What do you think?
Rate this book
Warriors, Rebels and Saints: The Art of Leadership from Machiavelli to Malcolm X
Do leaders make history or does history make leaders? A deep dive into how we define, seek and become leaders.
We live in a period of leadership in crisis. At home, we sense that unqualified and irresponsible individuals are being elevated to positions of power, while across the globe, strong men leaders consolidate their hold on governance. How have we arrived at this point? And how can we correct our course?
For the past decade, Moshik Temkin has challenged his students at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government to grapple with the nature of leadership throughout history as part of his wildly popular course "On Leaders and Leadership." Now, in Warriors, Rebels and Saints, Temkin refashions the classroom for a wider audience.
Using art and literature to illustrate the drama of the past, Temkin considers how leaders have made decisions in the most difficult circumstances—from the dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo and the anticolonial wars of the 20th century to the civil rights movement and the horrors of the Vietnam War—and how we can evaluate those decisions and draw lessons for today.
We live in a period of leadership in crisis. At home, we sense that unqualified and irresponsible individuals are being elevated to positions of power, while across the globe, strong men leaders consolidate their hold on governance. How have we arrived at this point? And how can we correct our course?
For the past decade, Moshik Temkin has challenged his students at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government to grapple with the nature of leadership throughout history as part of his wildly popular course "On Leaders and Leadership." Now, in Warriors, Rebels and Saints, Temkin refashions the classroom for a wider audience.
Using art and literature to illustrate the drama of the past, Temkin considers how leaders have made decisions in the most difficult circumstances—from the dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo and the anticolonial wars of the 20th century to the civil rights movement and the horrors of the Vietnam War—and how we can evaluate those decisions and draw lessons for today.
320 pages, Hardcover
Published November 30, 2023
32 people are currently reading
385 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
January 7, 2024
Professor Temkin once again ignites thoughtful reflection, much like he did during his Harvard class I attended in 2014. His approach compels us to view historical leaders through an analytical lens, focusing on their motivations, styles, and impacts, rather than solely on their ideologies or causes.
Revisiting his teachings through this book felt like a refreshing return to the classroom. It's like peering through a skylight, gaining insights into what constitutes effective leadership and the influence leaders have on their world. The book prompts the intriguing question: do leaders shape history, or does history shape leaders? While the answer may remain elusive, Professor Temkin's critical examination of historical leadership is a fascinating and enlightening journey into the essence of what makes a leader truly great. His book is a poignant reminder of the valuable lessons and discussions from his classroom. Thank you, Professor Temkin, for this enlightening reconnection with your teachings!
Revisiting his teachings through this book felt like a refreshing return to the classroom. It's like peering through a skylight, gaining insights into what constitutes effective leadership and the influence leaders have on their world. The book prompts the intriguing question: do leaders shape history, or does history shape leaders? While the answer may remain elusive, Professor Temkin's critical examination of historical leadership is a fascinating and enlightening journey into the essence of what makes a leader truly great. His book is a poignant reminder of the valuable lessons and discussions from his classroom. Thank you, Professor Temkin, for this enlightening reconnection with your teachings!
July 31, 2024
Worth reading to better understand political nuances of yesterday and today.
May 21, 2025
As George Santayana once said, “those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it”. Thus, learning leadership from the past is part of enlightenment. The book Warriors, Rebels and Saints: The Art of Leadership from Machiavelli to Malcolm X is a book that focuses on the leadership of people throughout history. Written by Moshik Temkin, the book attempts to outline the qualities of good leadership. Focusing almost entirely on 20th-century leadership, the book examines what makes a good leader from different leaders of the 20th century.
The book starts with the basic theories of leadership. Temkin looks at two competing ideas of how leadership is made in this. There is the Machiavellian view, where leaders are self-made by acting decisively in their self-interest towards a strategic goal. Contrasting this is the Marxist view, where leaders are created in circumstances not of their own making. To this end, I would say I lean more toward the Marxist view of leadership. Too often, leaders are meant to be able to lead beyond all odds. But I digress
There are lots of case studies that this book goes over. It looks at the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who is contrasted with Herbert Hoover as being aristocratic, but was known for his ability to generate a presentation that he was able to lead. The book analyses World War 2’s leadership and how leadership from different parts of society was critical in victory for the Allies. There was a section on Women’s Suffrage and labour movements. There was an analysis of authoritarianism under Trujillo in Puerto Rico and Vichy France. Decolonisation was examined as how enemies are used by leaders to gain power. The last chapter studied Thatcherism versus Malcolm X, which is a juxtaposition of leaders. Margaret Thatcher was depicted as a highly polarising figure who destroyed one part of society to save the other.
