It is hard to wipe off all the mud while the mudslinging takes place. Mr. Handke should be given a lot of credit for his effort. Although sometimes tiring, his understanding of the Serb, Croat and Muslim actions and american/french/german/british arrogance (or is it ignorance or both?), offers to the reader, specially in countries like united states that have been infected by the CNN/ABC virus, an opportunity to see the other side.

Unfortunately, following some points requires a better knowledge of the events, players, and history -- which is not as common nowdays.

The translation made the ideas a bit confusing at some points, but overall, this is a good book to read.

Handke's small but insightful book has one simple message (amidst many subtle ones): when it comes to Western media coverage of Serbia and the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, "The Emperor Has No Clothes."

Many Croats and their sympathizers have criticized Handke's book sharply for being pro-Serb, but it really can't be reasonably interpreted that way. Rather, the book is an outcry against the wholesale demonization of a people who have been portrayed, wrongly, as ignorant, barbaric, rabid nationalists drunk on historical myths and bent on vengeance, pillage and killing. In fact, all sides in this conflict have manipulated ethnic nationalism for their own ends -- and, among them, the Serbs have been principally distinguished by the relative lack of success in this regard (particularly when compared with Croatia, for example).

Read this book for a wake-up call. Things are not as black and white simple as your newspaper or CNN's clever talking heads (or Messr.s Clinton or Blair) would have you believe.

I know nothing about Serbia beyond what the press commonly reports. This book is the first I have read about that country. It makes no apologies for Serbian atrocities. It does, however, lyrically call journalists and journalism to task.

Written in German in late 1995 for a European audience, this 82-page book applies equally to the U.S. I speak as a former journalist who, during 25 years of largely national U.S. writing, plumbed every side to every question before reaching conclusions--always over-reporting to find nuances, and often reaching conclusions only as I wrote. It was a handicap not easily overcome.

That is not how many, perhaps even most, journalists work. The fault is built into the system. Editors expect reporters to have an angle before they present an idea. Without a hook, assignments are often not made. Editors will deny it, but they expect reporters to have reached some conclusion before they begin reporting, and to report to prove their points. In other words, they routinely ask journalists to put the cart before the horse--an especially troubling phenomenon in this era of political correctness.

Reporters say they are after truth and good. Most are in fact after the big game, the story to make them famous, a kill. Nowadays CNN hires television actors as news anchors. You get the picture. Ironically, on big stories covered by throngs--which I intensely disliked and avoided, and which of course include wars--reporters tend to mimic each other, to sit around after they file, bragging about their prowess. The largest braggarts are also often the least talented.

Institutionalized problems have a depressing effect on journalism. Few stories are black and white. But most present that illusion, although they are products of very little, if any, deductive thought. Certainly, nuances do not surface in short sound bites feeding most news wires. Peter Handke seems to know all this--and a great deal of philosophy.

Serbia aside, this book shows, in near-poetic language, that things are not always as journalists portray them. For that alone, Handke's tiny volume is worth its weight in gold. Alyssa A. Lappen

The Eyewitness Travel series serves as a great visual introduction to a place. It allows you to "see" what places are like and plan your trip accordingly. The maps are usually great and the flaps of the book are constructed to serve as place markers. I bought this book after spending several months living in Prague after college. I had no money and didn't take many photos while I was there; I use this book to bring back memories. I now buy these books whenever there is one for my destination (I even have the one for my current home town).

I wouldn't recommend the book as the soul guide for a budget traveller or someone who wants more than a one-page history on things. Yes, buy the book to plan places and sites to visit, but consult another source for cheap eats/accommodations (there is a selection of these) or detailed historical information.

After years of traveling in Europe and buying countless books and maps on every country, city and tourist site, finally a series of books that gives you a little of everything, but is small enough to carry easily.

This Eyewitness Guide, like the others in this series, gives you a way to quickly identify areas of interest and gives you enough detail and colorful pictures, that country, city and site specific guide books are no longer necessary. The maps in the back are correct and easy to use with an amazing amount of detail. The opening and closing times are always correct. The restaurant and hotel recommendations are right on. The survival guide in the back gives you quick reference on everything from what the currency is to how to use the telephone.

On top of all of the contents, the book itself is tough enough to be thrown around in that backpack or shoved into your pocket without hurting it. The paper is of high quality with sharp graphics. The cover is tough and has built in page marks.

I travel to Europe several times a year and have tried every travel series there is. After using the Eyewitness Travel Guide, these along with the Rick Steves' series is all I ever use anymore.

My friends and I were prepared to fall in love with Prague based entirely on this travel book. The street-by-street descriptions are right on the mark. The historical buildings are dissected to show you the interiors, a wonderful and unique way to give you the floor plans. There are also timelines throughout the quide to chart significant events of the major buildings and people of Prague. I read a large portion of the quide book before I left home, I kept it close to me the entire time I was in Prague for easy reference and I still keep it handy at home. This one is packed to bursting with all the information you could ever need. When I think of going on holiday now, the first thing I go looking for is a travel guide in this excellent series!

I regret that DMM's review is so misleading, for Joanne Freeman's book is nothing like his or her description of it. Freeman does a fine job of linking dueling to politics. She shows that politicians used honor disputes, including duels, to repair their reputations and their honor and to damage the reputations and honor of their foes. She shows in particular how the duels she writes about followed elections, and how politicians on the losing side of those elections provoked honor disputes with politicians on the winning side. Her title is not misleading at all, because the book does deal with national politics (and with state politics and how state politics interacted with national politics) and with how honor culture helped to shape politics. She doesn't waste a word; she writes very well; and she ably connects the stories she tells to her interpretation of politics and political culture in this period. All the way around, I don't know a better book on the subject.

This is that rarest of books -- a work of pathbreaking scholarship that's a joy to read. Joanne B. Freeman, assistant professor of history at Yale University, combines the analytical talents of a subtle historian, the story-telling ability of a first-rate journalist, and the gift of empathy with historical figures. Her remarkable book examines the ways that the leading figures of the first decades of the American republic practiced politics. In her pages, such leading spirits as George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton are not serene philosopher statesmen but self-conscious, harried, angry, fearful, insistent, sometimes even fanatical -- as they were in real life.
Freeman examines a series of episodes -- which previous historians have either overlooked altogether or have dismissed as idiosyncratic or crazy -- and explains them by setting them into the context of a key value that pervaded the political life and assumptions of the period: honor. With skill and grace, she shows that a political leader's honor and reputation were essential components of his case for his own right to be seen as a political leader. Indeed, many of the most bitter and previously inexplicable conflicts of the early Republic can be explained by reference to politicians' battles to shore up their own honor and reputation and to undermine that of their opponents.
Freeman's book begins with an incisive prologue recapturing the sense of uncertainty and anxiety that accompanied the launch of the American constitutional experiment in 1789.
Chapter 1 examines "the politics of self-presentation" through a close, attentive interpretation of one of the minor classics of American political writing, Senator William Maclay's diary of his service in the First Congress (1789-1791). In these pages she brings out just how self-conscious these politicians were about the ways they dressed, traveled, spoke, and otherwise held the political stage.
Chapter 2, "Slander, Poison, Whispers, and Fame," analyzes the art of political gossip, focusing on Thomas Jefferson's skilled collection and use of gossip about friends and foes. Freeman demonstrates that, far from being the disinterested philosopher he liked to portray himself as being, Jefferson was a shrewd and ruthless politician thoroughly engaged in the political cut-and-thrust of his time.
Chapter 3, "The Art of Paper War," shifts focus to the various forms of practicing politics in print; it is built around the lengthy series of newspaper essays with which former President John Adams sought in 1809 to defend his historical reputation against an 1800 pamphlet penned by Alexander Hamilton. Freeman ably anatomizes the various forms of political writing -- letters, pamphlets, newspaper essays, broadsides, and so forth -- by reference to their purposes and their intended audiences.
Chapter 4, "Dueling as Politics," Freeman examines a perennial favorite among episodes from this period -- the fatal duel in 1804 between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. Freeman cuts through the fog of myth, legend, and psychohistorical speculation that have surrounded this most famous duel in American history. She demonstrates that the honor dispute between Burr and Hamilton was only one of a series of such disputes spanning the years between 1795 and 1807, and that this series of disputes (some rising to the level of an actual duel, some averted by negotiation) marked the fault-lines of politics in New York among Federalists, Clintonian Republicans (followers of George and later DeWitt Clinton), and Burrites. Indeed, dueling was the ultimate form of political combat -- in which politicians risked being killed and killing to vindicate their honor and reputation, and thus their claims to be political leaders. In this brilliant piece of historical detective-work, Freeman has solved the mystery of why these men went to the dueling-ground in Weehawken, leaving the reader understanding why they felt compelled to duel.
Chapter 5 brings all these strands together by focusing on the election of 1800 and showing how the culture of honor and the politics of reputation were key factors in shaping the outcome of the most critical presidential election up to that time. Here Freeman's central character is the enigmatic Aaron Burr. As with her earlier chapters, Freeman begins by taking Burr seriously and paying close attention to what he said, did, and wrote. Her nuanced and perspicacious investigation of the elections of 1796 and 1800 brings out how, in a period celebrated by other historians as witnessing the triumph of the first "party system," the politics of honor and reputation had far more than party to do with the actual outcome of the election and the process by which the crisis of 1800-1801 was resolved.
Freeman's deft epilogue examines the reverberations of honor culture and the politics of reputation in the struggles of key figures of this period to shape how history would view them and their thoughts, words, and deeds. Her central player is the Federalist New Hampshire politician William Plumer, who was determined (as a Senator during Jefferson's presidency) to collect and preserve the history of his time and vindicate himself and his allies. So, too, Jefferson, James Madison, Timothy Pickering, and other contemporaries struggled to fix their versions of the immediate past and transmit them to posterity. Indeed, the family of Federalist James Bayard, who had played a vital role in determining the electoral deadlock of 1800-1801, persisted in vindicating the role of their ancestor as late as 1907.
Freeman's fine book is formidably researched, and yet she carries her learning lightly. AFFAIRS OF HONOR sets a new standard for historical scholarship, not only in the rigor of its research and argument, but also in its lucid, accessible presentation. Any reader without any background in the subject will be able to pick up this book and read it with enjoyment and enlightenment. This is what books are for.

Regrettably, it appears that the reviewer from Paterson, NJ, either hasn't bothered to read the book or has not read it with care. Professor Freeman proves beyond dispute that previous historians have not understood the central importance of honor culture in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Professor Freeman also proves beyond dispute that it is impossible to understand substantive political issues without careful attention to their cultural context.

One important point: Joseph E. Ellis and Jack N. Rakove are pretty dang good political historians who have paid close attention to substantive political issues in this period. And they both praise this book highly for its vital contribution not only to our understanding of politics in the early American republic but also to our understanding of how to do political history.

I took Reeling in Russia with me on a recent fly fishing trip to Russia's Kola Peninsula. I always enjoy reading a book the contents of which are affiliated with the region to which I've travelled. This book aligned both with the country and with the purpose of my trip.

If the reader is interested in substantive information related to fly fishing in the former Soviet Union, this isn't the book. R In R is to fishing as motorcycles were to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

However, RinR presents an affectionate and enlightening insight into the contemporary Russians'male's mind. Their aspirations, dreams and the practical realities that stand in the way of acheiving them. Great (and chilling)sections on the history of the Gulag, a subject about which I knew little before reading this book.

As a gazetter for both the Russian mind as well as the territory, R in R is an enjoyable read. I guess if the measure of a book's quality lies in whether it sends you to other books on the same suject, this book succeeds. I'd recommend it.

I admit I read this book because it was about fly-fishing and traveling through Russia, a country I have never been to but have always been intrigued by. What I found in this book was a heart-rendering journey through a land ravaged by corruption, hunger and politics, tempered with humor and the determination of a people determined to survive. This is not just a travelogue on fly--fishing, it is a book that takes you through a country that few outsiders will ever see . At times gripping or sad, then funny or heartwarming, sometimes all at the same time! Whether you fly-fish or not, you won't want to put this book down!

This is not a fishing book. It is a serious study of modern day Russia, warts and all. It is an introspective study through a 7000 mile fishing journey of the Russian people and their attitudes to their govenrment, to their lives and to their destiny. It is a journey through the frightening past as well the terrifying unknown future. One should not read the newspapers these days without fully understanding the Russian people found in this book and the political paralysis that is their government..

Kevin Kertscher's Africa Solo is the account of the kind of trek that just cannot be undertaken right now, and so it's worth reading for both its historical and its sociological value. Although it is different from many travel books in that it focuses on individual experience rather than history or events, the book offers a different kind of education: a single person's insight and experience.

In the late 1980s, Kertscher trekked - mostly by hitchhiking, with some walking and one plane trip - through West, Central, and East Africa, taking a winding path from Oran in Algeria to Nairobi in Kenya. He also traveled mostly alone, which gave him a lot more exposure to the continent, and put him in more danger as well. An average person like Kertscher probably could not duplicate this trip today; political instability and unrest have rendered many of the countries he visited more dangerous for foreigners, as well as altering the areas through which he traveled significantly since his journey.

That change is one of the primary reasons why Kertscher's book is still worth reading - he provides an account of an older Africa the one that gave birth to the current one. His observations of Mobutu's Zaire, while not as detailed as Helen Winternitz's in East Along the Equator, explain a great deal about the current situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And his account of Rwanda during a break in its long history of conflict is surprising - he describes it as one of the most peaceful and progressive countries in Africa.

The personal perspective of the book - the author's solo movement through the continent, relying mostly on others for transportation - is also valuable; I got a better sense of the regional differences in the people than I have from other Africa books. Kertscher also experienced much more than most travelers do of the kindness of strangers in Africa; in his sort of travel, he was forced to rely on others, and it impressed me how often those others came through for him. I can't say I'd travel the way he did, but the results were apparently better than I would have expected.

All in all, this is an engrossing read that provides a personal perspective on one portion of a very large place. Africa Solo should not be used as a guidebook, because of the many changes in the area, but cultures do change more slowly than governments, so perhaps a person planning a trip to the area would still benefit from this book. Certainly armchair travelers will enjoy it.

Kevin spent several months in Africa in the late 80s (so it is a little outdated), wanting to across Africa on his own - on foot, bus or boat. He does overfly certain sections of West Africa in order to get to Zaire before the rainy season, but this does not take away from his journey.

I read this book in a weekend, wanting to see how Kevin fared on this travels and because I was interested in the characters that he met along the way. This is one of the better travelogues I've read on Africa and I'd recommend it to anyone with an interest in that part of the world.

After a trip to Zimbabwe and Botswana recently, I became entranced with Africa. Kevin Kertscher validated my new-found emotional attachment to the continent. His fascination with and acceptance of his experience is easily understood by the reader. And his strong visual sense and training is apparent in his verbal description of his experiences and environment. This is an easy read of a way of life so foreign. I don't know that I would have the wherewithall to travel as he had done, but this book makes me feel as if I had been along with him on his journey.

... I have to agree that this book doesn't say much about Russia. It's kinda fun, in its own way, but the coverage of some of the major world events of the 1990s is so superficial as to leave the reader wondering if the author really understands the importance of what was happening in Russia. Stories about taxi drivers and neighbors don't really tell you much about anything, and even something that could have been fun and interesting like the interview with Lee Harvey Oswald's wife doesn't deliver the way it should. ...

What's good about this book? It's a fast read, it isn't difficult to understand, even without a basic understanding of Russia. But, that's about it. There are so many better books about this period out these days, so I can't recommend this one.

This book was fantastic--I couldn't put it down. It's funny, moving, intriguing, and well written. I learned so much through the writer's insight into Russian culture, people and politics. Gould's personal viewpoint made me feel as though I were experiencing her travels with her. Her stories cover so many aspects of Russia that you're sure to learn something you didn't know before. I recommend this book very highly.

As a young woman in my late-20s with a passion for politics, travel, and brainy adventure -- I couldn't recommend this book more highly... I looked forward to reading each chapter: each one a portrait of a people and a culture, painted so vividly I felt like I could jump right in. I read this book for the first time a few years ago... it was a gift that I received before beginning my own adventures in grad school where I'm studying Eastern European politics. Of the many books I have read about Russia, this remains my favourite -- Gould's down-to-earth writing style, lively descriptions, as well as the sensitivity and warmth she brings to her subjects -- are nothing short of inspiring. Not only have I read this book many times over the past few years, but also it remains a favourite to give as gifts for friends... Go ahead, take the journey to the FSU with a funny, bright, clever and downright wonderful writer... it'll be the best armchair adventure you'll ever take!!!

I think that this book gives an excellent, detailed look back on a greatly unknown black American explorer, William Henry Sheppard. Pagan Kennedy opens our eyes to history that is left out of history books. The Presbyterian missionary attempts to convert African tribes into "civilized Christians", but in the end fails because of his mishaps and disliking by a white missionary. I recommend this book to anyone interested in studying black American explorers, or anyone looking for information on the Belgium Congo.

In my younger years I read many a book about exploring Africa and hunting the animals as well as safaris' as written by various authors. Great reading!

This book is about a black man named William Henry Sheppard A/K/A
The Black Livingstone...for good reason. Others complain about using conjecture in writing this story, however, the author, Pagan Kennedy, admits there are huge holes missing in the life of William Sheppard and I believe she did a fine job in telling this story. To make it interesting she just had to use conjecture or there would have been no book. There are plenty of facts, however, to prove that a whole lot of life-threatening danger was involved and original exploration and pathfinding done by the Black Livingstone.

This is the story of a black man's life that started as a nobody, then through hard work and some chicanery became a sought after celebrity and then in the waning years again became a nobody.

The relationship between Sheppard and his wife is an interesting one. All of her life she dreamed of living a certain way and after MANY decades she finally realized her dreams as outlined in the epilogue.

This was a fine book for me as the author did well in assembling the information at hand. I had never heard of Sheppard and the others in this story and am glad I read it!

The life and work of William Sheppard should be better known. He was an African-American who escaped Jim Crow in the U.S. to become a missionary in Africa. He co-founded a Christian mission in Africa where they had been none before and for a time ran it single-handedly. He was also an amateur anthropologist/ethnologist and became the first foreigner to establish contact with the Kuba people of central Africa and to describe their culture to the outside world. On top of all that, he documented the cruelty of the King Leopold's Congo rule. Unfortunately, it is not clear that "Black Livingstone: A True Tale of Adventure in the Nineteenth-Century Congo" by Pagan Kennedy is up to the job of elevating William Sheppard to his rightful place in history. The book is well written, worth reading, and might be valuable to anyone interested in Africa, the Congo, or Christian missionaries, but a lot of the story is missing and is filled in with generalities from Sheppard's time. It may be the case that original documents concerning Sheppard's life are lost, and this is the best that can be done, or perhaps another book can do better. Four stars, but barely.

I read most of Taylor Caldwell's books when I was a freshman in high school. I discovered Mary Renault in my sophomore year. Guess which author's earned more of my appreciation and respect . . . and if you guess Caldwell, I will have to entreat you to read Renault. Please.

That's not to say that Caldwell wasn't entertaining, and her view of history offers an alternative perspective. But she could not resist showing us her interpretations of famous people through her dark glasses of right-wing American politics and Christianity. "A Pillar of Iron" is no exception; its very title comes from the Book of Jeremiah.

Caldwell presents Cicero's birth and childhood as the appearance of a grand prodigy; whether any of it is based on fact (aside from the fact that the Cicerones did move to Rome from Arpinum to give the young Cicero a good education) is something for which I've never found proof. His young life and career veers into Caldwell's apparent foundation that Marcus Cicero was Rome's first spiritual Christian. (Marcus Cicero is probably still laughing his head off at that one). She glosses over Cicero's greatest faults, namely his immense egotism and his timidity; she presents him as the heroic defender of the Republic during the Catilinian conspiracy, but sees nothing wrong with the fact that he denied those conspirators executed at Rome the right to a trial; and she resolutely turns every opponent he has into a villain. Although her portrayal of Catiline is over-the-top fun--let's face it, people have loved mad, bad, beautiful people since the dawn of time--Caldwell can't make anyone else equally entertaining. Julius Caesar especially suffers, shown as one-dimensional and annoying, the sort of politician and public presence who in Rome would have been laughed out of Italy, not opposed by some of the mightiest men Rome had produced.

One figure that keeps popping up (so to speak) is the "Unknown God", Caldwell's milking of an altar in Greece dedicated to, well, an unknown god; her decision to make that god Jehovah was hers to make. I can't say I agree with it, but who knows? It might have worked if Caldwell hadn't laid it on so thick. After a while it palls. The Romans were religious expedients; they prayed to different gods to cover all the bases. Monotheism wasn't something they agreed with; they may have referred to a single god in later writings, but it's a good bet they had a particular deity from the pantheon in mind.

"A Pillar of Iron" is an interesting way to pass the time, but it's riddled with inaccuracies down to its tiniest conceit. It's a shame. Cicero is a fascinating man and deserves to have a decent book written about his life.

I read Pillar of Iron some years back and, when I saw that it is still available for purchase through Amazaon, and that I could write a review of it, I decided to take advantage of both opportunities.

I recently read a reviewer's commentaries panning the book as poorly researched, based on the near fictitious relationship between Cicero and Caesar, and the spiritual slant taken on Cicero's personality (and the Romans in general) as being too "Christian".

I am no more put off by Caldwell's liberties taken with such obvious fictionalization as the two C's relationship, then I was with Schaeffer's liberties taken with those between Mozart and Sallieri. It is obvious to me that Caldwell needed to beef up the characers for fiction, and she did it in a way that brought city life in Roman times very much alive, and succeeded in portraying Cicero as a man moved more by his spirituality than by pragmatic politics, which I believe to be true, based on his own writings. From rush hour in Rome to Casesar's divorce, and the ingenious interweaving of Cicero's deeply moving original texts and landscape fiction, Caldwell's book is worthy of high praise.

I read this book while taking Economics in high school about 1 week ago. It was the highlight of the course. Thanks Mrs. Mara! I kick myself for not keeping a copy. It is a good story from one perspective of life in Rome. Cicero was among the first to habitually publish his writings and speeches (it was one of his greatest sources of income). However, since it is he was writing about, they were somewhat subjective. Another spin on Cicero, Caesar, and others can be found in the novels by Colleen McCullough. She begins her historical fiction tales from the time just before the birth of Cicero and Caesar and continues through the death of both. The series is several books and covers the Roman lifestyle in much greater depth. Very good reading.

A good but not a great Star Trek book. If you ever wanted to know when and how Kirk and Mitchell became such great friends, this is the book for you. Beginning as a flashback in the aftermath of Gary Mitchell's death, Republic is an entertaining, intriguing tale of Kirk's relationship with Mitchell, offering insight into Kirk as a younger man, and what makes both of these guys tick. Not great writing, but fascinating in its description of the interplay between the two men. A great gift for a Trekkie!

James T. Kirk has committed a heinous act. He killed his best friend, Gary Mitchell. Sorrow, guilt and frustration take their toll on Kirk as he begins to reminiscence over a relationship that went sour.

Republic, the first book, in the three part series of My Brother's Keeper, tells the story of how Kirk and Mitchell became friends at Starfleet Academy. There we meet two different personalities. Kirk is Mr. Play It Safe Lieutenant while Mitchell is a fun loving cad. The two get on one another's nerves. While on the U.S.S. Republic on a training mission, the two begin to learn that they must work together in order to save a planet about to be torn apart in an interplanetary conflict.

Republic is a good story in introducing us to two intriguing characters forging a friendship in their youth. We see just what Kirk was like before becoming a Captain and get a taste of Mitchell's influence on his life. This was an enjoyable read which will take you to the stars as well as teach you about the meaning of friendship.

I did enjoy the book along with the other books in the trilogy Star Trek "Brother's Keeper." I always wandered what would happen after James T. Kirk had killed his best friend Gary Mitchell after I the Star Trek Original Series episode "Where No Man Has Gone Before."

This book is an excellent addition to the history student's library. Goldsworthy does not rely solely on secondary sources for his examination, rather he uses primary sources such as Caesar, Plutarch and Tacitus, to name a few. However, a problem about relying too heavily on primary sources from the ancients themselves is that there are many factors that need to be taken into account when analyzing their importance and validity. Such as the time when they were written, why they were written, what their purpose was, etc. Overall, however, I feel that this is an authoritative and concise description of the Roman army at war, the secrets of Roman military success and the battle experience of the commanders, units and soldiers. Unfortunately, there are many works on the organization and structure of the Roman army, and it is clear from the introduction of this work that Goldsworthy had intended to emulate Keegan's Face of Battle technique and look at the experience of battle. However, due to the lack of sources from the individual soldier, it is somewhat impossible to demonstrate what the experience of battle was like for the individual combat soldier.

Nice try though...

Adrian Goldsworthy, a classical scholar, initially wrote this book as a thesis at Oxford University. Goldsworthy felt that, "both the popular and scholarly view of the Roman army is at best highly misleading, and in most cases utterly false." By employing the method introduced by John Keegan in the Face of Battle, Goldsworthy seeks to use classical literary sources to demonstrate how the Roman army actually fought on campaign. The author relies heavily on the standard ancient sources - Caesar, Tacitus, Polybius, Plutarch, Josephus - and synthesizes them in an effort to pain a collective portrait of the Roman army in action. As a scholarly revisionist work, this book does provide an interesting synthesis of material from diverse sources. Yet a sober analysis of this book reveals that it does not merit universal acclaim because it neither breaks significant new ground nor possesses sound analysis.

Readers familiar with the classics of ancient history may be dismayed by the manner in which the author weaves together disparate anecdotes from more than 300 years of Roman military history in an attempt to validate his theories. Examples from different centuries, different theaters of war and different types of war are thrown together into a bouillabaisse that is confusing and misleading. Using examples so disparate in space or time - and with significant gaps in sources - to develop a general theory is intellectually dangerous. Imagine attempting to develop a general theory on how the French army fought between 1640 and 1940 based upon a sprinkling of memoirs from the early 18th Century, the Napoleonic era, and the First World War and the problem should be apparent. It is also noteworthy that the author criticizes other author's for using anachronistic sources in analyzing the Roman army, and then proceeds to do exactly that himself. The author's choice of odd post-classical military references, such as out-dated Victorian military manuals, is particularly odd.

Unfortunately, the author fails to provide much that is really new, and the little that is new is overly generalized and dubious. Goldsworthy concludes that, "the army's organization was not characterized by its rigidness, but, quite the contrary, by its great flexibility. Its units adapted to the local situation." And, "the strategy adopted by many Roman armies on campaign was anything but methodical." The author's main intent is to discredit the monolithic, automaton perception of the Roman army and replace it with a more complex view that encompasses innovation and human motivations. Certainly taken against eighty-year old assessments such as J F C Fuller's, Goldsworthy's text appears more modern. While using outdated ideas as fodder for a revisionist graduate school thesis makes sense, it does not make sense to re-cast this effort as a crusade to correct all other interpretations of Roman military methods.

As in Keegan's Face of Battle, the author attempts to dissect the mechanics of Roman battle. Critical to Goldsworthy's analysis is his unquestioned faith in S L A Marshall's assertion that only 25% of soldiers actively participate in combat. Never mind that Marshall fudged much of his research or that US troops in Korea did not fight in close-order lines as the Romans did, Goldsworthy believes that this 25% figure was germane to the Roman army as well. According to Goldsworthy, Roman infantry tactics were geared toward achieving a penetration in the enemy "line" and thereby collapse their morale, but if this did not immediately occur, the battle could ebb and flow until one side broke. This is nonsense on many levels. First, any subaltern knows that you cannot achieve a tactical penetration without local superiority, and a thin Roman double-line formation could not hope to achieve this against the typical dense-pack formations of most of its opponents. Even if a small penetration were achieved, the Roman soldiers would be quickly enveloped and annihilated once outside the protection of their own battle line. Goldsworthy does raise three important issues, but fails to exploit them: the Roman preference for large reserves, the Roman knowledge that troops in close combat became exhausted after about 15 minutes and the stabbing tactics of the gladius sword.

Modern armies typically maintain 1/9th of their forces in reserve to meet unexpected situations in battle, but the Romans kept a much higher percentage - about one-third. There is no reason to believe that the Romans relied on the unpredictability of winning battles by the extra-aggressive behavior of only 25% of their infantry, but rather, far more plausible theories suggest that the Romans won by well-timed use of reserves. It is likely that against Barbarians, the Romans expected their first two lines merely to hold off and exhaust the enemy for about 15 minutes. At the decisive moment, the Roman general would commit his reserve and this third line would literally massacre the front-rank of the exhausted enemy, who usually lacked the discipline or command and control to employ a tactical reserve properly. As Goldsworthy notes, the Barbarian "wedge" formations usually resulted in the tribal leadership out front and these were the men killed by the Roman reserves; without leadership, the rest of the enemy usually broke and ran. The key question here, is how exactly did the Romans deploy their reserve through the first two lines. However it was done, it required a high degree of training and discipline - both Roman strong points. As for the gladius, Goldsworthy fails to note that stabbing tactics were essentially defensive and far less tiring than the wild, offensive slashing tactics employed by Rome's enemies. Thus, Goldsworthy's depiction of Roman battle tactics is fundamentally flawed, although he does make some interesting observations.

I was more than glad to have the chance to read again and again the book of a person who was a very good friend of mine during my university years in Cardiff, i.e. Dr. Adrian Goldsworthy. I am using this opportunity to congratulate him for this splendid work and also for his other books...and wish him to have always a successful career in the world of writing historical books.