Book Review: Julius Caesar: Lessons in Leadership from the Great Conqueror by Bill Yenne

[FULL DISCLOSURE: I received my copy of this book free from the publisher. I was not paid for this review and the opinion expressed is purely my own]

I am someone who loves the ancients and loves reading the their stories. That being said, I am much more likely to read Caesar’s Commentaries or Plutarch’s Life of Caesar than a modern day biography derived from those sources. In fact, I have read all those ancient works, most in both English and the original Latin. This book was a pleasure to read anyway.  Bill Yenne has put together a comprehensive account of Caesar’s life that someone unfamiliar with Caesar’s exploits can enjoy. The book is separated into twenty thematic chapters with epilogue, source note, and index. It is not a large book at only 193 pages but the author manages to pack everything he needs into those pages.

The book begins with an account of what we know of Caesar’s birth and early life and segues easily into the meat of the story, his exploits in Gaul and the Civil War. Bill Yenne is at his best when describing the military campaigns of Caesar. he brings the battles alive and his descriptions are vivid enough that the reader can form a mind’s eye picture of the terrain. He describes the political relationships between Caesar and the various Germanic and Gallic tribes well. He also does an excellent job of describing the course of the Civil War. The book is really more of a straightforward narrative of the events of Caesar’s life and he does not attempt to analyze Caesar’s actions for fault, that type of analysis he leaves to the reader, which very refreshing from my perspective.

I did not really see where the subtitle of the book came in as I was reading it. It was actually only after I finished the book that it hit me. As Mr. Yenne narrates the story he throws in asides about modern events that occurred in the areas where Caesar campaigned. The vast majority of these asides relate to the allied campaign in France in World War II but he does mention World War I a time or two. Generally he relates the differences between the modern campaign and the way in which Caesar campaigned there. I did not really feel that were a lot of lessons pointed out for modern military leaders from Caesar’s campaigns or actions. At least nothing explicitly pointed out as such. That lack does not detract from the book itself though, it can stand perfectly alone as a biography of one of the greatest military leaders of all time.

The chapters flow easily from one to the other and the index is useful and actually more comprehensive than I expected it to be. The source note is just that, a note explaining the major sources he used in writing the book. I am sure it is not everything he consulted and I would much rather see a bibliography than source note, that is a minor complaint though as this book is meant for the lay market and not academia or college students.  The only other complaint I have is the lack of citations but that is also probably the latent academic in me complaining and does not really detract from the quality of the book.

As a biography of Julius Caesar for people who are not historians, Bill Yenne has produced an excellent book. One of the best aspects of this book is that he relied on the ancient writers who were closer to the events for sources. He also writes in a clear easy to understand style that makes some of the complex events of Caesar’s life easy to understand. All in all this is an excellent book ad I recommend it to anyone with a casual interest in antiquity.

Is History Paradigmatic?

The paradigm shift is a good phrase used in both science and history. It generally means something or event that changes the way the world is perceived. It is common in history books to read about this or that’s rise and then fall from the Roman Empire to Soviet Communism, but is that really a good description? I don’t think it is. Any serious student of history can demonstrate that nothing really comes to a crashing halt in history and almost every change is either evolutionary or that the signs are clear long before an event happens. There are things that have a revolutionary impact, but even then the impact is almost never instantaneous, it takes time for events, and discoveries to have a huge impact on peoples lives and conditions.

For example, the Roman Empire did not die in 476 on the day when Romulus Augustulus was deposed from the throne and killed by the Goths. In fact, in many ways, the Empire is till with us in cultural influence at least. The same can be said for any number of things and events that supposedly fell. The influence of the British Empire is still felt throughout the world today in the number of countries throughout the world that speak English, have inhabitants descended from colonists, or have legal systems based on English Common Law. Ditto the influence of Soviet Communism, or does anyone care to argue that there is not lingering nostalgia for the USSR in Russia or that it’s influence is not still felt from the sheer number of Soviet produced weapons still used in conflicts throughout the world? The Crusades echo down to the present, at least according to Islamist terrorists who equate their supposed struggle with the contemporary West to that of the Medieval Arabs who fought Richard the Lionhearted, St. Louis, and King Baldwin of Jerusalem in Outremer.

The idea of the paradigm shift is convenient for use by historians because it presents a bright shining line that lets them say here something ended and something new began. The uncomfortable truth is that it is almost never that clear cut. This is not to say that dividing line are not useful, at a minimum they provide starting points for study. If for that reason alone it is useful to divide history into segments. The totality of history is impossible for one person to get a grasp of. Personally, I generally confine myself to military history although even military history cannot be studied in isolation, as periods of peace impact military history just as much as events on the battlefield. They are useful but all students of history and history buffs should keep in the back of their mind that most historical dates that define eras are arbitrary and do not necessarily represent a true division except that of convenience.

Book Review: The Age of Total War: 1860-1945 by Jeremy Black

The notion that a book is “thought-provoking” is often thrown out there for works of non-fiction, and of those that are described as such that I have read most very seldom are.  This book is different, Dr. Black has written not so much a history as a treatise challenging historians, particularly military historians, to reexamine the history of conflict in the examined period with the idea of total war uppermost in their minds.  It seems a counter-intuitive thing to do at first, but he provides plenty of examples of why the wars under consideration were not total or were only partially total at best.  This includes World War II, which was total in some aspects but limited in others.

The biggest distinction the Dr. Black makes in discussing totality in warfare is the difference between war aims/victory conditions and the methods used to wage war.  He posits that while war aims are sometimes total, such as seeking the destruction of the enemy or the dissolution of their state, the methods of war making have often been far from total.  Even the most brutal of wars between nation states are often not total as the combatants do not actually seek the physical destruction of their enemies.  He actually points out that it is most often revolutionary or sectarian conflicts where the physical destruction of opponents is a goal and uses the examples of Rwanda in 1994, 1990′s Bosnia, the German suppression of the Herero in the early 1900s, and many of the wars of decolonization in Africa and East Asia as examples, many of which fall outside of the period examined.

This is a global history of the period to an extent, but there is an emphasis on wars that occurred within Europe simply because so much more is known about them.  He examines the conditions in these wars and discusses the ways in which they were and were not total.  On of his most interesting discussions in the book is a wide-ranging discussion of fighting quality in his chapter on WWII and the way in which that aspect of the war has been under served in the literature.

He closes the book with a discussion of totality in the Cold War period and looking forward and the way in which the entire concept of total war needs to be reexamined and that military history needs to get away from just examining the wars of Europe but also look at the rest of the world.  It is a telling observation that in English language history’s the rest of the world is virtually ignored unless a western nation was engaged in the conflict with Israel being the exception.

In closing, Dr. Black has produced a book that should inspire even the most casual of students of military history to reevaluate the way in which they think of total war.  This book should be on the shelf of every student of military history but particularly that of those talking heads that go on news shows and fatuously offer their supposed wisdom about warfare for the masses.  An excellent and yes, thought provoking book, I highly recommend it.

S.L.A. Marshall, Men Against Fire, and Whether Men are Conditioned to Kill in Combat or Not.

I am currently reading The Roman Army at War 100 BC – AD 200 by Adrian Kieth Goldsworthy. In the final chapter he talks about the motivation of the Roman soldier to fight. What brings up this topic that starting on page 264 he references S.L.A. Marshall’s (hereafter SLAM) work Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command and repeats the claim that only 25% of men actively participate in combat, the rest being cowards in place at worst or half-hearted fighters at best.  Now, being a recently retired soldier who has seen combat, in Iraq I have several issues with the claim.  In fact, I completely dispute it and have been at pains to do so at times.  Mostly in concert with my disagreements with the claim by Dave Grossman in his book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society that you have to be insane to actually fight in the first place.  This has caused to me to have a few heated debates about the subject.

My biggest problem with all of this is that the basis for much of this work is Marshall, which has been debunked.  On of the most vociferous people to counter Grossman and Marshal’s claims is Tom Aveni, a member of the Police Policy Studies Council.  He has a good refutation of SLAM here and the transcript of a debate with Grossman here. Below is a list of links hat debunk the entire premise of Marshall that only 15%-25% of infantrymen fired their weapon in combat.

  1. SLA Marshall and the Ratio of Fire
  2. Why Does the NYT Continue to Cite Historian S.L.A. Marshall After the Paper Discredited Him in a Front-Page Story Years Ago?
  3. S. L. A. Marshall’s Men Against Fire: new evidence regarding fire ratios
  4. Killing for their Country: A New Look at “Killology”, a good look at both Grossman and Marshall in the Canadian Military Journal
  5. S.L.A. Marshall and the ratio of fire, the original article by Roger Spiller

I won’t claim to be an expert on combat psychology.  I can only speak from personal experience and years of studying military history.  I find it extremely difficult to believe that very few men actually fight in combat, I personally never had a problem with pulling the trigger and neither did any of my comrades that I saw.  That does not mean there are not soldiers who do not fire, there undoubtedly are, I just believe that they are a tiny minority and not the other way around.

To get back to what brought on this post, Goldsworthy writes a well researched, very interesting book.  I just cannot take his last chapter seriously.  The mental picture of 75% of a Roman Legion listlessly waving there swords while the other 25% get down to the serous business of defeating the enemies of Rome simply steals any credibility the chapter has.  My full review of his book is forthcoming.

It is my view that killing, whether of men or animals by men, is a natural act.  The loathing and reluctance to kill in the modern world is result of societal and not natural factors.  The savageries committed everyday around the world is testimony to the naturalness of the destructive act.  The ideas proposed by both Grossman and Marshall represent wishful thinking idealism more than observable fact.  It has sure made two careers though hasn’t it?

Historical Resources on the Web

Featured



Updated 18 February 2012

Below the fold is a list of historical sources on the internet, this includes both primary and secondary source collections.  I am constantly updating this list when I run across useful sites.  Please point me at sites I miss in the comments section.

I am trying to keep this blog mostly academic or at least reasonably scholarly while at the same time making most of my source material easily available.  Therefore I thought it would be a good idea to put up a note about sources I use on the site. For the most part I will try to use online sources in my essays and blog posts for one main reason. There is tons of great information on the internet if you know where to look and how to search. I hope that by posting online sources it will point people to some of the many resources available online.  Occasionally I will use books from my personal library to cite some items that I just cannot find an online source for.

Continue reading