Of the criticisms of this book, I would say one of the things that I disliked most about the book is its bias towards focusing on American leaders and 20th-century leaders. There were no leaders looked at before the 20th century, and the only chapter that mentioned other centuries was Chapter 1, which looked at aspects of leadership in the Bible, Machiavelli and Marx. Other than that, the book is entirely focused on the 20th century. Whilst that may be good for sales, the book lacks depth in analysing the entirety of what makes good leaders. I also found that there was less focus on leaders outside of the American context. Of the eight chapters in this book, six mention either leaders from the USA or leaders heavily influenced by the USA. There is only a small section of the book focusing on non-Western leaders. There could have been something on leaders from the 18th and 19th centuries, but there isn’t. The book, therefore, shouldn’t insinuate that it looks at leaders from Machiavelli to Malcolm X, as 87.5 per cent of the book looks at the 20th century.
I also don’t think the book looked at why democratic leadership is better than, say, Fascism or Communism. There is not a single entry in the book on socialism, although the book does look over Communism versus Capitalism, which I have come to believe in as too binary for understanding history. There was nothing like Fukuyama’s End of History thesis as to why capitalism prevailed over Communism. It would have been good to look at why certain leaders were more successful than others.
Despite all of its faults, the book is an interesting look at leadership. It gives good examples of what it takes to lead and what qualities make a good leader. A solid book on leadership qualities in the 20th century.
The book starts with the basic theories of leadership. Temkin looks at two competing ideas of how leadership is made in this. There is the Machiavellian view, where leaders are self-made by acting decisively in their self-interest towards a strategic goal. Contrasting this is the Marxist view, where leaders are created in circumstances not of their own making. To this end, I would say I lean more toward the Marxist view of leadership. Too often, leaders are meant to be able to lead beyond all odds. But I digress
There are lots of case studies that this book goes over. It looks at the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who is contrasted with Herbert Hoover as being aristocratic, but was known for his ability to generate a presentation that he was able to lead. The book analyses World War 2’s leadership and how leadership from different parts of society was critical in victory for the Allies. There was a section on Women’s Suffrage and labour movements. There was an analysis of authoritarianism under Trujillo in Puerto Rico and Vichy France. Decolonisation was examined as how enemies are used by leaders to gain power. The last chapter studied Thatcherism versus Malcolm X, which is a juxtaposition of leaders. Margaret Thatcher was depicted as a highly polarising figure who destroyed one part of society to save the other.
Of the criticisms of this book, I would say one of the things that I disliked most about the book is its bias towards focusing on American leaders and 20th-century leaders. There were no leaders looked at before the 20th century, and the only chapter that mentioned other centuries was Chapter 1, which looked at aspects of leadership in the Bible, Machiavelli and Marx. Other than that, the book is entirely focused on the 20th century. Whilst that may be good for sales, the book lacks depth in analysing the entirety of what makes good leaders. I also found that there was less focus on leaders outside of the American context. Of the eight chapters in this book, six mention either leaders from the USA or leaders heavily influenced by the USA. There is only a small section of the book focusing on non-Western leaders. There could have been something on leaders from the 18th and 19th centuries, but there isn’t. The book, therefore, shouldn’t insinuate that it looks at leaders from Machiavelli to Malcolm X, as 87.5 per cent of the book looks at the 20th century.
I also don’t think the book looked at why democratic leadership is better than, say, Fascism or Communism. There is not a single entry in the book on socialism, although the book does look over Communism versus Capitalism, which I have come to believe in as too binary for understanding history. There was nothing like Fukuyama’s End of History thesis as to why capitalism prevailed over Communism. It would have been good to look at why certain leaders were more successful than others.
Despite all of its faults, the book is an interesting look at leadership. It gives good examples of what it takes to lead and what qualities make a good leader. A solid book on leadership qualities in the 20th century.
January 20, 2024
An indelible memory from my early teen years: huge stacks of overflowing black bin bags rising around London. The rat-gnawed heaps were the debris of a refuse collectors’ strike beginning in early 1979 during the “Winter of Discontent,” which included strikes by gravediggers and road-hauliers. The misery of the winter played a significant role in Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Party victory in May, 1979.
As Prime Minister, Thatcher led the UK for the next 11 years, eviscerating trades unions; privatizing public services; dispatching a naval force to the distant Falkland Islands; resisting sanctions against apartheid-era South Africa; embracing so-called “trickle-down economics”; and pushing to break up Britain’s welfare state.
Thatcher pops up like a bad fairy in the final chapter of Moshik Temkin’s fascinating book, “Warriors, Rebels & Saints.” Temkin, a historian and faculty affiliate at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, asks whether leaders make history, or the reverse: does history make leaders?
The debate veers between Machiavelli, who believed that leaders make (and overcome) history; and Karl Marx, who wrote, “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; [...] but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.”
“Any cursory look at history shows that truly important leaders emerge in times of crisis,” Temkin writes. Thatcher, “probably the most influential political leader of her generation,” emerged during such a crisis, although her legacy is dubious. In an obsequious 1987 interview with Women’s Own magazine, she claimed that “there is no such thing as society,” only “individual men and women and there are families.”
This notion not only caught on, Temkin notes: “in many ways, it governs our world.” Many people nowadays “are hostile to the idea of solidarity and the notion of common good, believing that such things will come at their expense and represent a potential form of totalitarianism.”
But not every such transformational leader wields political power. Warriors, Rebels & Saints intrigues the reader because, for the most part, Temkin eschews the usual suspects: Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Bill Gates. Instead, he focuses on “warriors” who help liberate their people; “rebels” who fight a corrupt dictatorship; and “saints,” who display selfless virtue.
Thus we meet Clara Lemlich (a Ukrainian Jewish immigrant whose family escaped pogroms) and Leonora O’Reilly (a child of Irish immigrants who had escaped the Great Famine). In early 20th-century New York, these two warriors fought for factory workers’ rights and better wages; and, after the catastrophic Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of March 25, 1911--in which 146 workers, mostly women, died--for women’s suffrage too.
We learn about Mahatma Gandhi, whom many see as a saint, but also, significantly, about Bhimrao Ramji (B.R.) Ambedkar, a rebel who was born into the “untouchable” (Dalit) Hindu caste in 1891 in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh. Unlike Gandhi, who believed--and gave his life for--the idea that all people of India, of all religions and backgrounds, were part of the same nation, B.R. Ambedkar saw his people as victims of hideous oppression.
After India became independent, in 1947, Ambedkar “helped write a national constitution that guaranteed democratic protections and shunned the practice of caste,” Temkin writes. “But caste was never annihilated,” as Ambedkar had insisted. While eradicated in law, “the practice continued (and continues today.)”
Temkin focusses extensively on President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, designed to put American workers to work during the 1930s Depression. The New Deal, “which completely transformed the country’s social tapestry, economy, infrastructure, and physical landscape,” was vociferously opposed by “free-market” ideologues as well as the then-conservative Supreme Court, which ruled that key New Deal measures, for example, minimum wage laws, were “unconstitutional.”
Roosevelt fought back, introducing a bill to add up to six additional justices to the court. Roosevelt saw the role of leader in a democracy as “carry[ing] out the policies that the people voted in favor of,” Temkin writes. At the time, “Americans were struggling. Many were starving. They were overwhelmingly in support of the New Deal.” As it turned out, the Supreme Court caved.
Moshik Temkin writes beautifully and his prose is very readable, avoiding dense academese. I was so fascinated by his arguments and unusual, eye-opening examples of leadership that I read his book in just a few days.
Most of all, I liked his off-beat approach to the subject, where leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr., emerge not just as the “safe, palatable family-friendly icon for everybody, another reason for Americans to go shopping,” on the January holiday that celebrates his birthday, but as a political radical who was murdered in Memphis in 1968 while helping the city’s Black sanitation workers in their labour struggle. Today he is a hero, but while King was alive, he was treated as a criminal, arrested and jailed 29 times, once for “loitering outside a courtroom.”
In his 1963 Letter from Birmingham Jail, “one of the great political texts in American history,” MLK wrote that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.”
That assertion - that we are bound together “in an inescapable network of mutuality,” is “an uncomfortable truth,” Temkin writes, that confounds Thatcher’s assertion that there is “no such thing as society.”
In a time of climate crisis, poverty and homelessness, financial and political corruption, horrific wars in Ukraine and Gaza, we continue to need leaders who recognize that “network of mutuality” on which we all depend, and not the crass heartlessness of leaders like Margaret Thatcher and her ilk.
As Prime Minister, Thatcher led the UK for the next 11 years, eviscerating trades unions; privatizing public services; dispatching a naval force to the distant Falkland Islands; resisting sanctions against apartheid-era South Africa; embracing so-called “trickle-down economics”; and pushing to break up Britain’s welfare state.
Thatcher pops up like a bad fairy in the final chapter of Moshik Temkin’s fascinating book, “Warriors, Rebels & Saints.” Temkin, a historian and faculty affiliate at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, asks whether leaders make history, or the reverse: does history make leaders?
The debate veers between Machiavelli, who believed that leaders make (and overcome) history; and Karl Marx, who wrote, “Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; [...] but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.”
“Any cursory look at history shows that truly important leaders emerge in times of crisis,” Temkin writes. Thatcher, “probably the most influential political leader of her generation,” emerged during such a crisis, although her legacy is dubious. In an obsequious 1987 interview with Women’s Own magazine, she claimed that “there is no such thing as society,” only “individual men and women and there are families.”
This notion not only caught on, Temkin notes: “in many ways, it governs our world.” Many people nowadays “are hostile to the idea of solidarity and the notion of common good, believing that such things will come at their expense and represent a potential form of totalitarianism.”
But not every such transformational leader wields political power. Warriors, Rebels & Saints intrigues the reader because, for the most part, Temkin eschews the usual suspects: Winston Churchill, Abraham Lincoln, Bill Gates. Instead, he focuses on “warriors” who help liberate their people; “rebels” who fight a corrupt dictatorship; and “saints,” who display selfless virtue.
Thus we meet Clara Lemlich (a Ukrainian Jewish immigrant whose family escaped pogroms) and Leonora O’Reilly (a child of Irish immigrants who had escaped the Great Famine). In early 20th-century New York, these two warriors fought for factory workers’ rights and better wages; and, after the catastrophic Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of March 25, 1911--in which 146 workers, mostly women, died--for women’s suffrage too.
We learn about Mahatma Gandhi, whom many see as a saint, but also, significantly, about Bhimrao Ramji (B.R.) Ambedkar, a rebel who was born into the “untouchable” (Dalit) Hindu caste in 1891 in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh. Unlike Gandhi, who believed--and gave his life for--the idea that all people of India, of all religions and backgrounds, were part of the same nation, B.R. Ambedkar saw his people as victims of hideous oppression.
After India became independent, in 1947, Ambedkar “helped write a national constitution that guaranteed democratic protections and shunned the practice of caste,” Temkin writes. “But caste was never annihilated,” as Ambedkar had insisted. While eradicated in law, “the practice continued (and continues today.)”
Temkin focusses extensively on President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, designed to put American workers to work during the 1930s Depression. The New Deal, “which completely transformed the country’s social tapestry, economy, infrastructure, and physical landscape,” was vociferously opposed by “free-market” ideologues as well as the then-conservative Supreme Court, which ruled that key New Deal measures, for example, minimum wage laws, were “unconstitutional.”
Roosevelt fought back, introducing a bill to add up to six additional justices to the court. Roosevelt saw the role of leader in a democracy as “carry[ing] out the policies that the people voted in favor of,” Temkin writes. At the time, “Americans were struggling. Many were starving. They were overwhelmingly in support of the New Deal.” As it turned out, the Supreme Court caved.
Moshik Temkin writes beautifully and his prose is very readable, avoiding dense academese. I was so fascinated by his arguments and unusual, eye-opening examples of leadership that I read his book in just a few days.
Most of all, I liked his off-beat approach to the subject, where leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr., emerge not just as the “safe, palatable family-friendly icon for everybody, another reason for Americans to go shopping,” on the January holiday that celebrates his birthday, but as a political radical who was murdered in Memphis in 1968 while helping the city’s Black sanitation workers in their labour struggle. Today he is a hero, but while King was alive, he was treated as a criminal, arrested and jailed 29 times, once for “loitering outside a courtroom.”
In his 1963 Letter from Birmingham Jail, “one of the great political texts in American history,” MLK wrote that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.”
That assertion - that we are bound together “in an inescapable network of mutuality,” is “an uncomfortable truth,” Temkin writes, that confounds Thatcher’s assertion that there is “no such thing as society.”
In a time of climate crisis, poverty and homelessness, financial and political corruption, horrific wars in Ukraine and Gaza, we continue to need leaders who recognize that “network of mutuality” on which we all depend, and not the crass heartlessness of leaders like Margaret Thatcher and her ilk.
January 6, 2024
With the current state of the world right now, it’s clear that the need for strong leadership has never been more important. As I stumbled upon the leadership book of Moshik Temkin, who is a history professor, his book Warriors, Rebels & Saints takes a stance on the value of leadership from Biblical times to historical epochs to up till now.
The book has its core narrative streak in the realms of history. From historical events and dates, the author tried to study leadership traits. As I chugged ahead with its content, I was fumbled to grasp that history is neither shallow nor luminous, it is rather dark and smeared with controversial labels on leadership.
Right at the first chapter, Moshik Temkin engages readers with stories of Uriah and David – they are considered sacred – but the lust and greed of the latter raises the morality of that time as how one with power engaged and how one without got immolated. Indeed history is full of dark moments. As further the book shifts focus on two contrasting models: Machiavelli and Marx. The Machiavelli concept assumes that leaders make history. While Marx believes that history makes leaders. The author explains both ideologies with relevant examples and references.
One aspect that I liked about leadership from the history is the motive to support their people, whether it is done by a fighter, saint, or rebel – people identify and choose their leaders accordingly. The book’s narrative will make you understand the true value and nature of genuine and great leadership, irrespective of any time. Written like a historical fiction, this book is a fantastic resource for anyone aspiring to take on a leadership role by understanding its true nature and value and other defining terms.
The book has its core narrative streak in the realms of history. From historical events and dates, the author tried to study leadership traits. As I chugged ahead with its content, I was fumbled to grasp that history is neither shallow nor luminous, it is rather dark and smeared with controversial labels on leadership.
Right at the first chapter, Moshik Temkin engages readers with stories of Uriah and David – they are considered sacred – but the lust and greed of the latter raises the morality of that time as how one with power engaged and how one without got immolated. Indeed history is full of dark moments. As further the book shifts focus on two contrasting models: Machiavelli and Marx. The Machiavelli concept assumes that leaders make history. While Marx believes that history makes leaders. The author explains both ideologies with relevant examples and references.
One aspect that I liked about leadership from the history is the motive to support their people, whether it is done by a fighter, saint, or rebel – people identify and choose their leaders accordingly. The book’s narrative will make you understand the true value and nature of genuine and great leadership, irrespective of any time. Written like a historical fiction, this book is a fantastic resource for anyone aspiring to take on a leadership role by understanding its true nature and value and other defining terms.
November 3, 2025
The book is an okay read that explores leadership through the stories of different figures across time and nations. The book weaves together examples from politics, history, and even cinema to illustrate how and why certain leaders succeeded or failed.
While the range of examples from various parts of the world is engaging, especially for readers who haven’t delved deeply into global history, the leadership insights themselves feel somewhat limited. The narrative often focuses more on recounting events than on drawing out new or profound lessons about leadership.
An interesting survey of leaders and moments in history, but not particularly groundbreaking in analysis.
While the range of examples from various parts of the world is engaging, especially for readers who haven’t delved deeply into global history, the leadership insights themselves feel somewhat limited. The narrative often focuses more on recounting events than on drawing out new or profound lessons about leadership.
An interesting survey of leaders and moments in history, but not particularly groundbreaking in analysis.
March 21, 2024
Temkin does an excellent job of examining the interplay between individual leaders and the variables that led to their outcomes. He forces the reader to think deeply about time and individual strengths when assessing leadership.
November 8, 2024
thank you.
October 31, 2025
I'm not a fan of the writer, but I enjoyed and learned form this book. ngl I might reread it, the stories, storytelling and concept of the book are inspiring and important.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews