First of all it is important to be aware that the author assumes the readers knowledge of primary texts of the era. He refers frequently to books such as Herodotous Histories, Thucydides Peloponnesian war, Xenophon's Anabasis and the works of Plutarch, Arrian, Polybius and Xeno amongst others.
Victor Davis Hanson believes that the way we fight today is a direct descendant of the Greek method of fighting. He contends that the successes of the Greeks against Persian armies dictated the development of war down to the present day.
This is a huge contention and one that I believe he fails to support. He speaks at length about the "Western way of war" without establishing how this differed significantly from other military systems. His contention that it was only in Greece that shock battle developed is flawed. Shaka, king of the Zulu nation, independently developed shock battle tactics, and he can be only one of many who came to the same end result from different starting points.
At times I felt that Hanson was trying to be sensationalist in making contentious statements that are ill supported by argument. Some examples of this tendancy are the following brave assertions!:
"The great Chinese military strategist Sun-tzu is sometimes cryptic, often mystical, and always part of some larger religious paradigm."
"Too many scholars like to compare Alexander to Hannibal or Napoleon. A far better match would be Hitler...."
"[The Hellenic Siege engine] was impractical gigantism on a magnitude comparable to the contemporary B-2 American bomber...."
However, in the end of the day what this book does give the reader is a well detailed account of some of the most important battles of the classical Greek and Alexandrian campaigns. Hanson focused primarily on infantry actions and comments little upon the naval engagements. But his analysis of battles involving heavy infantry phalanxes is detailed, interesting and enlightening. The illustrations of key battles serve as a useful visual guide to walk the reader through the events in sequence. And good use is made of contemporary illustrations from vase painting and sculpture to support the analysis.
A useful read for those with an interest in military history who want to concentrate on battles and the tactics involved.
VDH believes Greek Hopilte warfare to be the natural evolution of the free Greek city-states. Other contemporary cultures were primarily dynastic and centralized, while Greece developed into 1,000 independent Political entities. Geography and climate clearly played some part in this development, but it was also the unique outlook and desire of the Greeks themselves to resolve warfare quickly and decisively. VDH provides his usual pro-Occidental outlook in comparing Greco-Western martial developments to their less effective Eastern and Asian counter-parts. Again, many Liberal and Politically-Correct minded persons might take offensive here, and pehaps there are holes in some of these arguments. Still, one can't help but admire VDH's bold and controversial statements. Unlike so many today he is not affraid to make harsh judgements which are quite down-to-earth, but often not very subtle!
VDH has particular wrath to vent toward the conquests of Alexander whom he credits with ushering in an era of warring Hellanistic dynasties that would utilize resources from the conquered Persian empire to wage total war that was unknown to the earlier Greek Polis state. VDH considers Alexander a drunkard and thug! Pretty strong language to describe one of the universial Western images of classical times. Perhaps Alexander's army was brutal in conquest, but probably no more than any other great empire. VDH's obsession with making him out to be Hitler in Antiquity seems a bit odd and threatens to unbalance his narrative at times. We can deffinitely see that VDH has an aggenda here, to downgrade Alexander as a Western icon of Hellenistic culture. True, the Romans probably did make him into the larger than life conquerer that we know today. Still, with the steady development of Greek warfare it's difficult to imagine that someone sooner or later would not have become a conquering Alexander. VDH seems to mourn the loss of the tradtioanl culture of Hoplite warfare, that well ordered slaughter between neighboring city-states, but its development into an imperial system was bound to take shape sooner or later. Otherwise the Greeks themselves would have become victem to eventual conquest by an outside empire, as was the case later with the Romans.
If you don't mind VDH's tirades against Alexander, then this is still a most excellent work with great illustrations and diagrams which help to bring a vivid impression to life of warfare in ancient and classical Greece. The book does make you want to read more, including the primary works of the period.
This brilliant account covers a millennium of Greek warfare. With specially commissioned battle maps and vivid illustrations, Victor Davis Hanson takes the reader into the heart of Greek warfare, classical beliefs, and heroic battles. This colorful portrait of ancient Greek culture explains why their approach to fighting was so ruthless and so successful.
Development of the Greek city-state and the rivalries of Athens and Sparta.
Rise of Alexander the Great and the Hellenization of the Western world.
Famous thinkers?Sophocles, Socrates, Demosthenes?who each faced his opponent in battle, armed with spear and shield.
Unsurpassed military theories that still influence the structure of armies and the military today.