Rating: 
Summary: History's great generals
Review: I just finished the section about EPAMINONDAS. And I have scanned the pages concerning SHERMAN and PATTON. All I can say is, I'm totally speechless as I close this book. For over 10 years now, I am an avid reader of Military History and particularly of great generals. I never thought about Epaminondas, Sherman, and Patton in such light. I was aware of their campaigns (thanks to B.H.Liddell-Hart's STRATEGY), but I never thought about them in such a way. These generals showed great nobility in their hearts. Many generals are skillful in their fields, but only a few possessed "great captain" qualities. I wish we had leaders nowadays who are like them (E,S,P). The world would be a better place.
Rating: 
Summary: A Prejudiced View of History
Review: Dr. Hanson contends his three leaders led democratic armies, unlike any others. He has done a disservice to Napoleon and the export of the French Revolution and its egalitarian ideals.He portrays Thebes and Epaminondas as the ideal of Greek liberty, while attempting to explain away: 1) Thebes' support of Persia; 2) Epaminondas' refusal to yield command after his term was over and 3) Greek cities (which he established) fighting against Thebes within ten years in an attempt to destroy Theban hegemony. His characterization of Alexander the Great as a thug most akin to Adolf Hitler is extreme, while his contention that Epaminondas was a true philosoher and Alexander a "half educated dilettante" (p. 60) is unsupported. Dr. Hanson's belief that a democratic leader should be hated, sacked or relieved of command or else he has not achieved his strategic goals smacks of elitism or lack of knowledge. In the more modern periods, Dr. Hanson's knowledge of military maters do not serve him well. Overall, the historical records do not support his revisionist claims, and if this book represents his thinking, then he has joined the august literary crowd of David Irving and Edmund Morris.
Rating:
Summary: Thoughtful and Readable
Review: This is a very thorough, reasonable and thoughtful study of the three commanders Epaminondas, Sherman and Patton. I find Victor Hanson's arguments convincing about the motivations of those three and their troops. It is easy to read and hard to put down, yet contains a lot of substance based on careful research. Hanson has written some other good histories, and The Soul of Battle contains the same high standards of scholarship.
Rating: 
Summary: Something of a Juggling Act
Review: Hanson treats three historic military campaigns from two points of view: First, military history, and second, war as a social phenomenon. On the whole he tells an engrossing story. If his book is less than great, it is only because he tries to pull too much together. He makes military history interesting to the non-military. In particular, he makes clear the immense advantage that mobility affords -- not giving the enemy a chance to mass his forces for a counterstrike, nor, once the enemy is on the run, giving him time to regroup. And he provides some evidence that there is such a thing as a good war. In each of the three campaigns he describes, the victory is less over than the other army than over the war-worshipping ideology that produced that army. Anyone who opens this book believing that wars are never just, and always avoidable, will close it with those beliefs shaken, at least. War may be a dirty business -- but the irony is that those democratic leaders who seem to most relish the business of killing just may turn out to be the most humane. And then there is Bill Clinton.
Rating:
Summary: Hanson's book is a triumph!
Review: With "The Soul of Battle", Victor Hanson makes the leap from military historian/classics professor to a true visionary on the values and sacrifices that make or break a free society. He examines the careers of three great generals who fought tyranny, using war as a mechanism for good to triumph over evil. Those who believe that all war is always bad will not like the conclusions, but will not be able to dispute them either. If you liked Hanson's earlier works, you will likewise enjoy The Soul of Battle. However, you will come away with a deeper message and a transformed view of the role of a crusading free people against the forces of evil and slavery. This is a masterful work that belongs in every thinking American's library...not just those interested in military history.
Rating:
Summary: Great Character study of battle
Review: VDH presents three great Generals and gives an excellent contrast of not only their character but the men who fought with them. The whole book compares the idea of free men freeing the unfree. I have read numerous accounts of Patton, and none quite develed into the character of the man. I always knew the giant that Patton was but never how much he was hated by his comrades in the highest levels of the military. He was exactly what they were not, brave, fearless and daring. He knew how to win and what it took to get there. He did not care about making friends he wanted total victory. VDH here spins the "great" generals Ike and Bradley much too cautious to have win. I really see his point
Sherman is the same way, though vilified in the south, and underscored by Grant Sherman may be THE reason why the North won. He conquered vasts amount of territory with relatively little casualites. Though generals like Lee and Longstreet were on the losing side and are idolized by many historians, VDH presents it differently here.
Epaminondas was one I never heard of but appreciated his character and leadership decisions. He was an interesting addition to this book and is amazing how similar in character they all are.
An excellent read if you want good character studies into the mindset of a warrior or want to view key wars in a different light.
VDH makes his point and makes it well.
Rating:
Summary: sort of interesting
Review: I saw a bit of an interview with the author on Book TV and got this. I really WANTED to like this book. The (stated) premise of the book is strong, and bringing Epaminondas's exploits to a wide audience seemed pretty interesting to me.
My problem was that right from the get-go it seemed to me the author had a pretty weird tendency to draw political parallels between ancient Greece and today which just aren't appropriate or realistic. They weren't key to what he was trying to say, either, so I probably could have soldiered through the book. I put it down, though, since it was distracting trying to figure out where he was really coming from.
I admit that his dismissiveness toward Alexander and Grant seemed borderline childish to me, the way it was written. Perhaps that also made it hard for me to take the good parts of the book seriously.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful
Review: This is one of the best books I've ever read about military history. I don't think I can add much, except that the thesis is remarkable, and I found the book absolutely facinating and well-researched. Essential.
Rating:
Summary: Good Book, Interesting Thesis
Review: Mr. Hanson has created an interesting book, comparing the battles, motivations and organization of three great leaders Epaminandous, Sherman and Patton. He again studies the character of the societies they came from and how this is reflected in the armies and in the way the leaders handled the battles. I found the section on Patton especially interesting, especially his thesis that Eisenhower and BRadley (especially the latter) were at times incompetent. I am sure this is not old news, but the arguments made were quite convincing. Another argument that is interesting and not completely drawn out is that society had possibly changed around battle preventing Patton from executing his war plan to his best ability. The idea Patton expounded of killing as many of the enemy as possible with as few American casualties as possible seems to have been somewhat politically incorrect. The advent of better communications also meant the leader had less freedom of action. It would be interesting to read more on this thesis. Finally, one small flaw that bothers me, Mr. Hanson can get a bit repetitive. For example he dwells on General Patton's lack of supplies so often and uses almost the same sentences all the time. It is like he feels we forgot what he said a few pages before.
Rating:
Summary: What about Pericles? Why Sherman? How bout Ike?
Review: This is a great book. A wonderful account of three great liberators who smashed tyranny into the ground. But it seems flawed in that the author went out of his way to choose controversial generals when normal ones would have proved the same point. The Theban general could have been substituted by Pericles. Sherman could have been subsittuted by Grant and Patton subsittuted by Ike. But nonetheless this book explains how essential values of freedom and individualism have helped commanders defeat tyranny since the classical times. We could learn a lesson from this in our present war on terror. THe authors other books are a great reads as well.
| 
