What do you think?
Rate this book
Great Commanders of the Early Modern World 1583-1865
What qualities made the Duke of Wellington a strategic genius? How did Oliver Cromwell, a gentleman farmer create an army that overthrew a king and changed the course of British history? Why was Simón BolÃvar able to overcome early reverses to become the greatest figure in the Latin American struggle against Spanish colonialism?
The answers to these and a myriad other fascinating questions can be found in Great Commanders of the Early Modern World, a sumptuous chronological survey of the 25 greatest commanders of the early modern world. Compiled by an distinguished team of historians (including such names as Antonia Fraser, Saul David and Stephen Brumwell) working under the general editorship of Andrew Roberts, Great Commanders of the Early Modern World is an authoritative and beautifully illustrated account of the lives and careers of the 25 greatest military commanders of the period, from the Duke of Marlborough to Napoleon Bonaparte, from Robert Clive to Carl von Clausewitz, and from Frederick the Great to Shaka Zulu. 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 Early Modern 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 ancient, medieval 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 Early Modern World, a sumptuous chronological survey of the 25 greatest commanders of the early modern world. Compiled by an distinguished team of historians (including such names as Antonia Fraser, Saul David and Stephen Brumwell) working under the general editorship of Andrew Roberts, Great Commanders of the Early Modern World is an authoritative and beautifully illustrated account of the lives and careers of the 25 greatest military commanders of the period, from the Duke of Marlborough to Napoleon Bonaparte, from Robert Clive to Carl von Clausewitz, and from Frederick the Great to Shaka Zulu. 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 Early Modern 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 ancient, medieval and modern eras, it forms an indispensable guide to the greatest generals the world has seen.
432 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2011
About the author
Andrew Roberts
91 books1,589 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 - 8 of 8 reviews
June 24, 2021
Comprised of short chapters giving a brief overview/history of a varied mix of commanders from the introduction of gunpowder up to the American Civil war.
Each chapter is done by a different author with their own writing styles for better or for worse. While some are very well written and engaging, other chapters are a bit dull and make you wonder why the commanders in question are considered great.
I think this book is best done in a "pick and mix" approach where you read the chapters where the intro-synopsis of the commander draws you in to read it fully and skip any that don't peak your interest.
Each chapter is done by a different author with their own writing styles for better or for worse. While some are very well written and engaging, other chapters are a bit dull and make you wonder why the commanders in question are considered great.
I think this book is best done in a "pick and mix" approach where you read the chapters where the intro-synopsis of the commander draws you in to read it fully and skip any that don't peak your interest.
May 18, 2026
A fun, interesting, light read
June 11, 2025
The period of history covered in this volume saw a much more widespread use of gunpowder and the establishment of firearms as the primary class of infantry weapon. The importance of castles and fortified cities was drastically reduced, meaning that the art of war moved back to the open battlefield. The use of gunpowder on the battlefield, as musketry and artillery, also meant that topography became important as never before. The understanding of these factors became ever more significant to generalship, and is particularly evident in the careers of men like the Duke of Wellington.
Maurice of Nassau and Gustavus Adolphus open this collection, as they were responsible for reforming the armies of the Dutch Republic and Sweden, respectively. The tactics and organisational methods they pioneered were recognisably modern rather than medieval, and were soon adopted by armies across Western Europe. Gustavus Adolphus, in particular, stands out as a brave and toughened warrior, an astute statesman and a gifted commander.
A contemporary of both men was Oliver Cromwell, unique in that he had no proper military training nor any military experience at all until he was well over forty. Yet, as a general, he was effectively undefeated and undoubtedly changed the course of British history. While having no military experience, several factors in Cromwell's early life fitted him for his later role at the head of the parliamentary armies. As a politician, he had a strong territorial base of local support, and the New Model Army benefited from the cohesion between the local gentry and smaller landholders. He also had an evident skill for the leadership of men (with a heavy emphasis on discipline and an equivalent antipathy towards disorder) and an understanding of the importance of logistics.
Only eight years old when Cromwell died, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, is a military colossus. He is undoubtedly one of the finest generals Britain has produced, second only to Wellington. John Churchill, as he was, served his military apprenticeship in the Foot Guards and spent time serving under Marshal Turenne, who was one of Louis XIV's most able generals. Turenne taught the young Churchill the importance of infantry firepower, the effectiveness of employing artillery throughout a battle rather than merely as a prelude to it, and the desirability of seeking a decisive battle rather than marching from siege to siege. Following this, Churchill's reputation was established. He was a royal favourite and the architect of the victory at Sedgemoor, before being granted the earldom of Marlborough and later falling from grace under William III. Then, with the succession of Queen Anne and the outbreak of the War of Spanish Succession, he was again restored to royal favour. The battle of Blenheim stunned Europe as it was Louis XIV's first defeat in a sixty-year reign. It demonstrated the signature features of Marlborough's generalship: relentless pressure on the French line at a chosen point, which drew the enemy reserves to that sphere of the action, before delivering a body blow elsewhere. The battle also vindicated the methods Marlborough had instilled in his men through vigorous training. Infantry fire was delivered by platoon rather than in line, which led to more concentrated and controlled fusillades, resulting in heavier enemy casualties. Artillery was employed throughout the battle to rake the French formations with grapeshot, and Marlborough's cavalry tactics were also proved to be superior. He led a steady, focused charge to sweep the enemy from the field, relying on growing momentum and cold steel rather than firing pistols and carbines from horseback before wheeling away to reload. Finally, the campaign as a whole showed his logistical skill and his attention to the welfare of his men. Victories at Ramillies, Oudenarde and Malplaquet followed before peace was negotiated. Marlborough again fell afoul of royal whim and was subsequently dismissed before again being recalled by George I in 1714. Two years later, he suffered a massive stroke and eventually died in 1722 at the age of 72. Marlborough was a true military genius: cool-headed, resourceful and focused. His victories, which are the early battle honours of the British army, didn't occur by chance. They were forged through painstaking training, the unison and expertise demanded of all arms, meticulous logistics, and calm and decisive battlefield leadership. Blenheim was the British army's first continental victory since Agincourt, and along with his later victories, blocked Louis XIV's chances of becoming the emperor of Europe.
Charles XII of Sweden, "the Lion of the North," is a more controversial figure. While a bold leader and an astute tactician, his reign coincided with Sweden's decline as a great power. His victories tended to demonstrate two distinct qualities: Charles's opportunistic personal leadership and the exceptionally aggressive tactics employed by his army. These were calculated to dismay and overwhelm the enemy. His infantry poured in volleys of short-range musketry before charging home with bayonet and pike. At a time when other armies were abandoning the pike, pikemen remained an important component of Swedish infantry battalions. They also fought with a ruthlessness and ferocity that prefigured the Eastern Front of the Second World War. Combat was savage, prisoners were rarely taken, and brutal reprisals against civilians were common. The fighting between Swedes and Russians also had an ugly racial element. While his aggression ended in disaster for the Swedish Empire, Charles XII deserves recognition as an inspirational battlefield commander and a soldier whose leadership propped up an overstretched empire long after it should have collapsed.
Napoleon has, of course, gone down in history as one of the most successful generals of all time, a reputation that is well deserved. Over twenty years, he fought in eleven campaigns and personally conducted more than sixty battles, the vast majority of which he won. He defeated every other major European power except Britain, and at the height of his power in 1807 (when only 38), ruled over a territory comparable to that of Charlemagne. As well as being a general, Napoleon was one of the most successful politicians of all time and combined a skilful use of propaganda and reform to create a legacy that is still felt today. A single short chapter was always going to struggle to recount and analyse such a vast career and legacy, but Philip Dwyer makes a fair attempt. Interestingly, of all Napoleon's marshals, the one who is singled out here is Louis-Nicholas Davout. Where he shone was as a consistently professional, competent and just soldier, and as one of the most intelligent and educated of the marshals.
The chapter following that about Napoleon is dedicated to a particular hero of mine, and of many others, the Duke of Wellington. Despite passing the Catholic Emancipation Bill, Wellington was arguably one of Britain's worst prime ministers. However, he was unarguably her greatest ever general. Wellington fought and won sixty-two battles during a period of national peril, against a formidable continental power led by one of the greatest military captains the world has ever known.
Giuseppe Garibaldi was a precursor to the revolutionaries of the 20th Century, as he adapted and pioneered a new style of warfare. He recognised the weakness of his forces relative to those of established regimes and used passion and courage as a weapon to command and motivate untrained men against enemies superior in numbers and resources, while relying on mobility and surprise. These, with his use of publicity, fame and the press, were lessons that weren't lost on the generations of revolutionaries that followed.
The book ends with a cluster of chapters on American Civil War Generals: Robert E. Lee, 'Stonewall' Jackson, George Meade, Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman. Lee is the most interesting and was the most successful Confederate general, but an objective assessment of his abilities has always been difficult due to the encrustation of political and historical agendas attached to his name. John A. Barnes, writing this chapter on Lee, comes down more on the revisionist side as he concludes that Lee was a bold tactician but a deeply flawed strategist. He contends that Gettysburg, in particular, exposed all of Lee's major weaknesses as a commander: an excess of aggression, overly complex battle plans, a tendency to issue vague orders vulnerable to interpretation, and a curious refusal to take determined charge of the battlefield. The post-war interpretation was that Lee was a military genius, and the South was undone exclusively by the North's superior resources and manpower. Interestingly, British historians such as J. F. C. Fuller and Basil Liddell Hart penned much more critical portraits. Ultimately, while history is littered with examples of weaker powers defeating stronger ones, Lee was unable to devise a strategy for winning the war. With regards to Lee as a tactician, his direct Union opponents (apart from Grant) were mediocre commanders at best, and hardly yardsticks to measure greatness against. Jackson also had a huge influence on Lee, as Lee won every one of his victories with Jackson at his side. Lee's iconic status likely owes more to the political needs of the post-war South than to the actual value of his military record.
The others can be treated more briefly. Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson's main legacy is his 1862 'Valley Campaign,' which is still studied as an example of how a smaller, weaker army can have an impact out of all proportion to its size. George Meade was a competent professional soldier whose greatest achievement was winning the Battle of Gettysburg, thus affecting the entire outcome of the war. Grant was the Union's most able general, and bequeathed not only a united country poised on the cusp of world-power status, but a strategy and approach to war-fighting that remain the basic doctrine of the US Army to this day (a devotion to logistic mastery combined with speed, surprise and unmatched firepower). Sherman was second only to Grant among all the Union's generals. He clearly perceived the link between the fighting front and the home front, and by crippling the will of Southern civilians to continue waging war, he undercut Confederate military power and thereby contributed decisively to the Union victory. Mercifully, he did so without reviving the horrors of the Thirty Years War. Sherman was a strategist rather than a tactician, as he recognised key strategic objectives and how to obtain them, and by re-introducing the home front into the equation of war, he foreshadowed the total wars of the 20th Century.
While there was some variation in the quality of the chapters, overall this was an enjoyable and informative read, and worthwhile for students of military history. I will revisit the series to read the final volume on Great Commanders of the Modern World.
Maurice of Nassau and Gustavus Adolphus open this collection, as they were responsible for reforming the armies of the Dutch Republic and Sweden, respectively. The tactics and organisational methods they pioneered were recognisably modern rather than medieval, and were soon adopted by armies across Western Europe. Gustavus Adolphus, in particular, stands out as a brave and toughened warrior, an astute statesman and a gifted commander.
A contemporary of both men was Oliver Cromwell, unique in that he had no proper military training nor any military experience at all until he was well over forty. Yet, as a general, he was effectively undefeated and undoubtedly changed the course of British history. While having no military experience, several factors in Cromwell's early life fitted him for his later role at the head of the parliamentary armies. As a politician, he had a strong territorial base of local support, and the New Model Army benefited from the cohesion between the local gentry and smaller landholders. He also had an evident skill for the leadership of men (with a heavy emphasis on discipline and an equivalent antipathy towards disorder) and an understanding of the importance of logistics.
Only eight years old when Cromwell died, John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, is a military colossus. He is undoubtedly one of the finest generals Britain has produced, second only to Wellington. John Churchill, as he was, served his military apprenticeship in the Foot Guards and spent time serving under Marshal Turenne, who was one of Louis XIV's most able generals. Turenne taught the young Churchill the importance of infantry firepower, the effectiveness of employing artillery throughout a battle rather than merely as a prelude to it, and the desirability of seeking a decisive battle rather than marching from siege to siege. Following this, Churchill's reputation was established. He was a royal favourite and the architect of the victory at Sedgemoor, before being granted the earldom of Marlborough and later falling from grace under William III. Then, with the succession of Queen Anne and the outbreak of the War of Spanish Succession, he was again restored to royal favour. The battle of Blenheim stunned Europe as it was Louis XIV's first defeat in a sixty-year reign. It demonstrated the signature features of Marlborough's generalship: relentless pressure on the French line at a chosen point, which drew the enemy reserves to that sphere of the action, before delivering a body blow elsewhere. The battle also vindicated the methods Marlborough had instilled in his men through vigorous training. Infantry fire was delivered by platoon rather than in line, which led to more concentrated and controlled fusillades, resulting in heavier enemy casualties. Artillery was employed throughout the battle to rake the French formations with grapeshot, and Marlborough's cavalry tactics were also proved to be superior. He led a steady, focused charge to sweep the enemy from the field, relying on growing momentum and cold steel rather than firing pistols and carbines from horseback before wheeling away to reload. Finally, the campaign as a whole showed his logistical skill and his attention to the welfare of his men. Victories at Ramillies, Oudenarde and Malplaquet followed before peace was negotiated. Marlborough again fell afoul of royal whim and was subsequently dismissed before again being recalled by George I in 1714. Two years later, he suffered a massive stroke and eventually died in 1722 at the age of 72. Marlborough was a true military genius: cool-headed, resourceful and focused. His victories, which are the early battle honours of the British army, didn't occur by chance. They were forged through painstaking training, the unison and expertise demanded of all arms, meticulous logistics, and calm and decisive battlefield leadership. Blenheim was the British army's first continental victory since Agincourt, and along with his later victories, blocked Louis XIV's chances of becoming the emperor of Europe.
Charles XII of Sweden, "the Lion of the North," is a more controversial figure. While a bold leader and an astute tactician, his reign coincided with Sweden's decline as a great power. His victories tended to demonstrate two distinct qualities: Charles's opportunistic personal leadership and the exceptionally aggressive tactics employed by his army. These were calculated to dismay and overwhelm the enemy. His infantry poured in volleys of short-range musketry before charging home with bayonet and pike. At a time when other armies were abandoning the pike, pikemen remained an important component of Swedish infantry battalions. They also fought with a ruthlessness and ferocity that prefigured the Eastern Front of the Second World War. Combat was savage, prisoners were rarely taken, and brutal reprisals against civilians were common. The fighting between Swedes and Russians also had an ugly racial element. While his aggression ended in disaster for the Swedish Empire, Charles XII deserves recognition as an inspirational battlefield commander and a soldier whose leadership propped up an overstretched empire long after it should have collapsed.
Napoleon has, of course, gone down in history as one of the most successful generals of all time, a reputation that is well deserved. Over twenty years, he fought in eleven campaigns and personally conducted more than sixty battles, the vast majority of which he won. He defeated every other major European power except Britain, and at the height of his power in 1807 (when only 38), ruled over a territory comparable to that of Charlemagne. As well as being a general, Napoleon was one of the most successful politicians of all time and combined a skilful use of propaganda and reform to create a legacy that is still felt today. A single short chapter was always going to struggle to recount and analyse such a vast career and legacy, but Philip Dwyer makes a fair attempt. Interestingly, of all Napoleon's marshals, the one who is singled out here is Louis-Nicholas Davout. Where he shone was as a consistently professional, competent and just soldier, and as one of the most intelligent and educated of the marshals.
The chapter following that about Napoleon is dedicated to a particular hero of mine, and of many others, the Duke of Wellington. Despite passing the Catholic Emancipation Bill, Wellington was arguably one of Britain's worst prime ministers. However, he was unarguably her greatest ever general. Wellington fought and won sixty-two battles during a period of national peril, against a formidable continental power led by one of the greatest military captains the world has ever known.
Giuseppe Garibaldi was a precursor to the revolutionaries of the 20th Century, as he adapted and pioneered a new style of warfare. He recognised the weakness of his forces relative to those of established regimes and used passion and courage as a weapon to command and motivate untrained men against enemies superior in numbers and resources, while relying on mobility and surprise. These, with his use of publicity, fame and the press, were lessons that weren't lost on the generations of revolutionaries that followed.
The book ends with a cluster of chapters on American Civil War Generals: Robert E. Lee, 'Stonewall' Jackson, George Meade, Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman. Lee is the most interesting and was the most successful Confederate general, but an objective assessment of his abilities has always been difficult due to the encrustation of political and historical agendas attached to his name. John A. Barnes, writing this chapter on Lee, comes down more on the revisionist side as he concludes that Lee was a bold tactician but a deeply flawed strategist. He contends that Gettysburg, in particular, exposed all of Lee's major weaknesses as a commander: an excess of aggression, overly complex battle plans, a tendency to issue vague orders vulnerable to interpretation, and a curious refusal to take determined charge of the battlefield. The post-war interpretation was that Lee was a military genius, and the South was undone exclusively by the North's superior resources and manpower. Interestingly, British historians such as J. F. C. Fuller and Basil Liddell Hart penned much more critical portraits. Ultimately, while history is littered with examples of weaker powers defeating stronger ones, Lee was unable to devise a strategy for winning the war. With regards to Lee as a tactician, his direct Union opponents (apart from Grant) were mediocre commanders at best, and hardly yardsticks to measure greatness against. Jackson also had a huge influence on Lee, as Lee won every one of his victories with Jackson at his side. Lee's iconic status likely owes more to the political needs of the post-war South than to the actual value of his military record.
The others can be treated more briefly. Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson's main legacy is his 1862 'Valley Campaign,' which is still studied as an example of how a smaller, weaker army can have an impact out of all proportion to its size. George Meade was a competent professional soldier whose greatest achievement was winning the Battle of Gettysburg, thus affecting the entire outcome of the war. Grant was the Union's most able general, and bequeathed not only a united country poised on the cusp of world-power status, but a strategy and approach to war-fighting that remain the basic doctrine of the US Army to this day (a devotion to logistic mastery combined with speed, surprise and unmatched firepower). Sherman was second only to Grant among all the Union's generals. He clearly perceived the link between the fighting front and the home front, and by crippling the will of Southern civilians to continue waging war, he undercut Confederate military power and thereby contributed decisively to the Union victory. Mercifully, he did so without reviving the horrors of the Thirty Years War. Sherman was a strategist rather than a tactician, as he recognised key strategic objectives and how to obtain them, and by re-introducing the home front into the equation of war, he foreshadowed the total wars of the 20th Century.
While there was some variation in the quality of the chapters, overall this was an enjoyable and informative read, and worthwhile for students of military history. I will revisit the series to read the final volume on Great Commanders of the Modern World.
August 12, 2025
Great Commanders of the Early Modern World 1583–1865 is a book with an ambitious premise that ultimately falls short. The concept of profiling 25 great commanders from this pivotal period is a promising one, but the execution is deeply flawed. Rather than a cohesive narrative, the book is a collection of chapters written by different authors, resulting in a disjointed feel with wildly varying writing styles and levels of detail.
Despite covering a global time frame, the focus is overwhelmingly on British and American commanders. This narrows the scope and perspective, neglecting many significant military figures from other parts of the world. Additionally, the coverage of even the most famous commanders feels unequal; some figures like Napoleon receive surprisingly little attention, and pivotal battles such as the Battle of Assaye are glossed over.
I was initially confused by the inclusion of several commanders who didn't seem "great" at all. However, upon reflection, I believe the book's aim was to provide a critical assessment of each figure's life and career, showcasing their tactical and strategic gifts. While some profiles succeed in this, the overall effect is undermined by the uneven quality of the writing and the book's limited focus. Ultimately, for anyone seeking a comprehensive or balanced history of military leadership in this era, this book is skippable.
Despite covering a global time frame, the focus is overwhelmingly on British and American commanders. This narrows the scope and perspective, neglecting many significant military figures from other parts of the world. Additionally, the coverage of even the most famous commanders feels unequal; some figures like Napoleon receive surprisingly little attention, and pivotal battles such as the Battle of Assaye are glossed over.
I was initially confused by the inclusion of several commanders who didn't seem "great" at all. However, upon reflection, I believe the book's aim was to provide a critical assessment of each figure's life and career, showcasing their tactical and strategic gifts. While some profiles succeed in this, the overall effect is undermined by the uneven quality of the writing and the book's limited focus. Ultimately, for anyone seeking a comprehensive or balanced history of military leadership in this era, this book is skippable.
December 25, 2019
I LIKE THIS BOOK.
December 17, 2015
Interesting capsule (3-6 pages) of description about notable military commanders from the renaissance to the end of the US Civil war. Provides a useful overview without going into too much depth. For those that desire it, there is a further reading list at the end of the book.
December 21, 2013
Another valuable contribution to understanding the battles that made up the modern world and the commanders who fought them
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews