What do you think?
Rate this book
Great Commanders of the Ancient World 1479BC - 453AD
Which was the most brilliant of Hannibal's three crushing defeats of Roman armies? What tactics did Julius Caesar employ to defeat Pompey at Pharsalus? How was Alexander the Great able to command sufficient loyalty from his troops to lead them across half of the Asian landmass in search of new territories to conquer?
The answers to these and a myriad other fascinating questions can be found in Great Commanders of the Ancient World, a sumptuous chronological survey of the 50 greatest commanders of the ancient world. Compiled by an distinguished team of historians (including such names as Robin Lane Fox, Tom Holland and John Julius Norwich) working under the general editorship of Andrew Roberts, Great Commanders of the Ancient World is an authoritative and beautifully illustrated account of the lives and careers of the 25 greatest military commanders of the period, from Julius Caesar to Judas Maccabeus, from Sun Tzu to Scipio Africanus, and from Thucydides to Trajan. Every commander is profiled in a concise and informative 3000-word article which not only brings its subject vividly to life via a lively, fact-driven narrative, but also analyses and assesses his tactical and strategic gifts.
As accessible and informative as it is rigorous and scholarly, Great Commanders of the Ancient World is the perfect introduction to its subject for the layperson - but also a stimulating and thought-provoking read for those with greater knowledge of military history. With its companion volumes, focusing on the great commanders of the medieval, early modern and modern eras, it forms an indispensable guide to the greatest generals the world has seen.
The answers to these and a myriad other fascinating questions can be found in Great Commanders of the Ancient World, a sumptuous chronological survey of the 50 greatest commanders of the ancient world. Compiled by an distinguished team of historians (including such names as Robin Lane Fox, Tom Holland and John Julius Norwich) working under the general editorship of Andrew Roberts, Great Commanders of the Ancient World is an authoritative and beautifully illustrated account of the lives and careers of the 25 greatest military commanders of the period, from Julius Caesar to Judas Maccabeus, from Sun Tzu to Scipio Africanus, and from Thucydides to Trajan. Every commander is profiled in a concise and informative 3000-word article which not only brings its subject vividly to life via a lively, fact-driven narrative, but also analyses and assesses his tactical and strategic gifts.
As accessible and informative as it is rigorous and scholarly, Great Commanders of the Ancient World is the perfect introduction to its subject for the layperson - but also a stimulating and thought-provoking read for those with greater knowledge of military history. With its companion volumes, focusing on the great commanders of the medieval, early modern and modern eras, it forms an indispensable guide to the greatest generals the world has seen.
Paperback
First published September 1, 2008
9 people are currently reading
495 people want to read
About the author
Andrew Roberts
203 books1,482 followersDr Andrew Roberts, who was born in 1963, took a first class honours degree in Modern History at Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge, from where he is an honorary senior scholar and a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). He has written or edited twelve books, and appears regularly on radio and television around the world. Based in New York, he is an accomplished public speaker, and is represented by HarperCollins Speakers’ Bureau (See Speaking Engagements and Speaking Testimonials). He has recently lectured at Yale, Princeton and Stanford Universities and at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
June 4, 2025
This is an engaging, albeit very brief, look at some of the ancient world's greatest generals, and seeks to understand how one man could lead hundreds, thousands, or even millions. This is particularly interesting given that leadership in the ancient world was an intensely personal attribute, as leaders had to be physically present and visibly lead their men into battle. There was also much less distance between the military and the political; these men were by nature statesmen as well as generals.
The essays on two Egyptian warrior Pharaohs, Thutmose III and Rameses II, were fascinating, though inevitably and frustratingly short on detail, given how long ago they lived. Rameses II in particular is an intriguing character, with hints that he may have had more style than substance with regard to his military achievements, and was certainly an able self-promoter and propagandist.
The chapter on Joshua bin Nun was disappointing due to its hostile tone. The author is highly sceptical of the Bible, and not just its supernatural elements. For example, he trumpets the geographical weaknesses of the Biblical narrative due to the fact that Goshen is included in the list of towns and areas conquered by Joshua during his southern campaign, when we know that it is the name of the region in Egypt where the Israelites lived. Is the simplest explanation not that there was also a town/region by that name in Canaan? His description of Joshua as a miniature Genghis Khan was also somewhat amusing, completely failing to take account of the theological component of the conquest of Canaan; as well as a military conquest of the land for the Israelites, it was also God's judgement on a wicked people. It also seems bizarre to me to attempt to strip the Bible of its supernatural elements and to recapture the "real" or "historical" version of events; such an exercise is arbitrary at best, leaving behind a very dubious and bland narrative account, and ultimately saying more about the author's worldview than about what happened. The following essay on King David, by the same author, is similar, though slightly less hostile.
Tilgath Pilaser III was engagingly presented, as his incarnation of the Assyrian empire was both the first truly centralised empire in history (as opposed to being a confederation of vassal states), and had a fairly sophisticated system of military tactics, being the first to use a combined arms approach and so anticipating the later Greek and Roman military setup. It was also interesting to learn more about this superpower that lurks in the background of so much of the later history of Judah and Israel. The chapter on Cyrus the Great was similarly enjoyable, given his place in the Biblical narrative. His unprecedented rise to power and his essentially magnanimous and tolerant character both strike me as providential.
The chapters on Sun Tzu and Thucydides are a change of pace, as they focus less on their subjects' military achievements. Both were primarily significant for their writing on military theory, which was foundational to modern military thinking and much of which is still directly relevant today. Interestingly, many of their ideas have been adopted by modern business and self-improvement writers, which says much about the times we live in.
The lives of Leonidas and Themistocles parallel closely, and read like a Greek tragedy; one, an autocratic king who died in a glorious defeat and is now the stuff of legend, the other a democratic statesman who won a stunning victory only to be cast aside by the very city he saved, died by suicide in exile, and who is now probably little known outside university ancient history departments. Again, these chapters provide an adequate introduction to their subject by summarising long-running and complex historical events, and whet the appetite to learn more about the Greco-Persian Wars. There is something very appealing, and quite romantic, about little democratic Greek city states taking on and defeating the massive Persian Empire, and I don't think it's an exaggeration to describe these events as epochal in European history.
Next comes a cluster of chapters on some of the most intriguing characters from the ancient world. Alcibiades fascinates me, with his combination of charisma, pragmatism and opportunism, and the incredibly unlikely trajectory of his career amidst the chaos engulfing Greece at the time. I want to read more, both about his life and about the Peloponnesian War in general. An excellent fictional portrayal of his life is "The Tides of War" by Steven Pressfield, which I enjoyed immensely when I read it. Similarly, Xenophon had a career that we would think to be incredibly unlikely if we didn't know it to be true. As a man and as a leader, I think he is truly admirable, and his theory of leadership as essentially self-sacrificial is particularly noteworthy. In contrast, Philip of Macedon strikes me as a larger-than-life character, but one who was a talented and shrewd strategist and tactician. He also transformed and modernised both the Macedonian state and military, so laying the foundations for Alexander's later conquests.
Alexander stands apart in this list of greats, and while his achievements were truly unprecedented, it was helpful to be reminded by the preceding essays that he didn't appear from nowhere. Phillip's earlier conquests and reforms, Greece's weakness after the Peloponnesian War, and Persia's increasing decadence all provided the context for Alexander's success. The essay on Alexander himself provides a very bright sketch of his conquests and was a helpful reminder of his skill as a general, with his grasp of space and the potential of terrain, and his ability to concentrate force to defeat a numerically superior enemy.
Hannibal and Scipio Africanus are two more lives lived in parallel, and both were tinged with tragedy. Hannibal was undoubtedly a great general and defeated the Romans time and again, but was unable to achieve a final strategic victory, and was eventually defeated by Scipio himself, saw his beloved Carthage humbled, and died by suicide in exile. Scipio, on the other hand, survived all Rome's defeats and led the army that defeated Hannibal, only to lose the peace by getting embroiled in a political scandal and leaving public life to die in relative obscurity.
The next cluster of chapters spans 400 years, and mostly features either Romans (Pompey, Julius Caesar, Trajan) or those fighting against them (Arminius, Alaric I). The two exceptions are Zhuge Liang and Judah Maccabeus. The former was a Chinese general during an extremely complex period of imperial decline - unfortunately, the chapter was only indifferently written. The chapter on Maccabeus, on the other hand, was excellent and provided a great introduction to the Maccabean revolt against the ruling Seleucid empire and the establishment of the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom - the last period of Jewish independence for more than two thousand years. Pompey and Caesar are well known, and the two chapters on them provided a competent introduction to the end of the Roman Republic. It was fascinating to see the contrast between the blustering yet cautious Pompey and the ruthless, aggressive gambler that was Julius Caesar, but alike in that they are both pretty unlikeable. Arminius and Alaric are two men I knew virtually nothing about before reading this. Arminius fought against a Rome that was at the peak of her imperial powers, and inflicted the worst military disaster Rome ever suffered, halting imperial pretensions East of the Rhine. Like so many others whose lives are recounted here, he won militarily only to fall from power: after trying to establish himself as king, he was denounced as yet another oppressor and murdered. Alaric strikes me as a fairly sympathetic character. He faced a Rome that was declining, but wasn't a destructive conqueror set on carving out an empire; he was very restrained, and said to have been primarily concerned for his people's future, seeking a long-term political settlement with Rome. Finally, Trajan was the last emperor to expand the empire, and while he was undoubtedly a great general, his life is again tinged with futility as the empire started to contract immediately following his death. Also noteworthy is the fact that he consciously saw himself as emulating Alexander the Great's achievements.
The last two chapters are, again, two lives lived in parallel. Aetius was the last great general of the Western Roman Empire, and Attila is perhaps the best known of Rome's enemies. Ironically, Aetius's successes were only made possible by Hun mercenaries, and his final plan to restore Rome's fortunes by retaking Carthage was thwarted by the Hunnish invasion of the Balkans. Yet another tragic end for poor Aetius: he was murdered by the emperor, after which the Western Roman Empire entered its final decline. Meanwhile, Attila took advantage of the weakness of the late Roman Empire to spread death and destruction across a wide swathe of Europe, relieved the Romans of a vast amount of treasure, but didn't achieve anything lasting. His empire collapsed swiftly following his death, and within a century, the Huns had disappeared as a separate people.
The biggest impression this book left on me is the futility of most of our efforts at greatness, and the fragility of human life and successes. Most of these men died violently, or at least prematurely, and most of their achievements rapidly crumbled to dust. I repeatedly found myself echoing Solomon, "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity. What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun?" Still, it was enjoyable as an introduction to some very interesting personalities and periods of history.
The essays on two Egyptian warrior Pharaohs, Thutmose III and Rameses II, were fascinating, though inevitably and frustratingly short on detail, given how long ago they lived. Rameses II in particular is an intriguing character, with hints that he may have had more style than substance with regard to his military achievements, and was certainly an able self-promoter and propagandist.
The chapter on Joshua bin Nun was disappointing due to its hostile tone. The author is highly sceptical of the Bible, and not just its supernatural elements. For example, he trumpets the geographical weaknesses of the Biblical narrative due to the fact that Goshen is included in the list of towns and areas conquered by Joshua during his southern campaign, when we know that it is the name of the region in Egypt where the Israelites lived. Is the simplest explanation not that there was also a town/region by that name in Canaan? His description of Joshua as a miniature Genghis Khan was also somewhat amusing, completely failing to take account of the theological component of the conquest of Canaan; as well as a military conquest of the land for the Israelites, it was also God's judgement on a wicked people. It also seems bizarre to me to attempt to strip the Bible of its supernatural elements and to recapture the "real" or "historical" version of events; such an exercise is arbitrary at best, leaving behind a very dubious and bland narrative account, and ultimately saying more about the author's worldview than about what happened. The following essay on King David, by the same author, is similar, though slightly less hostile.
Tilgath Pilaser III was engagingly presented, as his incarnation of the Assyrian empire was both the first truly centralised empire in history (as opposed to being a confederation of vassal states), and had a fairly sophisticated system of military tactics, being the first to use a combined arms approach and so anticipating the later Greek and Roman military setup. It was also interesting to learn more about this superpower that lurks in the background of so much of the later history of Judah and Israel. The chapter on Cyrus the Great was similarly enjoyable, given his place in the Biblical narrative. His unprecedented rise to power and his essentially magnanimous and tolerant character both strike me as providential.
The chapters on Sun Tzu and Thucydides are a change of pace, as they focus less on their subjects' military achievements. Both were primarily significant for their writing on military theory, which was foundational to modern military thinking and much of which is still directly relevant today. Interestingly, many of their ideas have been adopted by modern business and self-improvement writers, which says much about the times we live in.
The lives of Leonidas and Themistocles parallel closely, and read like a Greek tragedy; one, an autocratic king who died in a glorious defeat and is now the stuff of legend, the other a democratic statesman who won a stunning victory only to be cast aside by the very city he saved, died by suicide in exile, and who is now probably little known outside university ancient history departments. Again, these chapters provide an adequate introduction to their subject by summarising long-running and complex historical events, and whet the appetite to learn more about the Greco-Persian Wars. There is something very appealing, and quite romantic, about little democratic Greek city states taking on and defeating the massive Persian Empire, and I don't think it's an exaggeration to describe these events as epochal in European history.
Next comes a cluster of chapters on some of the most intriguing characters from the ancient world. Alcibiades fascinates me, with his combination of charisma, pragmatism and opportunism, and the incredibly unlikely trajectory of his career amidst the chaos engulfing Greece at the time. I want to read more, both about his life and about the Peloponnesian War in general. An excellent fictional portrayal of his life is "The Tides of War" by Steven Pressfield, which I enjoyed immensely when I read it. Similarly, Xenophon had a career that we would think to be incredibly unlikely if we didn't know it to be true. As a man and as a leader, I think he is truly admirable, and his theory of leadership as essentially self-sacrificial is particularly noteworthy. In contrast, Philip of Macedon strikes me as a larger-than-life character, but one who was a talented and shrewd strategist and tactician. He also transformed and modernised both the Macedonian state and military, so laying the foundations for Alexander's later conquests.
Alexander stands apart in this list of greats, and while his achievements were truly unprecedented, it was helpful to be reminded by the preceding essays that he didn't appear from nowhere. Phillip's earlier conquests and reforms, Greece's weakness after the Peloponnesian War, and Persia's increasing decadence all provided the context for Alexander's success. The essay on Alexander himself provides a very bright sketch of his conquests and was a helpful reminder of his skill as a general, with his grasp of space and the potential of terrain, and his ability to concentrate force to defeat a numerically superior enemy.
Hannibal and Scipio Africanus are two more lives lived in parallel, and both were tinged with tragedy. Hannibal was undoubtedly a great general and defeated the Romans time and again, but was unable to achieve a final strategic victory, and was eventually defeated by Scipio himself, saw his beloved Carthage humbled, and died by suicide in exile. Scipio, on the other hand, survived all Rome's defeats and led the army that defeated Hannibal, only to lose the peace by getting embroiled in a political scandal and leaving public life to die in relative obscurity.
The next cluster of chapters spans 400 years, and mostly features either Romans (Pompey, Julius Caesar, Trajan) or those fighting against them (Arminius, Alaric I). The two exceptions are Zhuge Liang and Judah Maccabeus. The former was a Chinese general during an extremely complex period of imperial decline - unfortunately, the chapter was only indifferently written. The chapter on Maccabeus, on the other hand, was excellent and provided a great introduction to the Maccabean revolt against the ruling Seleucid empire and the establishment of the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom - the last period of Jewish independence for more than two thousand years. Pompey and Caesar are well known, and the two chapters on them provided a competent introduction to the end of the Roman Republic. It was fascinating to see the contrast between the blustering yet cautious Pompey and the ruthless, aggressive gambler that was Julius Caesar, but alike in that they are both pretty unlikeable. Arminius and Alaric are two men I knew virtually nothing about before reading this. Arminius fought against a Rome that was at the peak of her imperial powers, and inflicted the worst military disaster Rome ever suffered, halting imperial pretensions East of the Rhine. Like so many others whose lives are recounted here, he won militarily only to fall from power: after trying to establish himself as king, he was denounced as yet another oppressor and murdered. Alaric strikes me as a fairly sympathetic character. He faced a Rome that was declining, but wasn't a destructive conqueror set on carving out an empire; he was very restrained, and said to have been primarily concerned for his people's future, seeking a long-term political settlement with Rome. Finally, Trajan was the last emperor to expand the empire, and while he was undoubtedly a great general, his life is again tinged with futility as the empire started to contract immediately following his death. Also noteworthy is the fact that he consciously saw himself as emulating Alexander the Great's achievements.
The last two chapters are, again, two lives lived in parallel. Aetius was the last great general of the Western Roman Empire, and Attila is perhaps the best known of Rome's enemies. Ironically, Aetius's successes were only made possible by Hun mercenaries, and his final plan to restore Rome's fortunes by retaking Carthage was thwarted by the Hunnish invasion of the Balkans. Yet another tragic end for poor Aetius: he was murdered by the emperor, after which the Western Roman Empire entered its final decline. Meanwhile, Attila took advantage of the weakness of the late Roman Empire to spread death and destruction across a wide swathe of Europe, relieved the Romans of a vast amount of treasure, but didn't achieve anything lasting. His empire collapsed swiftly following his death, and within a century, the Huns had disappeared as a separate people.
The biggest impression this book left on me is the futility of most of our efforts at greatness, and the fragility of human life and successes. Most of these men died violently, or at least prematurely, and most of their achievements rapidly crumbled to dust. I repeatedly found myself echoing Solomon, "Vanity of vanities! All is vanity. What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun?" Still, it was enjoyable as an introduction to some very interesting personalities and periods of history.
March 21, 2017
This was a good overview of numerous ancient commanders. I wish I had a map to go a long with each chapter, as a there are a lot of descriptions of places.
One of these days I will find a book that lists female rulers (I love Hatsheptsut and thanks for this book for introducing me to Galla Placidia)
One of these days I will find a book that lists female rulers (I love Hatsheptsut and thanks for this book for introducing me to Galla Placidia)
August 20, 2023
Karışık ve akıcı olmayan bir dilde yazılmış.
Seçimler ve komutanların başarıları konusunda anlatımı yetersiz buldum.
Seçimler ve komutanların başarıları konusunda anlatımı yetersiz buldum.
June 7, 2018
- Chapters 3 n 4 r like as u reading fantasy.
-No place fr Augustus nd many more great than Thucydides.
Why Thucydides is in list he was historian not a great commander. Herodotus nd Homer also deserve place in list if Thucydides.
-No place fr Augustus nd many more great than Thucydides.
Why Thucydides is in list he was historian not a great commander. Herodotus nd Homer also deserve place in list if Thucydides.
May 3, 2012
It has something like 350 pages, but I read it within two days without really concentrating on reading it. It gives 14 to 15 pages per commander, so the level of detail and information is quite vague, but as an itroduction for each of the commanders it does a really good job.
August 28, 2015
An easy to read history which provides a wide range of military figures without too much depth.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews