What do you think?
Rate this book
The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day
Victor David Hanson, author of the highly regarded classic The Western Way of War, presents an audacious and controversial theory of what contributes to the success of military campaigns.
Examining in riveting detail the campaigns of three brilliant generals who led largely untrained forces to victory over tyrannical enemies, Hanson shows how the moral confidence with which these generals imbued their troops may have been as significant as any military strategy they utilized. Theban general Epaminondas marched an army of farmers two hundred miles to defeat their Spartan overlords and forever change the complexion of Ancient Greece. William Tecumseh Sherman led his motley army across the South, ravaging the landscape and demoralizing the citizens in the defense of right. And George S. Patton commanded the recently formed Third Army against the German forces in the West, nearly completing the task before his superiors called a halt. Intelligent and dramatic, The Soul of Battle is narrative history at it's best and a work of great moral conviction.
Examining in riveting detail the campaigns of three brilliant generals who led largely untrained forces to victory over tyrannical enemies, Hanson shows how the moral confidence with which these generals imbued their troops may have been as significant as any military strategy they utilized. Theban general Epaminondas marched an army of farmers two hundred miles to defeat their Spartan overlords and forever change the complexion of Ancient Greece. William Tecumseh Sherman led his motley army across the South, ravaging the landscape and demoralizing the citizens in the defense of right. And George S. Patton commanded the recently formed Third Army against the German forces in the West, nearly completing the task before his superiors called a halt. Intelligent and dramatic, The Soul of Battle is narrative history at it's best and a work of great moral conviction.
496 pages, Paperback
First published October 26, 1999
16 people are currently reading
738 people want to read
About the author
Victor Davis Hanson
85 books1,188 followersVictor Davis Hanson was educated at the University of California, Santa Cruz (BA, Classics, 1975), the American School of Classical Studies (1978-79) and received his Ph.D. in Classics from Stanford University in 1980. He lives and works with his family on their forty-acre tree and vine farm near Selma, California, where he was born in 1953.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
February 6, 2017
All students of military history are told that soldiers do not fight for generals or ideologies, but rather for a loose sense of patriotism and for the man next to them in the foxhole. VDH takes this opinion, and puts it on its head. In The Soul of Battle, he profiles the three armies that most certainly fought with an ideological bent, and their fearsome, driven generals. Spanning almost 2400 years of history, we are taken into the very essence of why democratic nations wage war against tyrannical entities.
In 370 B.C. the Theban farmer-general Epaminondas lead an army of Boeotian yeoman south into the Peloponnese. He didn't undertake this daring march for the same reasons that his own homeland had been repeatedly invaded before. Spartans invaded north to increases hegemony, and Athens and Sparta had just ended the Peloponnesian War, which was fought over spheres of influence. Athens had invaded Sicily during that conflict, merely to have bases and increases intake of valuable commodities. But Epaminondas led his intrepid force south to release thousands of fellow Greeks from subservience to the Spartan oligarchy and to ruin the very culture of Sparta so that it may never again be the beast that it was. He routed the professionals of Sparta, and freed thousands to pursue their own lives, free from the lash.
In 1864, William Tecumseh Sherman set off from Atlanta "to make Georgia howl." He marched his troops into the heart of the slave-holding South, and forever destroyed the myth of the Southern moral high ground. He freed millions, destroyed valuable infrastructure, and aided Grant's struggle against Lee by cutting off his army's food supply. He and his army showed the South was it really was, an evil network of hatred and bigotry. He made the South understood that it never could win, because its very argument for existence was grounded in defending the inhumane treatment of thousands of innocents.
In 1944-45, George Patton led his Third Army through European country after country, destroying all German resistance in his path. In his path from Normandy to Prague, he removed whole armies and their will to fight and oppress. The Third Army liberated death camp after death camp, showing the world and the German people the appalling evils of National Socialism, and showed them how they were all complicit in the deaths of millions of innocents.
All three of these men share both daring tactical awareness and strong ideological convictions that they were in the right. They often had to deal with obstinate councils, superiors, and bureaucrats. None were given the appreciation they deserved from their peers, though those they freed were completed indebted and appreciative. The case of Patton is the most galling. Had he been given more respect (read: supplies and gasoline) from Eisenhower and Bradley and been allowed to be more assertive, he could've ended the Holocaust before its most costly months. But he wasn't, and millions paid the consequences.
So we see that armies are capable of fighting for ideologies, that war is often good vs. evil, and that an enraged democracy of a diverse people is not to be trifled with.
In 370 B.C. the Theban farmer-general Epaminondas lead an army of Boeotian yeoman south into the Peloponnese. He didn't undertake this daring march for the same reasons that his own homeland had been repeatedly invaded before. Spartans invaded north to increases hegemony, and Athens and Sparta had just ended the Peloponnesian War, which was fought over spheres of influence. Athens had invaded Sicily during that conflict, merely to have bases and increases intake of valuable commodities. But Epaminondas led his intrepid force south to release thousands of fellow Greeks from subservience to the Spartan oligarchy and to ruin the very culture of Sparta so that it may never again be the beast that it was. He routed the professionals of Sparta, and freed thousands to pursue their own lives, free from the lash.
In 1864, William Tecumseh Sherman set off from Atlanta "to make Georgia howl." He marched his troops into the heart of the slave-holding South, and forever destroyed the myth of the Southern moral high ground. He freed millions, destroyed valuable infrastructure, and aided Grant's struggle against Lee by cutting off his army's food supply. He and his army showed the South was it really was, an evil network of hatred and bigotry. He made the South understood that it never could win, because its very argument for existence was grounded in defending the inhumane treatment of thousands of innocents.
In 1944-45, George Patton led his Third Army through European country after country, destroying all German resistance in his path. In his path from Normandy to Prague, he removed whole armies and their will to fight and oppress. The Third Army liberated death camp after death camp, showing the world and the German people the appalling evils of National Socialism, and showed them how they were all complicit in the deaths of millions of innocents.
All three of these men share both daring tactical awareness and strong ideological convictions that they were in the right. They often had to deal with obstinate councils, superiors, and bureaucrats. None were given the appreciation they deserved from their peers, though those they freed were completed indebted and appreciative. The case of Patton is the most galling. Had he been given more respect (read: supplies and gasoline) from Eisenhower and Bradley and been allowed to be more assertive, he could've ended the Holocaust before its most costly months. But he wasn't, and millions paid the consequences.
So we see that armies are capable of fighting for ideologies, that war is often good vs. evil, and that an enraged democracy of a diverse people is not to be trifled with.
January 18, 2008
This is an amazing book. It depicts three generals who led and motivated armies of citizen soldiers and describes how they utterly defeated slave societies with a hereditary military caste. Epaminondas, Sherman and Patton waged innovative campaigns, avoiding bloody frontal assaults and set-piece battles but were able to completely paralyze their opponents and destroy the basis of their slave societies. All three were disliked and hampered by the less imaginative powers-that-be but adored by their troops. Victor Davis Hanson is a very good writer and ties these three very disparate generals into his theme about the inherent strength of Democratic ideals when they oppose slave armies. If you love history and strategy this book is for you.
October 5, 2007
Three generals – Epaminondas of Thebes, William T Sherman of the Union in the American Civil War and George Patton in World War 2.
The common factor linking them? The fact that they led and inspired armies composed of citizen soldiers against supposedly powerful foes, respectively, the Spartans, the Confederacy and the Nazis and defeated them comprehensively.
Epaminondas shattered the Spartan spirit to the extent that the heretofore invincible Spartans did not dare to take the field against him and he liberated the helots and ended Spartan power. Sherman, with his march through the heart of the Confederacy, during which the Confederate forces did not dare to engage him, liberating the slaves as he went, demonstrated how weak the Confederates really were and Patton’s 3rd army went the furthest and the fastest and, but for being held back due to political reasons, might have, the author suggests, ended the war much earlier.
While the author gives insufficient credit to other generals, the premise of how, when given a clearly moral cause and inspirational leadership, free men can assemble themselves into an army, defeat a foe and then melt back into the society from which they came makes this an interesting read.
The common factor linking them? The fact that they led and inspired armies composed of citizen soldiers against supposedly powerful foes, respectively, the Spartans, the Confederacy and the Nazis and defeated them comprehensively.
Epaminondas shattered the Spartan spirit to the extent that the heretofore invincible Spartans did not dare to take the field against him and he liberated the helots and ended Spartan power. Sherman, with his march through the heart of the Confederacy, during which the Confederate forces did not dare to engage him, liberating the slaves as he went, demonstrated how weak the Confederates really were and Patton’s 3rd army went the furthest and the fastest and, but for being held back due to political reasons, might have, the author suggests, ended the war much earlier.
While the author gives insufficient credit to other generals, the premise of how, when given a clearly moral cause and inspirational leadership, free men can assemble themselves into an army, defeat a foe and then melt back into the society from which they came makes this an interesting read.
February 28, 2017
A book report by Ron Housley
I apparently went through school at the exact moment when the History of Western Civilization was being expunged from American curricula. I recall whispers about a “Western Civ” course at our high school, but I didn’t know anybody who was actually enrolled in it.
Over the years I discovered what I should have learned in High School: I discovered the central ideas comprising “Western Civilization;” I discovered the seminal historical events; it required decades of reading in history and in philosophy. Victor Davis Hanson’s book should have come to my attention years ago; but better late than never.
3 GENERALS IN HISTORY
How did I live all these years in the world’s richest and most enlightened country without having discovered long ago about Epaminondas, and about the extraordinary similarities between this general’s ancient Greek accomplishment and the 2 American generals spotlighted by Victor Davis Hanson in The Soul of Battle: Sherman & Patton?
An understanding of what happened with these 3 generals now seems like the missing link in our 21st century battle against totalitarian aggressors (think: North Korea, Iran, Russia, ISIS) — but that understanding is lost to our current rulers in Washington, lost to the entire MainStreet Media (MSM), lost to generations of school teachers, and even lost to many college professors.
CIVIL WAR
Anyone searching for that understanding should take another look at the American Civil War.
First, there were 4 solid years of fighting and dying; then, William Tecumseh Sherman stepped onto the scene and abruptly “precipitated the end of the war.”
Prior to his famous march to the sea, the war was at a stalemate, a murderous rampage of two armies in pitched battles. Hundreds of thousands of lives were being needlessly slaughtered.
What was Sherman’s strategy: to take away material and psychological support of the slaveholders’ own citizenry.
It is shameful how our schools have censored the story of Sherman’s March to the Sea, how they have indoctrinated entire generations into accepting an unflattering narrative about Sherman. Even my own High School in the North misrepresented Sherman, but more so the schools in the South.
I recall a President Bill Clinton speech where he decried William Tecumseh Sherman for needless brutality, when he should have praised the northern general for his vision to actually end the war — a war which was in deathly stalemate prior to the General’s famous march.
William Tecumseh Sherman’s destruction of property was not gratuitous (as President Clinton suggested), but was a central feature of the March to the Sea. It was the decimation of property itself which destroyed the will to fight amongst the surviving elite slave owners. (President Bill Clinton’s comments reveal the extent of government school indoctrination about the Civil War and about Sherman; his remarks unveil a deep intellectual corruption and utter evasion of the issues at play.)
Sherman’s march was the equivalent of Hiroshima. It devastated the psyche of the elite planter-slaveowners. Without his march to the sea, there would not have been a surrender at Appomattox. His march saved untold thousands of lives on both sides. “More Southerners deserted, gave up, or simply ceased fighting because of Sherman’s march than were killed from Grant’s attacks.”
Sherman was convinced that winning pitched battles would not secure a lasting peace, would leave “no assurance that in a decade or two the population of the South, its infrastructure intact, its people still proud, might not once more field armies to champion states’ rights” [p. 252] and slavery (just like Germany rose up just one generation after the World War I armistice, its infrastructure intact, its people still proud). A lasting peace would require an utterly unmistakable defeat.
“The difference between killing soldiers and destroying the property of those who field them is critical” [p. 252] for it shows us what constitutes true morality in war — that is precisely what President Clinton never grasped.
FAKE NEWS
Fake news has dominated the 2016 post-election coverage, as if it were some new phenomenon. “Hands Up! Don’t Shoot!” was entirely fake, exactly like the way in which thousands of Southerners were deceived by Southern newspapers to think that the North was being whipped and was on the verge of defeat. So misled were the Southern slave owners behind the war that only an “optical demonstration” of war in their own back yards could force them to confront the reality of what they had wrought.
Sherman (correctly) presumed that the entire $3-billion war was brought on by aristocratic planter-slave owners who theretofore had lived in seclusion (eg in Georgia) and safety . They needed to actually see and feel the effects of the war which they had launched on others. Sherman fulfilled that need.
How often do government schools teach Civil War history without drawing this critical lesson? My own high school had expunged this lesson. We were not taught that over one-half of the total worth of the Confederacy consisted of the value of the slaves; we were not taught that slaves comprised 45% of Georgia’s population; we were not taught that hundreds of thousands of poor, landless whites died “to protect the bondage of African black slaves” [p. 204] owned by only 6.4% of the population; we were not taught that 385,000 elite slave owners out of a population of 6-million (6.4%) dominated the legislatures, dominated state government positions, dominated military leadership positions; we were not taught that the Civil War was the will of a mere 6.4% of the Southern population.
The facts would have been easy to teach and would have informed the mistaken view of Civil War history many of us had embraced over the years. Victor Davis Hanson, at last, draws the lost lessons for us (for me).
Years ago when I got one of those first generation Kindles, I downloaded “The Memoirs of William Tecumseh Sherman” — a fascinating read. But I needed Hanson’s book to tie it all together for me —to identify how my early formal education had censored out any teaching of what principles govern the course of war, or of how taking a war to the homeland of the aggressor and destroying the aggressor’s will to fight is critical to winning a lasting peace. These lessons had been entirely bypassed in my own school teachers.
WORLD WAR II
And then Hanson shows us that General George Patton was precisely in the Epaminondas and Sherman mold.
All the while, during Hanson’s riveting narrative, is the often unspoken “agreement” made by FDR to hand over to Stalin (a)American industrial secrets; (b)entire European factories; (c)the privilege of entering Berlin before the Americans; and (d)literally half of Europe to be enslaved for decades to come.
With FDR’s love of Stalin, it is no mystery that he didn’t want Patton to put an end to the war before Russia was ready to attack Germany from the east. No American soldier’s life was more important than handing over the war spoils to the beloved Communists from Russia(!).
The Administration’s love of Russian Communism explains the halting of Patton’s Third Army in the exact moment that Patton could have leveled the death blow to the German army — a delay which extended the war and produced fully 2/3 of all the Allied casualties in Europe.
If FDR, Eisenhower and Bradley hadn’t stopped Patton’s thrust into enemy territory in August 1944, there never would have been a Battle of the Bulge with all its dead American boys. Instead, 200,000 retreating Germans were allowed to escape, to re-group, to wage the Battle of the Bulge, to slaughter American soldiers by the many thousands.
But alas, Patton’s spectacular advance was stopped cold by the American administration’s love for the Communists.
And on top of that, “more Jews would be gassed from the time Patton closed in on the German border in late summer 1944 until the May 1945 surrender than had been killed during the entire first four years of the war” (!). [p. 375]
* * * * * * * * * *
Victor Davis Hanson comes as close to “great writing” as I’ve seen in the history or biographical genres.
Even when one of his points provokes objection, I was disarmed by his sweeping embrace of a fuller historical context.
What Peter Drucker was to Management Science, Victor Davis Hanson is to history — and to perspectives on current political & cultural trends. Like Drucker, Hanson sees the big picture; he sees the philosophical issues at play. It was a pleasure to see how he draws it all out for us.
Hanson’s look at the 3 great generals gives us a guideline from which to judge today’s military warriors.
The great generals all had decades of “immense preparation and experience [p. 224],” but always without even a hint of the ultimate goal (the march deep into Sparta; the March to the Sea; the southern thrust into Germany) to which the preparation would be applied.
Sherman’s vast experience was turned loose in Georgia, where he would use his own advance to collapse the Confederacy; Patton’s vast experience was turned loose in France and Germany, where he would use his own advance to collapse the German defenses.
These were generals who could instill in their men the vision that they were in an ideological contest: democracy at war with brutal, evil statists-collectivists (Spartan slave owners; Southern planter slave owners; Nazi slave masters who attempted to create dominion over 14-million unfree workers).
So it turns out that VDH is a gem out there. I didn’t know until this book that he’s all over YouTube (and I’ve had some great moments being in his electronic audience). The Soul of Battle, from back in 1999, is well worth your time even today. Most of the great books are from ago.
I apparently went through school at the exact moment when the History of Western Civilization was being expunged from American curricula. I recall whispers about a “Western Civ” course at our high school, but I didn’t know anybody who was actually enrolled in it.
Over the years I discovered what I should have learned in High School: I discovered the central ideas comprising “Western Civilization;” I discovered the seminal historical events; it required decades of reading in history and in philosophy. Victor Davis Hanson’s book should have come to my attention years ago; but better late than never.
3 GENERALS IN HISTORY
How did I live all these years in the world’s richest and most enlightened country without having discovered long ago about Epaminondas, and about the extraordinary similarities between this general’s ancient Greek accomplishment and the 2 American generals spotlighted by Victor Davis Hanson in The Soul of Battle: Sherman & Patton?
An understanding of what happened with these 3 generals now seems like the missing link in our 21st century battle against totalitarian aggressors (think: North Korea, Iran, Russia, ISIS) — but that understanding is lost to our current rulers in Washington, lost to the entire MainStreet Media (MSM), lost to generations of school teachers, and even lost to many college professors.
CIVIL WAR
Anyone searching for that understanding should take another look at the American Civil War.
First, there were 4 solid years of fighting and dying; then, William Tecumseh Sherman stepped onto the scene and abruptly “precipitated the end of the war.”
Prior to his famous march to the sea, the war was at a stalemate, a murderous rampage of two armies in pitched battles. Hundreds of thousands of lives were being needlessly slaughtered.
What was Sherman’s strategy: to take away material and psychological support of the slaveholders’ own citizenry.
It is shameful how our schools have censored the story of Sherman’s March to the Sea, how they have indoctrinated entire generations into accepting an unflattering narrative about Sherman. Even my own High School in the North misrepresented Sherman, but more so the schools in the South.
I recall a President Bill Clinton speech where he decried William Tecumseh Sherman for needless brutality, when he should have praised the northern general for his vision to actually end the war — a war which was in deathly stalemate prior to the General’s famous march.
William Tecumseh Sherman’s destruction of property was not gratuitous (as President Clinton suggested), but was a central feature of the March to the Sea. It was the decimation of property itself which destroyed the will to fight amongst the surviving elite slave owners. (President Bill Clinton’s comments reveal the extent of government school indoctrination about the Civil War and about Sherman; his remarks unveil a deep intellectual corruption and utter evasion of the issues at play.)
Sherman’s march was the equivalent of Hiroshima. It devastated the psyche of the elite planter-slaveowners. Without his march to the sea, there would not have been a surrender at Appomattox. His march saved untold thousands of lives on both sides. “More Southerners deserted, gave up, or simply ceased fighting because of Sherman’s march than were killed from Grant’s attacks.”
Sherman was convinced that winning pitched battles would not secure a lasting peace, would leave “no assurance that in a decade or two the population of the South, its infrastructure intact, its people still proud, might not once more field armies to champion states’ rights” [p. 252] and slavery (just like Germany rose up just one generation after the World War I armistice, its infrastructure intact, its people still proud). A lasting peace would require an utterly unmistakable defeat.
“The difference between killing soldiers and destroying the property of those who field them is critical” [p. 252] for it shows us what constitutes true morality in war — that is precisely what President Clinton never grasped.
FAKE NEWS
Fake news has dominated the 2016 post-election coverage, as if it were some new phenomenon. “Hands Up! Don’t Shoot!” was entirely fake, exactly like the way in which thousands of Southerners were deceived by Southern newspapers to think that the North was being whipped and was on the verge of defeat. So misled were the Southern slave owners behind the war that only an “optical demonstration” of war in their own back yards could force them to confront the reality of what they had wrought.
Sherman (correctly) presumed that the entire $3-billion war was brought on by aristocratic planter-slave owners who theretofore had lived in seclusion (eg in Georgia) and safety . They needed to actually see and feel the effects of the war which they had launched on others. Sherman fulfilled that need.
How often do government schools teach Civil War history without drawing this critical lesson? My own high school had expunged this lesson. We were not taught that over one-half of the total worth of the Confederacy consisted of the value of the slaves; we were not taught that slaves comprised 45% of Georgia’s population; we were not taught that hundreds of thousands of poor, landless whites died “to protect the bondage of African black slaves” [p. 204] owned by only 6.4% of the population; we were not taught that 385,000 elite slave owners out of a population of 6-million (6.4%) dominated the legislatures, dominated state government positions, dominated military leadership positions; we were not taught that the Civil War was the will of a mere 6.4% of the Southern population.
The facts would have been easy to teach and would have informed the mistaken view of Civil War history many of us had embraced over the years. Victor Davis Hanson, at last, draws the lost lessons for us (for me).
Years ago when I got one of those first generation Kindles, I downloaded “The Memoirs of William Tecumseh Sherman” — a fascinating read. But I needed Hanson’s book to tie it all together for me —to identify how my early formal education had censored out any teaching of what principles govern the course of war, or of how taking a war to the homeland of the aggressor and destroying the aggressor’s will to fight is critical to winning a lasting peace. These lessons had been entirely bypassed in my own school teachers.
WORLD WAR II
And then Hanson shows us that General George Patton was precisely in the Epaminondas and Sherman mold.
All the while, during Hanson’s riveting narrative, is the often unspoken “agreement” made by FDR to hand over to Stalin (a)American industrial secrets; (b)entire European factories; (c)the privilege of entering Berlin before the Americans; and (d)literally half of Europe to be enslaved for decades to come.
With FDR’s love of Stalin, it is no mystery that he didn’t want Patton to put an end to the war before Russia was ready to attack Germany from the east. No American soldier’s life was more important than handing over the war spoils to the beloved Communists from Russia(!).
The Administration’s love of Russian Communism explains the halting of Patton’s Third Army in the exact moment that Patton could have leveled the death blow to the German army — a delay which extended the war and produced fully 2/3 of all the Allied casualties in Europe.
If FDR, Eisenhower and Bradley hadn’t stopped Patton’s thrust into enemy territory in August 1944, there never would have been a Battle of the Bulge with all its dead American boys. Instead, 200,000 retreating Germans were allowed to escape, to re-group, to wage the Battle of the Bulge, to slaughter American soldiers by the many thousands.
But alas, Patton’s spectacular advance was stopped cold by the American administration’s love for the Communists.
And on top of that, “more Jews would be gassed from the time Patton closed in on the German border in late summer 1944 until the May 1945 surrender than had been killed during the entire first four years of the war” (!). [p. 375]
* * * * * * * * * *
Victor Davis Hanson comes as close to “great writing” as I’ve seen in the history or biographical genres.
Even when one of his points provokes objection, I was disarmed by his sweeping embrace of a fuller historical context.
What Peter Drucker was to Management Science, Victor Davis Hanson is to history — and to perspectives on current political & cultural trends. Like Drucker, Hanson sees the big picture; he sees the philosophical issues at play. It was a pleasure to see how he draws it all out for us.
Hanson’s look at the 3 great generals gives us a guideline from which to judge today’s military warriors.
The great generals all had decades of “immense preparation and experience [p. 224],” but always without even a hint of the ultimate goal (the march deep into Sparta; the March to the Sea; the southern thrust into Germany) to which the preparation would be applied.
Sherman’s vast experience was turned loose in Georgia, where he would use his own advance to collapse the Confederacy; Patton’s vast experience was turned loose in France and Germany, where he would use his own advance to collapse the German defenses.
These were generals who could instill in their men the vision that they were in an ideological contest: democracy at war with brutal, evil statists-collectivists (Spartan slave owners; Southern planter slave owners; Nazi slave masters who attempted to create dominion over 14-million unfree workers).
So it turns out that VDH is a gem out there. I didn’t know until this book that he’s all over YouTube (and I’ve had some great moments being in his electronic audience). The Soul of Battle, from back in 1999, is well worth your time even today. Most of the great books are from ago.
May 17, 2019
Brilliant historical analysis contrasting three Generals approach to rapid force deployment by democratic military powers vs. static offenses.
February 5, 2017
Victor Davis Hanson has made a bit of a career as an historian of classical warfare, relating it and classical Greek culture to modern affairs. His orientation is quite obviously conservative, very conservative, as regards the contemporary world--a fact which, interestingly, would not be so evident if he were to confine himself to antiquity. But Hanson is politically engaged, having written books in favor of the US "war on terrorism" and against the Obama administration.
This book is about the spirit of an army, of its leadership and of the vital connection between the two. Epaminondas, liberator of Thebes, then Greece, from the Spartans after the Peloponnesian Wars covers the classical flank on this book, Sherman and Patton the modern. About the former we really don't anywhere near as much as we do about the latter two and their troops. Greek wars tended to be set pieces, fought between troops, not at all like the "total war" concept favored nowadays. Sherman, in keeping with the policies of Grant and Lincoln, employed something like it in his famous "march to the sea". Patton, a tank commander and rightwing extremist himself, not the commander of an army, naturally conducted a different kind of warfare. What unites these three dissimilar figures for Hanson is the enemies they fought: Lakedaimonian Sparta, the Confederate slaveocracy and Nazi Germany--all of them conventional bad guys to most people. And the point of his book is that the three generals were successful in part because of their troops' detestation of their enemies. What isn't much mentioned, however, is how much the Spartans, Confederates and Germans might have hated their enemies, seeing their own causes as noble and just.
This book is about the spirit of an army, of its leadership and of the vital connection between the two. Epaminondas, liberator of Thebes, then Greece, from the Spartans after the Peloponnesian Wars covers the classical flank on this book, Sherman and Patton the modern. About the former we really don't anywhere near as much as we do about the latter two and their troops. Greek wars tended to be set pieces, fought between troops, not at all like the "total war" concept favored nowadays. Sherman, in keeping with the policies of Grant and Lincoln, employed something like it in his famous "march to the sea". Patton, a tank commander and rightwing extremist himself, not the commander of an army, naturally conducted a different kind of warfare. What unites these three dissimilar figures for Hanson is the enemies they fought: Lakedaimonian Sparta, the Confederate slaveocracy and Nazi Germany--all of them conventional bad guys to most people. And the point of his book is that the three generals were successful in part because of their troops' detestation of their enemies. What isn't much mentioned, however, is how much the Spartans, Confederates and Germans might have hated their enemies, seeing their own causes as noble and just.
December 3, 2009
I have read this book at least two times since 2003. I am currently reading the book again. A portion of the subtitle of this book encapsulates, obviously, the thesis of the book: "How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny." The book is a compilation of vignettes on three great war generals who led predominantly non-professional, citizen-soldier armies in crushing tyranical forces. The military leaders treated in this opus are Epaminondas, William Tecumseh Sherman and George S. Patton. (I know that there may be readers of this review, especially those from the U.S. South, who would bridle at the mention of the Confederacy being called a "tyranical force." Yet how else would one define a government which had as one of its primary aims to maintain the "peculiar institution" that enslaved millions of its inhabitants solely because of their race?)
The author of this book is one of my favorite writers. I have read several of his other books, including "Mexifornia" and "Who Killed Homer?" [I know that book titles are supposed to be italicized or underlined, but I haven't figured out how to properly do so. Therefore, I have placed the titles of the books in qoutes.:] I also enjoy reading the reports and essays on Victor Davcis Hanson's blog.
The author of this book is one of my favorite writers. I have read several of his other books, including "Mexifornia" and "Who Killed Homer?" [I know that book titles are supposed to be italicized or underlined, but I haven't figured out how to properly do so. Therefore, I have placed the titles of the books in qoutes.:] I also enjoy reading the reports and essays on Victor Davcis Hanson's blog.
June 4, 2008
I used to read a lot more history books like these than I do now. Not because I like them any less. Maybe it is because books like this take a bit more time than I have. Who know? Anyhow, this was a great book I read back in 2000. I have to make time to read more liked these. It was interesting and accessible. Here is what I wrote in my journal back then:
>>. . .about three generals and how they lead citizen armies to vanquish tyranny. In common, Epaminondas, Sherman, and Patton were geniuses in their own time who were educated, capable, daring, and often used flank attacks and approaches to their enemies heartland rather than frontal assaults to achieve their objectives. Their citizen armies were formed swiftly, became lethal combatants and soon dissolved after conflict. The book is well written, and Hanson constantly makes connections between the generals and their time. A very interesting book that presented its arguments well.<<
>>. . .about three generals and how they lead citizen armies to vanquish tyranny. In common, Epaminondas, Sherman, and Patton were geniuses in their own time who were educated, capable, daring, and often used flank attacks and approaches to their enemies heartland rather than frontal assaults to achieve their objectives. Their citizen armies were formed swiftly, became lethal combatants and soon dissolved after conflict. The book is well written, and Hanson constantly makes connections between the generals and their time. A very interesting book that presented its arguments well.<<
September 3, 2007
I must admit that I read in fits and starts, often out of order, depending on my whims. This book permits such a read, however, because every point made about each "liberator" (Epaminondas, Sherman, Patton) is interwoven with the others in spite of the disparity in time and place. I have a renewed interest in these three warriors because the author has presented sides of them that go radically against the conventional -- and often wrong -- current conceptions. (Especially interesting is the "fact" that Patton may have been the most humane warrior of WWII, much unlike the "bungling" Eisenhower and Bradley whose images suffer under this book's scrutiny.)
May 6, 2025
Victor Davis Hanson has a grasp of history—and of humanity—that humbles all others. Here he features three generals whose armies conquered enemies in a similar way to each other, but differently from other generals throughout historical times.
First there was a Greek with an unpronounceable name (Epaminondas) in 370-369 B.C., then there was William Tecumseh Sherman of the Union side in the American Civil War, then George Patton of the Third Army Division against the German Nazis of WWII. The interesting common obsession of each man, according to Professor Hanson, was their reluctance to kill except when forced into direct battle, in preference to deliberate destruction of the material properties of the enemy with the objective to disable its ability to continue war—and to release the enslaved held by the respective enemy. That was the soul of both the leadership and the bands of citizen soldiers who were led to conquer the tyrannies threatening their democratic forms of governance.
The Greek general, who is unfortunately obscure to those of us “educated” in American schools, is definitely worth learning about, as is the background of his era when Greece was said to be the foremost culture in the world.
The section about Sherman’s “March to the Sea” through Georgia is also both educational and elevating, and should put to rest any remaining vilification against him by other historians, either Southern or otherwise. My only disappointment with it was that the reader was not allowed to follow Sherman’s army from Savannah (“on the Sea”) into the Carolinas, to learn the details about the burning of Columbia, and to “listen in” when the city officials of Raleigh approached with their white flag before the “Yankees” entered their city. I also wished for more detail about the conversations between Sherman and the Confederate General Joe Johnston who surrendered to him in North Carolina.
Finally, the Patton section was especially enlightening, although I still do not quite understand why it is presented here in reverse chronological order. As the author alternates between reviews of who did what when, I sometimes lost sequences. But he most certainly convinced me that General Patton might have shortened the time taken to end World War II by as much as a season of months, had he not been restrained by the jealousies of generals who ranked him in insignia and authority (i.e., Dwight Eisenhower and Omar Bradley). General Patton stands among the rest of us who all carry our flaws, and his crude manners were admittedly ungentlemanly, but his concentration upon defeating the most evil ideology encountered to its time was surely worth some expressed anger and profanity.
The essence of the stories of these particular three individuals, however, is tied into a cohesive unity that perhaps only Victor Davis Hanson could present to us. Besides noting that all three men were exceptionally well-read students of history, he points out in the Epilogue that they “were not akin” to the more renowned “Great Captains” such as Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Cortes, Napoleon, Marlborough, Frederick the Great, or Wellington, or even the Crusaders, who all fought to conquer for empire. He says, What Epaminondas, Sherman, and Patton did was very rare in military history, for democracy itself is rare in the larger history of civilization, and rarer still its great armies of victory that seek no gold or land, but rather the enemy in its heartland only for the freedom of others.
I hope the military academies promote this book.
First there was a Greek with an unpronounceable name (Epaminondas) in 370-369 B.C., then there was William Tecumseh Sherman of the Union side in the American Civil War, then George Patton of the Third Army Division against the German Nazis of WWII. The interesting common obsession of each man, according to Professor Hanson, was their reluctance to kill except when forced into direct battle, in preference to deliberate destruction of the material properties of the enemy with the objective to disable its ability to continue war—and to release the enslaved held by the respective enemy. That was the soul of both the leadership and the bands of citizen soldiers who were led to conquer the tyrannies threatening their democratic forms of governance.
The Greek general, who is unfortunately obscure to those of us “educated” in American schools, is definitely worth learning about, as is the background of his era when Greece was said to be the foremost culture in the world.
The section about Sherman’s “March to the Sea” through Georgia is also both educational and elevating, and should put to rest any remaining vilification against him by other historians, either Southern or otherwise. My only disappointment with it was that the reader was not allowed to follow Sherman’s army from Savannah (“on the Sea”) into the Carolinas, to learn the details about the burning of Columbia, and to “listen in” when the city officials of Raleigh approached with their white flag before the “Yankees” entered their city. I also wished for more detail about the conversations between Sherman and the Confederate General Joe Johnston who surrendered to him in North Carolina.
Finally, the Patton section was especially enlightening, although I still do not quite understand why it is presented here in reverse chronological order. As the author alternates between reviews of who did what when, I sometimes lost sequences. But he most certainly convinced me that General Patton might have shortened the time taken to end World War II by as much as a season of months, had he not been restrained by the jealousies of generals who ranked him in insignia and authority (i.e., Dwight Eisenhower and Omar Bradley). General Patton stands among the rest of us who all carry our flaws, and his crude manners were admittedly ungentlemanly, but his concentration upon defeating the most evil ideology encountered to its time was surely worth some expressed anger and profanity.
The essence of the stories of these particular three individuals, however, is tied into a cohesive unity that perhaps only Victor Davis Hanson could present to us. Besides noting that all three men were exceptionally well-read students of history, he points out in the Epilogue that they “were not akin” to the more renowned “Great Captains” such as Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Cortes, Napoleon, Marlborough, Frederick the Great, or Wellington, or even the Crusaders, who all fought to conquer for empire. He says, What Epaminondas, Sherman, and Patton did was very rare in military history, for democracy itself is rare in the larger history of civilization, and rarer still its great armies of victory that seek no gold or land, but rather the enemy in its heartland only for the freedom of others.
I hope the military academies promote this book.
April 29, 2020
Military history is not an elementary subject. But Victor Davis Hanson has written an beautifully illustrative novel about the nature of democracy, human nature, and war that can be read at the speed of the great men it profiles.
It is a profile of military leaders Epaminondas, William Tecumseh Sherman, and George Patton. The thrust of it is that when the cause is just and the leader is an erudite and fanatical, aristocratic kind of man who understands history, leads from the front, and moves with relentless audacity, a group of citizen soldiers from various backgrounds belonging to a democracy can assemble into a fighting force that is more powerful and capable than any other. These are men who do not easily fit the democratic model of the society they serve, and are often difficult to appreciate. But all three of those men fought a just war against a brutal military culture (Sparta, the Confederacy, and Nazi Germany), and all three of them led their men into the very heart of those nations with conviction, astonishing speed, and logistical precision, and not only defeated the enemy; they humiliated and dismantled them so completely that they would never recover.
Hanson narrates as though reincarnation is active and present both in the men and in their eccentric leaders. As if a soul is traveling through time and across nations. In all three of these epic events, an armed democratic coalition came together very quickly against an enemy that was built upon honor-culture militarism, national supremacy, and bigotry. Their leader was someone often derided or overlooked by their contemporaries or superior officers, but was better read and more studious than all of them. They were always on the front, appraising their men and resources personally and often exposed to enemy fire. They were also shrewd mobile tactitians who rarely took the enemy in a head-on attack, opting for flanking and encircling maneuvers to keep the enemy on their heels and targeting their infrastructures and homes.
The defeated aggressors could not have even fathomed that a soft and therapeutic society built on democracy and consensus is capable of something like this. And the men who did it also would not have thought themselves capable, for they usually dissolve and reintegrate into civilian life just as fast as they come together. Hanson's lesson here then is that conviction and leadership must be present if a democratic nation is to go to war. That if it is instead fought through cautious, overly restrained and half-assed bureaucracy or consensus, defeat or prolonged conflict with greater unnecessary casualties is inevitable.
Absolutely recommended.
It is a profile of military leaders Epaminondas, William Tecumseh Sherman, and George Patton. The thrust of it is that when the cause is just and the leader is an erudite and fanatical, aristocratic kind of man who understands history, leads from the front, and moves with relentless audacity, a group of citizen soldiers from various backgrounds belonging to a democracy can assemble into a fighting force that is more powerful and capable than any other. These are men who do not easily fit the democratic model of the society they serve, and are often difficult to appreciate. But all three of those men fought a just war against a brutal military culture (Sparta, the Confederacy, and Nazi Germany), and all three of them led their men into the very heart of those nations with conviction, astonishing speed, and logistical precision, and not only defeated the enemy; they humiliated and dismantled them so completely that they would never recover.
Hanson narrates as though reincarnation is active and present both in the men and in their eccentric leaders. As if a soul is traveling through time and across nations. In all three of these epic events, an armed democratic coalition came together very quickly against an enemy that was built upon honor-culture militarism, national supremacy, and bigotry. Their leader was someone often derided or overlooked by their contemporaries or superior officers, but was better read and more studious than all of them. They were always on the front, appraising their men and resources personally and often exposed to enemy fire. They were also shrewd mobile tactitians who rarely took the enemy in a head-on attack, opting for flanking and encircling maneuvers to keep the enemy on their heels and targeting their infrastructures and homes.
The defeated aggressors could not have even fathomed that a soft and therapeutic society built on democracy and consensus is capable of something like this. And the men who did it also would not have thought themselves capable, for they usually dissolve and reintegrate into civilian life just as fast as they come together. Hanson's lesson here then is that conviction and leadership must be present if a democratic nation is to go to war. That if it is instead fought through cautious, overly restrained and half-assed bureaucracy or consensus, defeat or prolonged conflict with greater unnecessary casualties is inevitable.
Absolutely recommended.
May 4, 2023
To anyone who has been in the military....or is a student of Grecian Wars...the Civil War....WW 1 and 11
this book is right up there. Yes I have my share of Grecian battles won and lost...The ever present Civil War and all its connotations ..World Wars One and Two...The smiple common denominator is that they were all built on concepts and lies....along with the beliefs that certain peoples need to be enlsaved. In the ancient times the well to do..aristocrats didn't didn't want to soil their hands with rudimentary wants and needs. They had people doing it for them. No heavy lifting. So they could engage in leisure activity and become educated. With the Civil War it was more of the same but now tinged with the ardor of colour of a person's skin. The planation mentality ran amok. Soaking into the intellect of all around. Lies.Lies. Lies. Right up to WW1 and 11. Hitler and his gang took up the policy of the South regarding apartheid and put it to odorous effects. Unfortunately the concept of enslaving people for the benefit of others has never died off. It still exists. This book has nuggets of info that each section could stand on its own. The author never lets you forget whence the ideas came from..where they went to.....and what are the consequences of letting this continue without fail. Men.Women.Children are the benefactors and casualties of these precepts. Revenge is also rampant when the enslaved revolt. You have slaves who work for nothing. You have slaves who work at an very low economic wage "because businesses can't afford to pay people their just worth". You have slaves who work at jobs that a mind-numbingly cruel who are afraid of being replaced by robots......So you have to ask yourself . Is is about money...business....gainful employment.....working to fill ones' mind or stomach? Its all about information . Who dispenses it...who gets it...and how is it used. For ones benefit? Or to control people and for how long?
this book is right up there. Yes I have my share of Grecian battles won and lost...The ever present Civil War and all its connotations ..World Wars One and Two...The smiple common denominator is that they were all built on concepts and lies....along with the beliefs that certain peoples need to be enlsaved. In the ancient times the well to do..aristocrats didn't didn't want to soil their hands with rudimentary wants and needs. They had people doing it for them. No heavy lifting. So they could engage in leisure activity and become educated. With the Civil War it was more of the same but now tinged with the ardor of colour of a person's skin. The planation mentality ran amok. Soaking into the intellect of all around. Lies.Lies. Lies. Right up to WW1 and 11. Hitler and his gang took up the policy of the South regarding apartheid and put it to odorous effects. Unfortunately the concept of enslaving people for the benefit of others has never died off. It still exists. This book has nuggets of info that each section could stand on its own. The author never lets you forget whence the ideas came from..where they went to.....and what are the consequences of letting this continue without fail. Men.Women.Children are the benefactors and casualties of these precepts. Revenge is also rampant when the enslaved revolt. You have slaves who work for nothing. You have slaves who work at an very low economic wage "because businesses can't afford to pay people their just worth". You have slaves who work at jobs that a mind-numbingly cruel who are afraid of being replaced by robots......So you have to ask yourself . Is is about money...business....gainful employment.....working to fill ones' mind or stomach? Its all about information . Who dispenses it...who gets it...and how is it used. For ones benefit? Or to control people and for how long?
June 17, 2024
This book is 412 reading pages with an extensive, very extensive, notes section that couples as additional references. The book is over twenty years old now, but the history, narrative and themes are timeless, and are still the core of military studies; all one needs to do us peruse the Military Journals like "Parameters," "The NCO Journal," "Military Review" et.al.
I highly suggest that any reader start with the prologue and then move into each of the chapters and conclude with the epilogue. The author offers harsh criticism and forces the reader to make decisions about war and morality. Even if you disagree with his work, it opens windows and doors, and requires one to think about contemporary political morality.
The author’s work is a combination of classical and modern history. Hs examples are Patton, Sherman, and Epaminondas; what the author called three lessor known generals. The subject of the soul of an army and a soul in battle is a perennial discussion. It is a major topic in military leadership schools, curriculum, books, and academies. It is the foundational study in leadership to dig deep beyond the strategy, tactics, methods, and processes, but, most importantly, how the character, personality, and style, of one influenced many.
The author demonstrates that it is the citizen soldier and a free society’s ability to quickly mobilize at the eleventh hour, fight and then disband that has kept democracies free. And with this premise, is the idea that the commanders that led them encouraged an ethical zeal, a morality, about the conflict and why it was necessary to make men believe that there was a moral difference – the soul of an army, the soul of battle - between “them and us.”
The book is more a study of the ethical nature of democracies at war than purely military history of three epic marches for freedom, and that throughout the ages there can be a soul in the way men battle. All in all very good book and I highly recommend it
I highly suggest that any reader start with the prologue and then move into each of the chapters and conclude with the epilogue. The author offers harsh criticism and forces the reader to make decisions about war and morality. Even if you disagree with his work, it opens windows and doors, and requires one to think about contemporary political morality.
The author’s work is a combination of classical and modern history. Hs examples are Patton, Sherman, and Epaminondas; what the author called three lessor known generals. The subject of the soul of an army and a soul in battle is a perennial discussion. It is a major topic in military leadership schools, curriculum, books, and academies. It is the foundational study in leadership to dig deep beyond the strategy, tactics, methods, and processes, but, most importantly, how the character, personality, and style, of one influenced many.
The author demonstrates that it is the citizen soldier and a free society’s ability to quickly mobilize at the eleventh hour, fight and then disband that has kept democracies free. And with this premise, is the idea that the commanders that led them encouraged an ethical zeal, a morality, about the conflict and why it was necessary to make men believe that there was a moral difference – the soul of an army, the soul of battle - between “them and us.”
The book is more a study of the ethical nature of democracies at war than purely military history of three epic marches for freedom, and that throughout the ages there can be a soul in the way men battle. All in all very good book and I highly recommend it
March 29, 2024
The Soul of Battle is an examination of three liberators who vanquished tyranny. In the fourth century B.C. Theban general Epaminondas marched an army of farmers two hundred miles to defeat the invincible slave owning Spartan empire. The next Gerneral Hanson looks at is William Tecumseh Sherman and the Army of the West. By 1865 the war for the North was going badly. Grant's Army of the Potomac was being bleed dry by Robert E. Lee's Army of Virginia. Lincoln was facing defeat in the upcoming elections at the hands of George McClellan who wanted to make peace with the South. Sherman would march through Georgia and capture Atlanta and continue to the sea and sack Savannah. Sherman brought ruin to the wealthy plantation owners and freed their slaves. Finally, his march was decisive and would electrify the Union and ultimately his actions brought the war to an end. Possibly the greatest American general next to George Washington is Patton. Patton would race across Europe and the Third Army would crush the Wehrmacht. Patton would save the First Army at the battle of the Bulge. Patton punched through Falaise and marched into Germany smashing and destroying an apartheid state and liberating Buchenwald. This is a fine treaties on three great liberators by Hanson.
December 10, 2018
I’m not sure why I keep reading Victor Hanson’s books, for someone who makes a living teaching and writing about the military he sure doesn’t like soldiers. If you can get past the constant references to soldiers as killers, murderers, and thugs, the rest is good writing, albeit, like the rest of Hanson’s books, slanted to his personal bias.
The comparison between the three commanders is intriguing, although including Patton is a difficult choice as he had little of the freedom of movement of the previous two commanders reviewed. Also, the conclusion that the three commanders were fighting slave states is a bit of oversimplification. Private ownership of slaves were common throughout ancient Greece and I would hardly characterize what the Nazi’s did as slave labour.
Lastly, the theory that the soul of battle is derived only from the charter and leadership of a single individual is difficult to accept. Hanson makes many good points about the effective leadership of all three generals, but good leadership alone would not have achieved the results that these armies did.
The comparison between the three commanders is intriguing, although including Patton is a difficult choice as he had little of the freedom of movement of the previous two commanders reviewed. Also, the conclusion that the three commanders were fighting slave states is a bit of oversimplification. Private ownership of slaves were common throughout ancient Greece and I would hardly characterize what the Nazi’s did as slave labour.
Lastly, the theory that the soul of battle is derived only from the charter and leadership of a single individual is difficult to accept. Hanson makes many good points about the effective leadership of all three generals, but good leadership alone would not have achieved the results that these armies did.
August 15, 2020
"Yet if history offers...examples of democratic marches for freedom, the record is at least clear. 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." -- Victor Davis Hanson, The Soul of Battle
An absorbing analysis of three historically successful military campaigns, each supporting Hanson's central thesis that mobile, well-lead, and democratically based armies can defeat totalitarian opposition not merely through head-on clashes, but also through the persistent exploitation of a simple geographic principal--that even the greatest enemy force occupies a small space in the earth's vast terrain. A deeply engaging read.
An absorbing analysis of three historically successful military campaigns, each supporting Hanson's central thesis that mobile, well-lead, and democratically based armies can defeat totalitarian opposition not merely through head-on clashes, but also through the persistent exploitation of a simple geographic principal--that even the greatest enemy force occupies a small space in the earth's vast terrain. A deeply engaging read.
November 19, 2021
Hanson asks the questions, why do men fight and what motivates an ordinary citizen to burn and kill? What in the end motivates an army to win? Hanson selects three armies with controversial leaders and explains what motivates the ordinary man to do extraordinary things in the most dangerous of situations. These three leaders: George S. Patton, William Tecumseh Sherman & Epaminondas, a brilliant general from ancient Greece. If you want to know why the United States has not done well in recent conflicts and battles such as the Korean Conflict, The Vietnam War and the conflicts in the Middle East then read this book. Many, if not most of our top military leaders are deficient in being successful military commanders.
June 13, 2018
This is another book that I would like to give an additional half star to. Close to being a five star book but I thought that in the section on Sherman that the author was unduly harsh on General Grant and did not give him the credit, he deserved for the Vicksburg campaign and the extent that Sherman had learned from Grant. In the section on Patton, he was too generous in claiming that Mark Clark was a competent general. Other than these two issues, this is a great book that deserves to be read by every military professional.
October 25, 2022
Another excellent book by one of my favorite historians Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson does an amazing job to me in connecting these three military leaders and what made them successful as far as military tactics are concerned. I was really not aware of the Greek military leader Epaminondas and his exploits. This to me made the book all the more fascinating. And I have always admired Sherman and Patton for what they were able to accomplish. Kudos to the author for another historical masterpiece. It gave me new understanding for all three military leaders.
July 24, 2022
Just Finished. If you have ever wondered about the lessons of history this book will provide many. The Epilogue will clearly explain the lessons to be learned but most frightening is what will happen to our great nation if we do not learn these lessons . I now understand why Victor Davis Hansen is a giant in his field.
July 8, 2025
Victor Davis Hanson is a premiere historian with an exceptional intellect. I learned quite a bit about these three generals and the way they thought, led and fought. The detail was incredible and quite informative. This book has motivated me to continue reading V.D.H.'s books and follow his podcast. I wish I could take some of his classes. Thoroughly enjoyed it!!!
December 22, 2025
100% worth your time to read! Enjoyed the comparison between three influential leaders in three completely different time periods. My only reason for only four stars is that Hanson is a tad repetitive in what he says about each.
But still very much enjoyed!
But still very much enjoyed!
January 6, 2020
I loved the premise of this work and Hanson's three examples absolutely prove that point. I'd rather have read a few more examples.
September 18, 2025
Great book! The irony on how a civil population might think these individuals are “mad” but the necessity of such leaders to protect lives and freedoms.
April 10, 2017
This is possibly the best military history I’ve yet read. It focuses on three generals throughout the history of Democracy: Epaminondas of the Theban fight against Sparta, Sherman of the Union fight against the Confederacy, and Patton of the Allied fight against Nazi Germany.
Hanson argues that all three represented the best of what Democracy can mean in war: marches of a season destroying institutional slavery both physically and culturally.
What those three generals did by driving deep into enemy territory rather than confronting enemy armies, according to Hanson, was to show that the entire slave state was hollow, and that their reliance on slave labor, rather than their strength, was a fatal weakness.
Sparta could not survive without their Messenian helots; enslaved farmers made it possible for Sparta to field professional soldiers full-time. The antebellum South’s aristocratic military tradition similarly rested on slave labor providing them the time and resources. And so, too, in Nazi Germany was the embattled regime able to survive because of their Slavic slave labor. In each case, their invincibility was a hard shell, but it was just a shell. Penetrate it, and the whole facade shattered.
It took very brave, brilliant, and moralizing generals to convince democratic armies to pierce the shell.
Hanson also argues that this zeal and drive constitute a better form of war:
This is a fascinating book, presaging some of the ideas from the author’s equally fascinating Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power.
For a few brief months in the winter and spring of 370-369 a single man had created a vast democratic army that changed the course of Greek history. So too in a matter of weeks Sherman fashioned the Army of the West into the most lethal army the world had yet seen. In less than a year George Patton had turned 250,000 amateur American recruits into a mobile and lethal force that could charge ahead at forty miles and more a day through enemy-occupied territory.
Hanson argues that all three represented the best of what Democracy can mean in war: marches of a season destroying institutional slavery both physically and culturally.
Democracies, I think—if the cause, if the commanding general, if the conditions of time and space take on their proper meaning—for a season can produce the most murderous armies from the most unlikely men, and do so in the pursuit of something spiritual rather than the mere material.This book… tries to learn why all that is so.
What those three generals did by driving deep into enemy territory rather than confronting enemy armies, according to Hanson, was to show that the entire slave state was hollow, and that their reliance on slave labor, rather than their strength, was a fatal weakness.
Sparta could not survive without their Messenian helots; enslaved farmers made it possible for Sparta to field professional soldiers full-time. The antebellum South’s aristocratic military tradition similarly rested on slave labor providing them the time and resources. And so, too, in Nazi Germany was the embattled regime able to survive because of their Slavic slave labor. In each case, their invincibility was a hard shell, but it was just a shell. Penetrate it, and the whole facade shattered.
It took very brave, brilliant, and moralizing generals to convince democratic armies to pierce the shell.
Theban hoplites, Union troops, and American GIs were ideological armies foremost, composed of citizen-soldiers who burst into their enemies’ heartland because they believed it was a just and very necessary thing to do. The commanders who led them encouraged that ethical zeal, made them believe there was a real moral difference between Theban democracy and Spartan helotage, between a free Union and a slave-owning South, and between a democratic Europe and a nightmarish Nazi continent.
Hanson also argues that this zeal and drive constitute a better form of war:
… it is time to rethink what constitutes real brutality in war and who are the real peace-makers. All three generals were not realists as much as moralists. True, they had no delusions about either human nature or war, but this realism grew out of humanism, not cynicism, as they practiced a brutal war-making in order to prevent casualties and establish an enduring peace.
…
These armies of a season were lethal war-makers, but killed surprisingly few of the enemy, their generals boisterous and melodramatic in word, methodical and economical of their men’s lives in deed.
…
After the terrible marches of retribution into their country, none of these cultures would field a credible army again. Their entire infrastructure of racial separation would go up in flames. Among the greatest contributions of Western culture were the destruction of Spartan helotage, Confederate slavery, and German fascism by other Western armies.
This is a fascinating book, presaging some of the ideas from the author’s equally fascinating Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power.
April 24, 2012
An excellent book. Hanson discusses three epic marches - greek, american civil war and WWII, and the generals who led the army. His style is interesting, there is much repetition of phrases and ideas. It reads like a spoken oration, it almost felt like a passionate sermon. He makes an excellent case for his thesis - democratic armies with a moral focus can do amazing things under the right general. It is also a rare history book, in that it bluntly emphasises Good and Evil - the side of the rightous vs. the evil slave societies. Four stars due to the repetition occasionally being overmuch, and the last segment would have read just fine forward in time and going backwards seemed unnecessary. The language about other generals on the same side as the heroes sometimes seemed jarringly harsh.
April 16, 2010
Hanson can be a difficult read and this was. I admire his thinking, detailed research and convincing work. Probably the one thing I'll remember is his posit that if the non-combative citizens of any country at war ever knew what war was really like (e.g. as Sherman taught the Confederacy in the Civil War and the Allies taught the Germans in WWII) conflicts might be resolved in other ways. I don't believe that alternatives can always be found however. A theme in other Hanson books, and in this one, is a dissection of who fights and why. You need to know this if you value liberty. That's all I'll say.
February 8, 2017
Excellent, uplifting book about how Democracy has historically triumphed over tyranny. Great accounts of the Spartans, Confederates and Nazis getting their asses kicked. While Hanson provides some interesting arguments about the inherent strengths of Democracies, he conveniently forgets about the Spartans triumphing over the Athenians, the British triumphing over Napoleonic France, the Vietnamese triumphing over the Americans , etc. Still, a very enjoyable read and good history of the struggles which it does cover.
January 26, 2017
Best work I've read on Epaminondas, an overlooked figure in the history of ancient Greek democracy. He's more generally known for his military skills and innovations to the phalanx as well finally defeating the Spartans in open battle, but his exploits in tearing down the tyranical ediface of the Spartan state and freeing the Messians from slavery were as important as any struggle for freedom in the ancient world.
January 30, 2017
It had some good points, but it was lacking in the evidence and philosophy and tried to make up for it by being repetitive. I had a hard time reading through Patton's segment because I've already read it before in the earlier chapters, over and over and over and now the author expects me to continue when he's stating the same points he's already made without using new evidence--a lot has changed since Epiminondas and Sherman's marches.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews