The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny

With great value and historical information, the Writer spent time with research. I recommend this book on reading time.

This is the kind of book that throws off ideas like sparks from a sparkler. On its surface, it is a sober, if not solemn, examination of how three great generals (Epaminondas, a Theban; Sherman, a Union general; and Patton, in Europe in World War II) commanding forces made up of free men from democratic societies were able to achieve great results against adversaries who were supposedly very powerful, but who were representatives of slave societies and whose power turned out to be less than expected. Hanson argues that the moral power of an army that comes to realize that it is fighting on the side of good against true evil is beyond what could be expected from the sheer numbers. Also, that the forces of evil -- the parasite warriors of Sparta, the oligarchs of the Confederacy who fed the ordinary people into the furnace of battle while protecting themselves and their goods, the madmen of Nazi Germany -- often turn out to be less formidable than one would expect, perhaps because they realize on some level their own moral inferiority or that there is something special about the forces confronting them. Hanson is writing as a military historian (he is a classics professor in a local college in California), but he is not really very interested in the nitty-gritty of exactly how phalanxes worked or what Patton had to do to flummox the Germans. Also, he is a little too reliant on dubious sources such as Goldhagen's polemical indictment of all of the German populace. Yet, he is bright, articulate, and on to something that seems to have gotten past the military technologists: there is something larger than sheer skill and numbers that can sometimes make a difference in how humans on both sides of a battle or a war respond to what they're doing and an army that understands that it is fighting for higher human values against a dehumanizing enemy, like the Spartans, the Confederate slaveholders or the Nazis can do wonders. Also, another point often overlooked in our late 20th century world view, is that leaders who can focus and direct this moral energy are both rare and terribly important. This is a book that should be part of every high school history curriculum and that should be read by every thinking adult. The moral dimension of war (and, by extension, of all that we do in the world) is often either overlooked or handed over to zealots or pious frauds. Hanson is a clear-eyed and down to earth thinker and writer. There are some things he just doesn't get, such as why Alexander really was Great and some basics of proofreading, but this is a fine book that should turn into a historical (dare I say philosophical?) classic. If you want to learn from history and/or are a student of human behavior (are these different?) this book is one that you must read.

For some reason, books sit on my bookcase for years and I find them as if they were new. This is one. It is an analysis of three great generals. I knew about Epaminondas, the great general of Thebes. It was he and his system that trained Philip of Macedon in war. Thebes would suffer several decades later when they chose Athens over Macedon, their putative ally, in the great battle of Chaeronea. Epaminondas was considered the greatest general of Greece and, by many, the greatest man.Hanson compares this great man and general of antiquity to William T Sherman of the Civil War and to George Patton of World War II. Since these two men are my favorite generals of modern times, I was very interested in his opinion. Liddell Hart's  Sherman: Soldier, Realist, American  is a book I have read several times and I agree that Sherman was the first modern general. He used maneuver and speed to defeat enemies without the massive casualties of Grant. It is no surprise that one of his pallbearers was Joe Johnston, his old opponent who said of the Army of the West, "There has been no such army since Julius Caeser." Johnston was admonished by an aide for attending because he was elderly and ill. He said, "Sherman would have done it for me." He died not long after.The third section of the book concerns the Normandy campaign of Patton and his Third Army. I recently reviewed  The Guns at Last Light: The War in Western Europe, 1944-1945 (Liberation Trilogy) , by Rick Atkinson. It seems to me, as the years go by, Patton's reputation rises and that of Bradley declines, as it should until, perhaps one day the truth will be established. The Battle of the Falaise Gap is still not seen as the critical moment that it was. I also reviewed  EISENHOWER & MONTGOMERY At the Falaise Gap , which is an excellent discussion of that incident. Hanson makes the point that, had that gap been closed and the German army annihilated, the war might have ended in 1944. He also makes the point that more Jews and slave laborers died in the last year of the war than in the previous four years. No one knows if Patton could have saved them but the record shows that he was constantly reined in and obstructed by his superiors. In the case of Eisenhower and Bradley, they had not had combat experience and Patton had. Montgomery was best at set piece battles, not maneuver war as the campaign became. Patton was a worthy descendent of Sherman and they were even related.The book is excellent and I am sorry it stood neglected on my shelf all this time.

Find this type history interesting

The title of the book needs to be explained. The title is "The Soul of Battle" and it refers to the capacity of the generals mentioned in the book to instill their men with a drive to march against evil. It is told that Patton took out his pistols and told his men that he would shoot Adolf Hitler when he arrived in Berlin. Going to Berlin and shooting Hitler would be the fastest way to end the war.The book is about non-conformist generals who were able to convince their men, coming from a democratic and free society, to march against an enemy consisting of slaveholders in order to free the slaves.The theme of the book doesn't convince me. I am not a moralist. I find it difficult to assign the moral high ground to one side the conflict. The history is written by those who are victorious. To compare these three generals and their marches can be done but I think it is a bit farfetched.I found the real value of the book not lying in the central theme of the book, but in the details of the descriptions and explanations. At one point he describes why the hoplite way of fighting was a very efficient way of waging war. At another point he describes the military tactics of Patton. These details are the reason why I kept on reading. No battles are described. What can be read are the political realities the generals had to deal with. The reasoning behind the actions of the generals. Lots and lots of details.I enjoyed reading the book and after reading the book I had become a bit more knowledgeable. That is all what can be asked from a book that is written to inform.

Good book,very deep study of the 3 Generals.

This book reveals the power of leadership of three of the greatest generals in history: Theban General Epaminondas, William Tecumseh Sherman, and George S.Patton. I personally was particularly attracted by the comprehensive and fair presentation of Patton’s character, personality, dynamic leadership style, strategic and tactical genius. I find it inspiring that Victor Davis Hanson compares Patton to Ajax (“the American Ajax”), the Greek mythological hero who played a decisive role in the Trojan War. In Homer’Ilias Ajax is presented as fearless, powerful, combative, loyal, loved by his soldiers, and self-sacrificing. When Achilles died, Agamemnon, the King of the Greeks, is uncertain whether to give Achilles’ armour to Ajax or to Odysseus, as recognition for heroic war efforts. Odysseus is the tricky, unstable, illoyal, opportunistic inventor of the Wooden Horse. Being a better communicator, Odysseus finally gets the trophy. The question refers to what is of higher value: Hard-work or cleverness? Self-sacrifice or opportunistic behaviour? Loyalty or inventiveness? Role model or personal ambition? The question is important because the leadership values of an organisation can be recognised by those who get the recognition for outstanding achievements. Victor Davis Hanson gives George S.Patton the merits he deserves in crushing the Nazis and winning World War II.Hans H.Hinterhuber

The brilliant if slightly cracked writing's of Victor Davis Hansen were worth acquiring at this excellent price - thank you.