Amazon.com: Customer reviews: The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny
Skip to main content
.us
Hello Select your address
All
Select the department you want to search in
Hello, Sign in
Account & Lists
Returns & Orders
Cart
All
Back to School Disability Customer Support Off to College Best Sellers Amazon Basics Today's Deals New Releases Customer Service Prime Music Books Kindle Books Amazon Home Registry Fashion Gift Cards Toys & Games Sell Handmade Amazon Explore Automotive Coupons Pharmacy Home Improvement Pet Supplies Computers Beauty & Personal Care Luxury Stores Video Games Shopper Toolkit

  • The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three...
  • ›
  • Customer reviews

Customer reviews

4.7 out of 5 stars
4.7 out of 5
275 global ratings
5 star
79%
4 star
13%
3 star
4%
2 star
1%
1 star
2%
The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny

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

byVictor Davis Hanson
Write a review
How customer reviews and ratings work

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon
See All Buying Options

Top positive review

All positive reviews›
S. A. ROBBINS
VINE VOICE
5.0 out of 5 starsIf you never really understood Patton's value to WWII, read this book.
Reviewed in the United States on December 21, 2018
Hanson puts into clear and eloquent words what I have known for a long time. Patton was the key element in WWII in the fight against the Nazis. What few have understood is made poignantly clear, that Patton could easily have ended WWII six to 12 months earlier and saved millions of lives.
Read more
32 people found this helpful

Top critical review

All critical reviews›
ignacio f.
3.0 out of 5 starsIt's decent but a little too repetitive.
Reviewed in the United States on May 16, 2021
By the time I was well into Patton, the third of the characters examined, I'd become really tired of hearing the same comparisons, over and over, to the other two -- particularly to Epaminondas, the 4th-century BC Greek, whose name never became resonant or easy to pronounce in my head. Okay, so I'm a dummy, but it just comes up twelve million times. Also, beginning the long section on Patton by dwelling on his death tended to remove what might be called "narrative suspense," that is, a reason to keep turning the pages.
Read more

Search
Sort by
Top reviews
Filter by
All reviewers
3 star only
Text, image, video
Filtered by
3 starClear filter
11 total ratings, 7 with reviews

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

From the United States

ignacio f.
3.0 out of 5 stars It's decent but a little too repetitive.
Reviewed in the United States on May 16, 2021
Verified Purchase
By the time I was well into Patton, the third of the characters examined, I'd become really tired of hearing the same comparisons, over and over, to the other two -- particularly to Epaminondas, the 4th-century BC Greek, whose name never became resonant or easy to pronounce in my head. Okay, so I'm a dummy, but it just comes up twelve million times. Also, beginning the long section on Patton by dwelling on his death tended to remove what might be called "narrative suspense," that is, a reason to keep turning the pages.
Helpful
Report abuse
    Showing 0 comments

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.


Andrew Maile
3.0 out of 5 stars As a VDH fan I find myself somewhat disappointed
Reviewed in the United States on February 26, 2021
Verified Purchase
There's a good deal of effort here to illustrate a few fundamentals of classic military leadership. Reading the introduction/prologue is sufficient to grasp the author's rationale and conclusions. For committed historians and military enthusiasts this book is likely a worthwhile read; but for the casual reader, I'd suggest it is not.
One person found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
    Showing 0 comments

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.


Mary McMillan
3.0 out of 5 stars This book was written in and marked on the outside pages and inside cover.
Reviewed in the United States on February 22, 2019
Verified Purchase
This book was written in and marked on the outside pages and inside cover. It was disappointing.
Helpful
Report abuse
    Showing 0 comments

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.


W. J. Delehunt
3.0 out of 5 stars Best if you already know the history of the battles....
Reviewed in the United States on July 5, 2021
VDH has a thesis (armies comprised by democracies will fight for the liberation of the oppressed and enslaved) and finds information to support it, even if he must shoe-horn facts into his narrative.

He has probably covered the pertinent battlefield details into his other writings (I've read his accounts of Sherman elsewhere and he dives much deeper into WTS' actions); here Hanson focuses on explaining why armies of freemen will fight not for glory or reward but for the liberty of others. It is a very long, often repetitive editorial rather than a chronology, heavy on opinion and considerably lighter on details.

That's not to say it's not worthwhile, but you will enjoy it more if you already have a very strong background in the three wars and the role of each personage in the larger conflict. Otherwise you will be hitting Wikipedia for additional factual information.
Helpful
Report abuse
    Showing 0 comments

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.


Dr. Patrick Murray
3.0 out of 5 stars The best part of this book is his Epaminondas's victorious battles ...
Reviewed in the United States on December 3, 2014
Victor Davis Hanson believes that maneuver generals win wars and they can bring about quick end to wars. The best part of this book is his Epaminondas's victorious battles against the Spartans. It is clear that Hanson has walked the ground and knows it well. There is no arguing with the Theban defeat of the Spartans, however, constant warfare worked its attrition against Spartan manpower. Sherman was part of Grant's great war of attrition and what he did to Georgia and South Carolina resembled strategic bombing, impacting crops, confidence in government, and livestock. Hanson believes that Patton could have advanced into Germany in September 1944 and ended the war sooner than it did. It is clear that he has not walked that ground or considered the roads and routes that come down to the Rhine and are visible for hundreds even thousands of yards from Germany. We know what happened in December 1944 when the Germans sent entire armies down limited roadnets in the Ardennes. The same would have happened to Patton.WWII ended when Hitler shot himself in downtown Berlin on 30 April and the Germans fought on for another week. Attrition won World War II not maneuver generals.
One person found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
    Showing 0 comments

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.


David W. Nicholas
3.0 out of 5 stars Some good points, but very argumentative and selective
Reviewed in the United States on August 30, 2012
I've read other books by Victor Davis Hanson, notably "The Western Way of War" and a lot of his political commentary, and I generally enjoy him. At his worst he's a wordy intellectual, very argumentative, and it turns out that this book is a good example of those characteristics, writ large and long. "The Soul of Battle" is an attempt to argue that "Democratic Marches" by armies of freedom-loving people can defeat tyrrany and end wars, destroying evil empires. While this may be true in certain instances, and was probably more true in the past, Hanson more or less dismisses these qualifications with a wave of the hand, and just steams on with his assertion.

So Hanson has 3 examples of "Democratic Marches" to rely on for his thesis. The first is the march by Epaminondas, which ended the rule of Sparta over the helots in neighboring provinces. The helots (slaves) were what allowed the Spartans to create a small core of highly-trained, very-motivated infantry that were feared throughout Greece. The second is General Sherman's famed "March to the Sea," which gutted the Confederacy and destroyed their morale. The third is George Patton's drive across France and Germany to victory in World War II.

Now, I'll say right off that I'm in no way an expert in ancient warfare or ancient anything else. Some of my friends might tell you that *I'm* ancient, but they're messing with you. My opinion of the Epaminondas chapter is therefore going to be brief, because I don't have any criticisms, really. At one point Hanson wonders why Epaminondas hasn't garnered the attention Alexander the Great (whom Hanson loathes) has been given; at the risk of sounding flip, might it have something to do with his name being a tongue-twister?

Then Hanson moves on to William T. Sherman, about whom I do know a bit having read 4-5 biographies, and numerous books about his campaigns) and we immediately get into trouble. Hanson has a pretty good grasp of the "March to the Sea" and its consequences, and he rightly brushes aside the claims that Sherman was a war criminal. Most Southerners now will try and tell you that Sherman was a war criminal on a par with World War II Nazis, and then in the same breath try to convince you that the war wasn't about slavery. Both opinions should carry about equal weight; neither has much validity. From there, however, Hanson gets in trouble. He makes much of how dangerous the march was thought to be at the time, and little of how easy it was in terms of actual danger. His army of approximately 60,000 men was never seriously opposed during the march, the main issue being supplies. Once it became apparent that they would be able to live off the land, there was no doubt that Sherman and his army could go anywhere. Hanson, however, tries to contrast this with Grant's travails in Virginia. I think Sherman himself would be the first to tell you that Johnston wasn't Robert E. Lee, and John B. Hood *certainly* wasn't Robert E. Lee either. Further, prior to the capture of Atlanta, Sherman outnumbered Johnston by a larger numerical superiority than Grant had over Lee, and while some generals in the Army of the Potomac were pretty competent, luck of the draw had given Sherman a very good group of subordinates. Equating the two campaigns is similar to comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. The author attempts to turn Sherman into more or less an abolitionist, though acknowledging that he had hated abolitionists before the war and blamed them for its onset, but he ignores the fact that Sherman activly resisted black regiments being assigned to his forces, sending them all to Thomas's army. The result is that the reader gets a rather one-sided view of Sherman as having won the Civil War himself, a view which he would have rejected with considerable vehemence and anger.

Then we get to Patton, and things really fall apart. The author's just made a big thing out of Sherman's supposed abhorrence of slavery, and the Union Army's collective disgust at the institution, once they saw it up close. This is reasonable (most Northerners had never been to the South, and had only read of slavery in the abstract) but when the author gets to World War II, he chooses one of the most "Southern" of U.S. Army officers of the era to epitomize our crusade for Democracy in World War II. Patton was the grandson of a Confederate officer (and namesake, who was killed at the Battle of Cedar Creek in 1864), bounced on the knee of John S. Mosby toward the end of the old irregular's life (they played Civil War together, with Mosby letting young Patton play Lee, while Mosby took orders from him) and then attended the Virginia Military Institute (complete with its shrine to Stonewall Jackson) for a year before attending West Point. This most aristocratic of U.S. Army officers in World War II (his family was wealthy, and his wife's family was filthy rich) is presented as a more or less flawless leader of a democratic army. This was no doubt Patton's view of himself; others had different views, and though Hanson sometimes acknowledges them, he also brushes them aside casually, without really refuting them in any meaningful way. It gets a little silly.

I'll give you a couple of examples. During the campaign across France in 1944, the major issue was logistics. Armies during that era were enormous, and they gulped even larger amounts of fuel. During this era there were four armies in France, excluding the forces coming up from the Riviera (which had their own supply lines, not connected to the other allied armies yet). These four armies were the 1st Canadian and 2nd British, which together formed the 21st Army Group under Montgomery, and the 1st US and 3rd US (Patton's) armies, which comprised the 12 Army Group under Bradley. When the Battle for Normandy ended, the Germans had posted most of their good defensive forces in the East, opposite Montgomery, figuring that the British formations were more of a threat, because of their experience and proximity to Paris and then the German frontier. As it happened, the breakthrough occurred at the other end of the line, and Patton's army was activated just as the pursuit phase of the operation began, so all he had to do was drive across France, advancing literally as fast as his tanks could travel, and as far as his gas supplies would carry him. Soon, Patton began to speak of his "rights" and how he "deserved" more gasoline, as if this were some sort of moral contest between himself and Montgomery. It was nonsense, and everyone at the time saw it as such, but Hanson actually uses the words, as if they had real meaning.

A second example can latch onto the first. As Patton's army surged across France it met really no serious opposition. The Luftwaffe was crippled by a lack of fuel, much of the German army in the West had lost all of their vehicles (tanks, half-tracks, armored cars, self-propelled artillery, tank destroyers, trucks, etc.) in the Mortain pocket earlier in the campaign, and the German high command was literally throwing together anyone they could find to try and rebuild formations, so that they'd have something to plug into the Western Front. The author approvingly quotes at least one German general as saying Patton could have driven right into Germany in 1944 with nothing to stop him, that this would have ended the war, and that no one on the German side could understand why the Allies didn't do it. The short answer was pretty simple: it would have been almost impossible to supply Patton that far from his base, and it was highly doubtful whether it would have worked anyway. Giving all the fuel supplies to one army (making the other 3 sit idle, moving little at best) would have been very difficult politically, in that Eisenhower would have been completely sidelining the victor of El Alamein to have his own American Army forces win the war (assuming this worked; if it didn't, the recriminations would have probably cost Ike his job). In addition, often overlooked by people who acknowledge the logistics difficulties in 1944, as the summer turned to autumn, the Allies were confronted with the problem of supplying France itself, which they had just liberated. Millions of civilians had lived through 4 years of occupation, with meager food and fuel supplies, and a transportation network ravaged by four years of armies driving over it, and air forces bombing railroads and bridges. The domestic supply of food and fuel was inadequate, and pretty much everything had to be trucked to where it would be used, unless that was along the coast and there was a viable port--of which few were, German garrisons occupying many, and the rest having been the victims of German demolition teams as they left. So Patton's drive would have deprived them too of their supplies, and this would have set off another firestorm, as Ike would have had to do battle with de Gaulle (who got along poorly with almost all the American high command, and the British only slightly better).

If Patton had gotten across the Rhine and into Bavaria, the problem then becomes what it would have meant for the war. Hanson confidently opines that the Germans would have surrendered (based on what I don't know) but of course with the Soviets (much scarier than Patton, certainly) surrounding Berlin, they didn't give in, so why would they when an American army entered Bavaria? It's not exactly the heart of Germany. Perhaps from Bavaria Patton could have moved further, but remember the further he gets from his bases, the more tenuous his supply situation becomes, and the Germans themselves were starved for fuel, so he wasn't going to be stealing it from them. The end result is that it's a nice problem for armchair strategists to think about, but realistically it's doubtful he would have done much damage, or shortened the war, and he might have soured our relations with our allies and in turn lengthened the war, to boot. Hanson doesn't really refute any of this; he just ignores it, and sails on obliviously.

Hanson also at times is very tough on the other American Generals in the theater. Bradley is always treated badly, as common man types are when they're in competition with American aristocrats. Nixon vs. Kennedy comes to mind, with the newspapers deciding that Kennedy was preferable because he was handsome, and his wife prettier than Pat (and Jackie spoke French, too!). Bradley grew up poor, and scrabbled for what he had. His command style was completely different, very low-key and plain-spoken, without all of the theatrical obnoxiousness that Patton exhibited. Hanson of course can't forgive Bradley for getting promoted past Patton, nor can he forgive Eisenhower for recommending the promotion. What Hanson overlooks is that this was largely in response to the slapping incident, which Hanson dismisses with a "I don't see what the big deal is" paragraph that argues the whole thing should have been ignored. Unfortunately he's ignoring the sequence of events as they actually occurred. When Eisenhower originally heard about the slapping incident, he ordered Patton disciplined and told Marshall about it, but he also tried to put a news black-out on it, because he knew what would happen if the word got out. Word leaked out, however, and columnists back in the States were calling for Patton to be broken back to his prewar rank and returned to the States, or even court-martialed (striking an enlisted man can cause an officer his rank and career). Eisnehower insisted that Patton would be useful, if he would just keep his mouth shut and stay focused on fighting the Germans; Hanson almost makes Eisenhower the villain of the piece, and ignores the fact that Ike essentialy was the one who saved Patton's career, and kept him fighting.

The whole thing is so argumentative and selective in its use of facts that I wound up being very annoyed. There are good points to be made here; the author shouldn't try to make them into something more than they are.
11 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
    Showing 0 comments

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.


Kelly J. Snowden
3.0 out of 5 stars VALID PREMISE BUT TOO LONG AND TOO STRIDENT
Reviewed in the United States on February 5, 2001
Hanson uses the exploits of three historical military leaders -- Epaminondas of Thebes, who led 70,000 hoplites through Sparta and the Peloppenese; Union General William T. Sherman, who marched his Army of the West through the heart of an unrepentant South; and George Patton, who drove his army into Germany following the Allied invasion of Europe -- to illustrate the importance of an ideal in motivating "democratic" armies to defeat corrupt or morally bankrupt societies. The message is an important one and the historical analysis provided is first-rate, as is that demonstrated in Mr. Hanson's other works.
The problem is that the same message is repeated ad nauseam. Each of the three sections -- particularly that on Epaminondas -- could have been half the length to convey the same message. Mr. Hanson literally repeats the same message over and over and over -- for example, how Epaminondas motivated his hoplite host, the evil inherent in the Spartan helot system, the effect of the success against the Spartiates that gave Epaminondas the momentum to invade the Pelopponese and humiliate the knights of Sparta before their women, etc. He uses the same relatively sparse quotations over and over again, or uses redundant sources to convey the same message -- like quoting from the letters of ten privates in Sherman's army to make a point rather than just using one or two. The endless repetition tests the patience of the reader -- I actually skipped several pages from the concluding chapter in the section on Epaminondas when I realized that I was reading yet another rehash of the same points made several times before.
The lack of a firm editing hand is exacerbated by Mr. Hanson's continual use of hyperbole in describing and emphasizing the "genius" of the profiled generals. If the point being made is valid and the evidence supports the theme, there is no need for such literary crutches. If he would have simply given the reader the facts and allowed the conclusion to be drawn inexorably from the text, the message would have been delivered far more forcefully.
It is also curious that Mr. Hanson did not more fully describe the tactical innovations that went hand in glove with the strategic decisions that brought these generals such success. The first section on Epaminondas describes only briefly the innovation of putting the finest hoplites against the Spartan right and increasing the depth of the phalanx to 50 shields, rather than the typical 8-10, which provided far more thrusting power and allowed the Thebans to penetrate the Spartan line and send the Spartan allies fleeing. Although the theme of the book may have been the importance of the democratic ideology motivating the armies and the generals leading them, the practical reality is that no amount of ideology can succeed without effective tactics. Given Mr. Hanson's immense familiarity with the minutiae of hoplite warfare, I was disappointed that more attention was not given to this issue.
I was also disappointed in Mr. Hanson's dismissal of other military leaders as corrupt or otherwise not deserving of praise or recognition because their motives were not as pure as the three generals featured. Although Epaminondas did accomplish an amazing feat, to consider him the greatest general of the classical age is simply unsupportable. What of Scipio Africanus, who vanquished Hannibal, never lost a battle and saved Rome? Or Alexander the Great, who -- whatever his motivations -- conquered more territory in five years than any other leader in history, and could very well have brought all of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa under his dominion had he not died at age 33? It is one thing to distinguish the moral imperatives that drove these men, and quite another to simply dismiss those that, at least in Mr. Hanson's mind, did not fight for the right reasons.
In sum, like this review, the book could have been much shorter, more concise, more sparing in the use of hyperbole, and more inclusive of the technical and tactical innovations that freed these impressive and influential leaders to execute the strategies that made them famous. I do recommend the book, but believe the material could have been more strongly and effectively wielded by others, such as B.H. Liddell Hart or John Keegan.
28 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report abuse
    Showing 0 comments

There was a problem loading comments right now. Please try again later.



Need customer service? Click here
‹ See all details for The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three...

Your recently viewed items and featured recommendations
›
View or edit your browsing history
After viewing product detail pages, look here to find an easy way to navigate back to pages you are interested in.

Back to top
Get to Know Us
  • Careers
  • Amazon Newsletter
  • About Amazon
  • Sustainability
  • Press Center
  • Investor Relations
  • Amazon Devices
  • Amazon Science
Make Money with Us
  • Sell products on Amazon
  • Sell apps on Amazon
  • Supply to Amazon
  • Become an Affiliate
  • Become a Delivery Driver
  • Start a package delivery business
  • Advertise Your Products
  • Self-Publish with Us
  • Host an Amazon Hub
  • ›See More Ways to Make Money
Amazon Payment Products
  • Amazon Rewards Visa Signature Cards
  • Amazon Store Card
  • Amazon Secured Card
  • Amazon Business Card
  • Shop with Points
  • Credit Card Marketplace
  • Reload Your Balance
  • Amazon Currency Converter
Let Us Help You
  • Amazon and COVID-19
  • Your Account
  • Your Orders
  • Shipping Rates & Policies
  • Amazon Prime
  • Returns & Replacements
  • Manage Your Content and Devices
  • Your Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
  • Amazon Assistant
  • Help
EnglishChoose a language for shopping.
United StatesChoose a country/region for shopping.
Amazon Music
Stream millions
of songs
Amazon Advertising
Find, attract, and
engage customers
Amazon Drive
Cloud storage
from Amazon
6pm
Score deals
on fashion brands
AbeBooks
Books, art
& collectibles
ACX
Audiobook Publishing
Made Easy
Alexa
Actionable Analytics
for the Web
 
Sell on Amazon
Start a Selling Account
Amazon Business
Everything For
Your Business
Amazon Fresh
Groceries & More
Right To Your Door
AmazonGlobal
Ship Orders
Internationally
Home Services
Experienced Pros
Happiness Guarantee
Amazon Ignite
Sell your original
Digital Educational
Resources
Amazon Web Services
Scalable Cloud
Computing Services
 
Audible
Listen to Books & Original
Audio Performances
Book Depository
Books With Free
Delivery Worldwide
Box Office Mojo
Find Movie
Box Office Data
ComiXology
Thousands of
Digital Comics
DPReview
Digital
Photography
Fabric
Sewing, Quilting
& Knitting
Goodreads
Book reviews
& recommendations
 
IMDb
Movies, TV
& Celebrities
IMDbPro
Get Info Entertainment
Professionals Need
Kindle Direct Publishing
Indie Digital & Print Publishing
Made Easy
Amazon Photos
Unlimited Photo Storage
Free With Prime
Prime Video Direct
Video Distribution
Made Easy
Shopbop
Designer
Fashion Brands
Amazon Warehouse
Great Deals on
Quality Used Products
 
Whole Foods Market
America’s Healthiest
Grocery Store
Woot!
Deals and
Shenanigans
Zappos
Shoes &
Clothing
Ring
Smart Home
Security Systems
eero WiFi
Stream 4K Video
in Every Room
Blink
Smart Security
for Every Home
Neighbors App
Real-Time Crime
& Safety Alerts
 
    Amazon Subscription Boxes
Top subscription boxes – right to your door
PillPack
Pharmacy Simplified
Amazon Renewed
Like-new products
you can trust
   
  • Conditions of Use
  • Privacy Notice
  • Interest-Based Ads
© 1996-2022, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates