Fetch Your Copy In The Name Of Rome: The Men Who Won The Roman Empire Brought To You By Adrian Goldsworthy Conveyed In Pamphlet

ganas de acercarme a este autor, uno de los que están pegando fuerte en Novela Histórica en el ámbito anglosajón.

Lo he hecho con este ensayo sobre las campañas y la forma de hacer la guerra degenerales romanos: Quinto Fabio Máximo, Marcelo, Escipión Africanus, Emilio Paulo, Escipión Emiliano, Mario, Sertorio, Pompeyo, César, Germánico, Corbulón, Tito, Trajano, Juliano y Belisario.
Evidentemente No están todos los que son, sino aquellos sobre los que nos han llegado fuentes históricas más o menos detalladas acerca de sus campañas militares.
Donde está Sila, donde está Agrícola, las campañas de Marco Aurelio, de los Severos, no hace referencia a ningún hecho del siglo III al menos Aureliano o Claudio II, no profundiza en el periodo de la Tetrarquía, ni en el periodo Constantiniano salvo Juliano.
Vamos que ha ido a lo fácil,
Aquí está mi pequeña decepción, al final el libro es una mera transcripción de las fuentes históricas, con relatos de campañas, tácticas y batallas que no pueden competir con las grandes recreaciones que, de estos mismos hechos, se han realizado en los buenos libros de novela histórica que, además, beben de las mismas fuentes, pero de una forma mucho más entretenida y disfrutable.

Puntos positivos:
Se esfuerza en intentar explicarnos la evolución del ejército romano y del estilo de mando de los generales a lo largo de los siglos, desde el periodo Republicano hasta le época de Justiniano.

Me ha gustado el capítulo sobre Corbulón el único general de los incluidos del que tenía poca información previa.

El capítulo de Trajano es original, ya que intenta interpretar los relieves de la columna trajana a la vista de los hechos conocidos en las dos campañas Dacias.


Si queréis un pequeño repaso de hechos relevantes históricos y militares de época romana, este es el libro, si queréis divertiros tirad de novela histórica tradicional, de autores contrastados: Posteguillo, Coleen MacCollough, Graves, Haefs, Gallo, Grimal, Yourcenar, etc.
Aunque siempre es bueno tener presente lo que dicen las fuentes históricas, para poder valorar adecuadamente el grado de verosimilitud de lo que se nos cuenta en las novelas.

Espero que este autor sea un poco menos rígido y más imaginativo en sus novelas.
Que va a ser fiel a los hechos, lo tengo claro, A pesar de este pequeño traspiés, le daré una oportunidad a sus libros, just a thoughtful overview of generalship through Roman history with just enough social background for context, The more abbreviatedrdth century AD coverage was very interesting, An excellent analysis of Roman command style, and of the personalities of some of the more prominent commanders.
Along the way, you'll learn a lot about ancient warfare and the politics and culture of Rome from the Republic to the end of the Principate.
Goldsworthy has an engaging prose style, an excellent command of the sources and a real passion for the subject.
His focus on the leadership qualities of each commander, is original and refreshing, giving new perspective to a welltrod topic.
A good overview of Roman military history, from thend Punic war to Belisarius, focusing onselected leaders.
The selection can be somewhat arbitrary e, g. why not Sulla or Agrippa especially since no naval commander really makes the list though that may be because of what sources are available and what are lost.

He can be somewhat pedantic and the style sometimes made me think I was reading a book by John Keegan, though of course that is not necessarily a bad thing.
But you know what I mean sometimes he really doesn't have that many details, but he makes it sound like you should also know everything about the furusiya of the Mamlukes.
. that sort of thing.
This is not a comprehensive history of the Roman army, For example, he has little to say about how much money was spent on the army how was it handed out and actually handled how and where were the weapons made a list of weapons how were the supplies arranged how many men died of disease what was the medical corps, where did it come from, what did it do that sort of thing.
All that would have been really nice, but this is not that book, But it IS aboutof Rome's major military leaders and also lightly fills in the background of events that were happening around those leaders lives.
I have heard his later books are even better, but this is still worth reading if you are a fan of the Romans and of military history in general.
Adrian Goldsworthy, one of the world's foremost experts on the ancient Roman Empire, wrote this book about the great generals of that civilization.
Although the author himself points out that this book is primarily about generals and statesmen and not a complete picture of what Rome was like, he still successfully fills in the gaps as he jumps from one generation of Romans to the next.
In effect the reader goes on a journey though the ancient Roman civilization from the Punic Wars to the era of the 'Byzantine Empire'.
Goldsworthy has smooth narrative that flows well from the time of Hannibal to the reign of Emperor Justinian.


The book features those who Goldsworthy considers to be the greatest generals in Roman history.
Some of the men he studies are very famous already,such as, Fabius Maximus, Scipio Africnaus, Pompey Magnus, and Julius Caesarothers are barely known,Aemilius Paullus and the very tragic Sertorius and some were emperorsTrajan and Julian.
Goldsworthy challenges the traditional view that Roman generalsin light of being politicianswere, by default, amateurs who real command fell to subordinates.
He argues instead that they were both politicians and military men equally,

"Yet a closer examination of the evidence suggests that most of these assumptions are at best greatly exaggerated and often simply wrong.
Far from taking power away from the general, the Roman tactical system concentrated it in his hands.
Junior officers such as centurions played a vitally important role, but they fitted into a hierarchy with the army commander at the top and allowed him to have more control over events than less.
"p.

Also explored in this book is the culture of the Roman state and how that culture impacted the senators of the Republic in their careers serving it.
One of these cultural traditions was that the Romans, even if things were not going their way, would never turn on Rome in favor of a foreign power.
Their bond to their homeland was incredibly strong and this is part of what makes the tragic Sertorius's story of exile so particularly sad.


"However important it was for an individual to win fame an add to his own and his family's reputation, this should always be subordinated to the good of the Republic.
The same belief in the superiority of Rome that made senators by the second century BC hold themselves the equals of any king ensured that no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a foreign power.
Senators wanted success, but that success only counted if it was achieved at Rome, No senator defected to Pyrrhus or Hannibal even when their final victory seemed imminent, nor did Scipio Africanus' bitterness at the ingratitude of the State cause him to take service with a foreign king.
"p.

When the rule of the aristocratic Senate gives way to the emperors the role of the general changed from one of personal achievement and glory to all honor won by one man: the Emperor himself.
Imperial Legets won glory only in the Emperor's name giving emperors, such as Augustus, a good deal of bragging rights.


"Augustus brought internal peace to Rome, an achievement which was conspicuously celebrated throughout his principate.
His regime relied heavily on the glory derived from continuous and spectacular warfare against foreign opponents, Under its first emperor Rome continued to expand as intensively as it had done in the last decades of the Republic and by ADhad brought under its control almost all the territory which would compose the Empire for over four centuries.
The Res Gestae, a long inscription set up outside Augustus' mausoleum recounting his achievements, lists a vast array of peoples and kings defeated by the emperor.
In style the test is identical to the monuments set up by triumphing generals for many generations, but in sheer numbers of vanquished enemies it dwarfs the victories even of Pomepy and Caesar.
"p.

Imperial selfishness on the part of the Emperor seemed like a smart move, especially after it was proven that generals who did earn personnel glory were able to depose an unpopular emperor.
However with incidents of emperors being dethoned by popular generals, Goldsworthy points out that this transfer of power to the barracks led to break down in military discipline that sapped the army's strength and with the army went the empire.


I highly recommend this book to anyone, It is an incredible achievement on the part of Goldsworthy and an overly entertaining read, It will greatly increase ones knowledge into the Roman military, its politics, and its leaders though out history.
This book is an overview of the role of Roman military commanders told in the form of a series of case studies ofparticular commanders spanning a large swath of the Roman Empire's history.
In this way, it covers the interesting topics of Roman military doctrine, tactics, and structure, but it also infuses these concepts with a readability and sense of drama from the case studies.
Thus, it is interesting and entertaining,

I have read several books by this author, and so many of his points about the way battles actually occurred and evolved were familiar to me, but they are likely to be even more interesting if you are less familiar with his other work.
The figures are well chosen based on a combination of their intrinsic value as illustrations and the relevance of the source material we have to judge them.
The scope even continues past the fall of the Western Empire into some campaigns of the Byzantine Empire.
As with other Goldsworthy books, I wish there were more illustrations/diagrams and most especially more maps.
I think given the uncertainty of the specific locations for ancient events, the author is hesitant to put forward maps of specific locations.
However, even some large scale general maps of the areas covered showing obvious landmarks like rivers with putative locations of specific incidents would be a valuable addition.
This is my third Goldsworthy book and I am kind of thinking that he can't write a bad or boring history book.
His writing style is clear, calm, cool and collected with little emotion, Dry perhaps, but rather like a good Bordeaux, Starting with 'The Shield and Sword of Rome' Fabius and Marcellus in therd century BC all the way up to Belisarius of the Byzantine Empire, Goldsworthy details the military careers and to some extent the political life of someRoman generals a few also went on to be Emperors.
At the same time he chronicles how tactics and the army itself changed over the centuries, from Republic to Principate to Late Empire and the Byzantine period.
These military trends he details well, but considering such a such time span he can really only sketch each general.
More detailed biographies on most of them can be found elsewhere, One minor quibble I have is the desire to see more maps of what Goldsworthy is describing.


To be clear, the maps he has included are fine, I just wanted more and found myself looking them up online, Despite that little gripe, this book is highly recommended, Not goldsworthys best but def a good book for someone new to the subject, While not his best, it is an absolutely solid book and solidly written, .