Good book.

This book is an overview of the role of Roman military commanders told in the form of a series of case studies of 15 particular commanders spanning a large swath of the Roman Empire's history. In this way, it covers the interesting topics of Roman military doctrine, tactics, and structure, but it also infuses these concepts with a readability and sense of drama from the case studies. Thus, it is interesting and entertaining.

I have read several books by this author, and so many of his points about the way battles actually occurred and evolved were familiar to me, but they are likely to be even more interesting if you are less familiar with his other work. The figures are well chosen based on a combination of their intrinsic value as illustrations and the relevance of the source material we have to judge them. The scope even continues past the fall of the Western Empire into some campaigns of the Byzantine Empire. As with other Goldsworthy books, I wish there were more illustrations/diagrams and most especially more maps. I think given the uncertainty of the specific locations for ancient events, the author is hesitant to put forward maps of specific locations. However, even some large scale general maps of the areas covered showing obvious landmarks like rivers with putative locations of specific incidents would be a valuable addition.

I think I read this last year. Romans are good fun to read about larger than life predecessors of who the modern world has so much in common possibly in their fate as well. Of course, every schoolchild gets a healthy ladling of Julius Ceasar, Scipio Africanus, Cicero, Sulla, The Gracchi. It keeps classics scholars in business and books on Rome and "are we Rome?" will be a perennial for the indefinite future.
Like ∙ flag
following reviews


READING PROGRESS
September 18, 2020 – Started Reading
September 19, 2020 – Finished Reading
December 27, 2020 – Shelved
December 27, 2020 – Shelved as: to-read

well-written as is Goldsworthy's forte, but his selection is 90% predictable who's who of Roman generals, with a heavy slice of the 2nd century BC-AD.

He makes his most interesting point in the intro. Despite the apparent amateurism of the Roman high command, with no academies & little formal on the job training except as a tribune, there was an unofficial streak of imparted wisdom through lost manuals, senior advisors with campaigns under their belt & let's not forget the senior centurions of a Legion with up to thirty years' experience in various theaters of war. Also, the education of Roman nobility, where politics & military glory were inseparately entwined, gave a decent foundation for a young general to command on horseback with sangfroid.

As in any profession since the damn of man, the most important quality was to listen, to learn from mistakes & to delegate. Even if Caesar knew how to time a personal encouragement by appearing at a threatened section of the frontline. The luxury of pre-gunpowder warfare.

A fairly basic, popularizing account of the generals who brought Rome victory over many centuries. Not a bad book, but not a great or essential one either. Good as an introduction to Roman military history.

Having no doubt makes one strong. Till the "Men Who Won the Roman Empire" never doubted in the eventual victory of Rome, things went splendidly. It was only when they lost this conviction that the empire began to crumble.
The Men include Fabius Maximus, Scipio Africanus, Marius, Pompey, Caesar, Germanicus, Trajan, Belisarius, and others.

Goldsworthy's scholarship is not in doubt, but he somehow manages to make an interesting topic boring as all hell, which is quite the feat. Also, I don't know that I quite agree with his selections as noteworthy generals, especially since he admits to including some of them simply because more sources exist for them (Julian) than anyone else of the time. I also find it somewhat interesting who he chooses to exclude, i.e., Sulla, Mark Antony, Agrippa, Marcus Aurelius, and even Tiberius. (That's not to say that all these men are truly noteworthy generals, but the fact that he spends as great deal of time in his chapter on Germanicus explaining the rise of the Principate and the generalship of Agrippa and Tiberius there seems somewhat disingenuous. The same can be said of Sulla in both the chapters on Marius and those on Pompey.)

All this being said, Goldsworthy also doesn't dive into any real detail when it comes to any of his subjects. The chapters on Pompey and Caesar are the longest, but even they seem to truncate the sheer complexity that was the Civil War.

This is a decent, if uninspired, overview of the subject of Roman generalship, but I doubt it will lead people to delve deeper into the subject, which is what I think was Goldsworthy's intention.