT?
Review: The SOUL of BATTLE; and CULTURE and CARNAGE, comprise Professor Victor Hanson's inspiring thesis: consentually conscripted armies (going back to the myth of Roman famer/general Cincinnatus) can be informed by great leaders with spirit of battle that will energize them to FIGHT for the RIGHT...and win. THE SOUL OF BATTLE,in particular,emphasizes SPIRIT--more than technology's SINEWS of WAR as Cicero referred to military machinery. The ideal
of military COMMUNITAS (bonding fellowship)is posited beyond battle camaraderie to a vision of JUSTICE spurring citizen-soldiers both to transcendent acts of courage and (comparably)ruthless acts of brutality. The "Scourge of War" campaign by General Sherman against the non-combatant oligarchy of Southern plantation owners is the book's center piece. Sherman's motivating belief: while courage of Southern soldiers is unquestioned; slavery is EVIL. Its supporters deserve to SUFFER(dire)consequence for WAR they have fomented in its defense/furtherance. This is the righteous ideal which Sherman instilled in his men.The devastating MARCH TO THE SEA resulted.Interestingly,James McPherson's,"FOR CAUSE&COMRADES: Why Men Fought in the Civil War",confirms(citing more than one thousand letters by Union and Confederate combatants)much of Victor D. Hanson's theory of "War as(moral)Crusade".The irony is that in Civil War both sides often comprise True Believers in the cause. This accounts for unforgiving fury of battles (visit Gettsyburg)often fought to staggering loss or Pyrrhic Victory. Was "RIGHTer" mightier in America's bloodiest war? Patton's rampage against Nazi Germany leaves little room for moral ambiguity. The Greek experience...to a-historically minded
Americans...blurs into Trojan War-like myth. "GOTT mit UNS"(God is with Us)was motto inscribed on belt buckles of many German soldiers in WW II. Whose God? Whose RIGHT? A skeptical reader may inquire or scorn. [The]two decisive battles of the American Civil War...the first at Gettysburg; the second at Vicksburg...were determined,respectively,on July 3 and July 4,1863.It,indeed,seems on the BIRTHDAY of the United States the ALMIGHTY Himself deigned to approve the MIGHT of the UNION as RIGHTeous. This is Victor Davis Hanson's argument.Accept or reject...it is timely, and provocatively made...(4 and 1/2 stars)
Rating: 
Summary: What's with Victor?
Review: I will say up front that Victor Davis Hanson has written so very good books on the ancient Greeks, but what's with him on this one? He has some good ideas, but to claim that the crackpot Sherman was fighting to end tyranny makes me wonder if Hanson's head was full full of his family wine when he wrote this. Sherman could have been tried for war crimes according to the laws of war in his own time. Sure, he was a pioneer in total warfare, just as Lenin and Stalin were in mass murder.Sherman was an insane scum-dog, nothing more. Had his side lost he would be held in the same regard as other desperate losers such as Hitler. The real fighters of tyranny in Sherman's day were the citizens of the South who had to endure his uncivilised methods of behaving towards women and children, both black and white. Stick to what you know Hanson; you are lost on this one! Sheesh!
Rating:
Summary: Democracy's Weapon
Review: This book, written in 1999, is a must read for anyone wanting to evaluate America's chances in the current conflict. Soul of Battle is about a special intersection of ideology and warfare. Hanson proposes that democratic "armies of a season", led by philosopher-generals, in pursuit of a just cause, can be phenomenally devastating beyond what any material measures would predict, when taken on an anabasis (march upcountry) into the heart of an oppressive, militaristic society. To illustrate this thesis, Hanson captivatingly narrates the details of the marches and men lead by three generals: Epaminondas, William Sherman, and George Patton. The first lead the yeomen of Thebes to crush the supposedly unstoppable Spartans in their homeland. The second lead his famous-and often misunderstood-"March to the Sea" that eviscerated the Confederacy and ended their will to fight. The third, despite constant interference from above, lead the brand-new Third Army in a mad dash into the heart of Nazi Europe. All three were vilified by members of their own side, worshipped by the men they commanded, and unexpectedly victorious over and devastating to the slave-owning regimes they went up against. The first thing that grabs me, reading this book, is how compelling Hanson's narratives are. Some of the minutiae he examines would, in the hands of another author, make for somewhat dry reading. Hanson, though, has the refined gift of not only loving his subject matter to death, but also of being able to convey that love to a fairly broad audience. Hanson is a professor of Greek at California State University in Fresno, as well as a frequent contributor of opinion articles to outlets like National Review. However, he is also a fifth generation farmer and a great believer in the "yeoman-citizen" who puts down his work to go and fight evil for a season, much as his father did in World War Two. This perspective comes out strongly in his sympathies for the Theban hoplites, the midwestern soldiers of Sherman's Army of the West, and the unassuming Americans of Patton's Third Army. The book is enjoyable, but is Hanson's thesis true? It's certainly compelling as he argues it. Much of what he says flies in the face of the accepted wisdom regarding why soldiers fight. Citing letters and diaries of soldiers, though, he does show that ideology and idealism were significant motivating factors for these people-these folks fought to do more than merely "protect their buddies". He also takes on the accepted wisdom regarding the generals that have partially overshadowed Sherman and Patton (Grant and Eisenhower, respectively). Comparing Sherman to Grant (who were friends), he notes that Grant's efforts were focused on the "terrible arithmetic" of grinding down the lives of the Army of N. Virginia, while Sherman fought a largely battle-free campaign to destroy the Confederacy's will to fight. Eisenhower was a logistical genius and part of the new breed of "corporate generals", a mastermind of management and organization; Patton, on the other hand, was the general who saw that the conservative approach directed by Eisenhower was unnecessarily long and-while "safer" from the strategic perspective-ultimately far more costly to the individual lives, not only of allied soldiers, but also to enemy soldiers and civilians held in helotage or worse. Let me back up a moment. Before opening this book, I would always have characterized myself as a fan of Alexander the Great, Robert E. Lee, and Douglas McArthur. Sherman has never interested me, Patton always bored me, and of Epaminondas I knew nothing. Hanson has fully converted me in all regards, now. This is a good book, but there are many good books. It makes it onto my Warblogger's Bookshelf because it is also of real relevance to today's conflict. The most disturbing aspect of this book is the trend over history that the three generals exhibit: as command and control has become more all-encompassing and farther reaching, as armies have continued to reward good "peacetime generals" and politicians have gained greater influence over the day-to-day decisions of the military, the potential effectiveness of these rare and critical philosopher-generals has steadily decreased over time. The kind of person you want leading your democratic army when confronting real evil is generally someone that will be rejected by polite society; they are at their best when they may act on their own. Had Bush and Powell, the first time around, not halted Schwarzkopf's Iraqi anabasis before it was completed, we would be looking at a very different Middle East, right now. At the same time, as Hanson himself has said in many places, a democratic society's auditing of the military that serves it is an important foundation of the free society we enjoy and defend. Hanson's thesis is multipart and, in the end, complex; sometimes it feels like he is trying to cover too much at one go, dashing about to keep all of his plates spinning. This is a small criticism, though, as he does manage to pull it all off in what amounts to a wonderfully written book filled with compelling stories, all supporting an important statement on the nature of war.
Rating:
Summary: Powerful
Review: Victor Davis Hanson is likely America's greatest living military historian, and this book shows why.
Rating:
Summary: He loosed his fateful lightning and his terrible swift sword
Review: This book provides an engaging insight into military history with a premise that refutes the modern notion that soldiers fight only for their companions in the trenches. It posits that armies borne of Democratic societies, led by men of conviction, who see war as the only way to obtain a perfect peace, have historically annihilated armies of less Democratic, brutish men with less than moral convictions. It contrasts the mafia-don leadership of a great historical thug like Alexander the Great with that of the more democratically moral Epaminondas versus the slave-owning Spartan's; of Sherman versus the aristocratic slave owners of the confederacy and of Patton versus the enslaving Nazi's. It cites the grim asceticism, the moral certainty and the leadership from the front of these men, who while intellectuals of mind are devastating of purpose. It implores the reader to consider that men can be inspired to fight for what is right rather than for just the spoils of war. It is from such assertions that it derives its title, "the Soul of Battle", and it narrates the story of these three generals as they drive their armies to victory over foes once thought ominous and undefeatable. I experienced this feeling in microcosm while watching the first Holyfield-Tyson fight; the holy warrior versus the thug. That was the embodiment of a man with a righteous cause prevailing over a less democratic, and much feared, foe; a theme of good vs evil. Hanson's thesis is that of men with a cause, led by true leaders, whose moral purpose is to save lives through quick and expedient use of the tools of war. These leaders were all excoriated and smeared by their critics for being unbalanced, and untamed, addled and bloodthirsty, but such slanders are lost in the shroud of historical reference. Their historical beacons shine far brighter than those of their detractors. This book catalogues the respective campaigns of Epaminondas, Sherman and Patton as they take their armies deep into the heartland of their enemies. Each sees his mission as the spearpoint of a cause with themselves as the true leaders of determined men whose goal is to win and stand-down as opposed to murder, devastate and enslave. He emphasizes that only democracies seem capable of creating such armies, much as capitalism, the handmaiden of democracy, creates spontaneous ordering and a greater prosperity. In Hanson's view the zeal of free men fighting for a cause has historically trumped imperialistic thuggism, and that this is the reason Western armies have remained globally dominant over the last 2500 years. You'll enjoy this book if you view war with a moralistic bent. I particularly liked Hanson's recounting of Sherman's campaign through Georgia. My mother was from Griffin which bordered his march on the south and I was brought up with the notion that Sherman was little more than a pillage and burn marauder. After reading this book my opinion was changed considerably. His army caused a quicker end to the war, saved thousands of lives, and in complete contrast to so many historical armies, departed the field to retire, return to farming, and continue the process of building a more modern civilization. The other two generals cited here presided over similar disengagements of their men, truly a contrast to the operations of the cold war Soviet's and their ilk who still worship a Marxist-Stalinist model of control, i.e. Fidel castro. These leaders also have their corollary in U.S.Grant who hounded Lee's army into submission and the gallant Arthur Wellsley who oversaw the defeat of the thuggish Napoleon at Waterloo. This is an uplifting tale of the best of mankind. It completely refutes the Leftist foreign policy nostrums of today. Hanson is a breath of fresh air. Read this book, learn from it and enjoy. It's a great retelling of history, the kind that our public school systems continue to ignore.
Rating:
Summary: especially applicable right now
Review: When a free and consensual society feels its existence threatened, when it has been attacked, when its citizenry at last understands an
enemy at odds with the very morality of its culture, when a genius at war leads the army with freedom to do what he wishes, when it is to
march to a set place in a set time, then free men can muster, they can fight back well, and they can make war brutally and lethally beyond
the wildest nightmares of the brutal military culture they seek to destroy.
-The Soul of Battle Such is the case that the outstanding military historian Victor Davis Hanson makes in The Soul of Battle. Drawing mainly on three
historical examples--Epaminondas leading Thebes against Sparta; Sherman marching through the South; and Patton driving the Third Army
to Berlin--Mr. Hanson illustrates the similarities among these different leaders, the men they led, and the ideals for which they fought. He
makes a compelling case that there is no more dangerous military force in human history than a democratic populace, raised to righteous
moral anger, and commanded by leaders who understand the unique strength of such an army. He demonstrates that though even we tend to
accept the myth, fond in the hearts of totalitarian leaders and the rest of those who hate us, that democracies are necessarily inefficient when
it comes to warfare and that the freedoms of such societies are hindrance to the prosecution of said warfare, in fact : Democracy, and its twin of market capitalism, alone can instantaneously create lethal armies out of civilians, equip them with horrific
engines of war, imbue them with a near-messianic zeal within a set time and place to exterminate what they understand as evil, have them
follow to their deaths the most ruthless of men, and then melt anonymously back into the culture that produced them. It is democracies,
which in the right circumstances, can be imbued with the soul of battle, and thus turn the horror of killing to a higher purpose of saving
lives and freeing the enslaved. And what is "the soul of battle" to which he attributes such world-changing power? : A rare thing indeed that arises only when free men march unabashedly toward the heartland of their enemy in hopes of saving the
doomed, when their vast armies are aimed at salvation and liberation not conquest and enslavement. Only then does battle take on a
spiritual dimension, one that defines a culture, teaches it what civic militarism is and how it is properly used. Mr. Hanson thus provides the reader with an invaluable framework for understanding history, modern and ancient, and for understanding the
often underestimated strengths of democratic society. Lest prospective readers dismiss the book as mere triumphalism, as some are wont to ignore Francis Fukuyama's The End of History, it
should, first of all, be noted that Mr. Hanson's portrayals of the three generals are absolutely riveting. Most of us are familiar with Patton, at
least through the movie, and somewhat with Sherman, but the name Epaminondas summons forth little more than an old mildly racist folk
story. Mr. Hanson restores him to his rightful place in the pantheon of democratic heroes, the destroyer of Spartan helotage, just as Sherman
helped destroy slavery and Patton helped destroy Nazism. These men's stories would be worth reading if only because of the role each
played in the utter destruction of the abominable regimes of their time, but the idiosyncrasies and flamboyant aspects of their character, their
deep commitment to learning and to the craft of warfare, and their unusual understanding of the opportunity that their societies had afforded
them by granting them command of these armies, makes them truly fascinating to read about. Particularly enjoyable is the way in which he
redeems each man against his more revered colleagues--Epaminondas vs. Pericles; Sherman vs. Lee; Patton vs. Bradley and
Eisenhower--showing that in their single-minded focus on the battle itself, each deserves greater credit than their more political, and more
self-interested rivals, and that, though each is considered bloodthirsty, in reality the very thoroughness with which they sought victory
ultimately saved lives. Perhaps most importantly, Mr. Hanson helps us to see why democracies need such men, however politically
incorrect, even somewhat demented, their behavior may be at times. A McLellan, a Marshall, an Eisenhower, a Colin Powell, is all well and
good for the bureaucratic function of running an army, but when it comes to inspiring men to fight, kill, and die, we must have Shermans
and Pattons and Schwartzkopfs to turn to in the field. Nor is Mr. Hanson just saying that "we win, because we're us". He is equally good on the reasons that democracies (particularly America)
have failed in wars that do not follow the guidelines he lays out. In Korea, where McArthur could not go after the Chinese; in Vietnam,
where we fought an entirely defensive war; in the Persian Gulf, where Schwarzkopf was not allowed to march to Baghdad, we not only
failed to win the wars, but needlessly prolonged the suffering of Koreans, Vietnamese, Iraqis and Americans. In the end, the immediate
dealing of death would have been more humane than ever the seemingly moderate limitations proved to be. And Mr. Hanson forces us to
ponder how much better a place the world might have been and how much misery might have been averted had Patton and Curtis LeMay
(under whose command Mr. Hanson's own father served) been given the free hand they desired to carry a liberationist war to Moscow.
Instead, as Patton protested : [T]in-soldier politicians in Washington have allowed us to kick hell out of one bastard and at the same time forced us to help establish a
second one as evil or more evil than the first. Out of these bitter experiences flow lessons that have special relevance to our own times. For one, we would do well not to let people like
the radical Islamicists continue in the delusion that because we are a democracy we are an overripe fruit ready to fall and rot. It is the nature
of our system that in times of peace we disarm to an almost absurd degree, but our unwillingness to spend money to keep up the armed
forces and our hesitancy to get involved abroad should not be confused with terminal helplessness. As bin Laden has found out, to his likely
dismay, once provoked, we remain willing, even eager, to unleash a totally disproportionate level of lethality upon those who rile us. On the
other hand, we would do well to remind ourselves that once moved to action there should be no surcease to the battle until we have entirely
rooted out the evil we face. The most important lesson that Epaminondas, Sherman, and Patton have to teach us is that democratic brutality
turned against totalitarian evil, and carried to its ultimate conclusion, is capable of utterly destroying those malevolent systems. The
measures we take may briefly trouble our consciences but they succeed brilliantly. Having picked up the sword, we owe it to ourselves, and
even to the populace in the nations we oppose, not to set it down again until the job is done. Mr. Hanson's book would make rewarding reading at any time, but it is especially applicable right now. And be sure to look for his
outstanding column in National Review. His writing on the current conflict has been consistently prescient; not surprising, since this book
itself predicts much of what has occurred so far. It remains though to be seen whether President Bush and his advisers understand its full
import. GRADE : A+
|
