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.