Although this book starts out being very interesting and well supported, the last few chapters on the Macedonian armies of Phillip and Alexander are disappointing. The author begins using vague euphemisms (such as the cavalry being used as a "hammer" on the "anvil" of the phalanx) which are not explained. Without some background in military history, and especially ancient tactical doctrines, one could be left puzzled as to exactly why Alexander was such a great general. Since the premise of the book is about Alexander's unification of near-eastern and Greek tactics into a new form of warfare, this flaw decreases the impact of the book.

This is a facinating book! I am currently enrolled in professor Ferrill's class at the University of Washington on ancient military history. The course follows the book to a great degree and was the obvious insperation for the class. So think of it as not only reading a book, but also taking a class from one of the most influencial military historians alive. Furthermore, It is an well researched book and is very thoughtfully put together for all reader types. Of course the class is more in depth and personal, but reading the book is like having some of the most exciting stories ever told put into your hand. Who needs fiction, when we have stories like these? It is books like this that brought me to college!!!

Russell F. Weigley writes that "anyone seriously interested in U.S. military history should benefit from this small but encyclopedic book. General readers, buffs, reenacters, students and professionals should all be able to make use of it. In every way the authors deserve commendation for making an apparently modest little book into a volume of exceptional usefulness."

Ferrill is a great historian, but in this book he failed miserably in holding the reader's attention.

I enjoyed reading Ferrill's work. It was generally well written and easy to understand for a non scholar. Some areas were glossed over; why the Eastern Empire survived in spite of the Eastern army suffering two major defeats-Adrianople and Julian's abortive Persian campaign. I liked his thesis that barbarian armies were not composed of mostly cavalry which is a common misconception. Ferrill does defend the Western emperor Honorius in spite of history's judgement that he was a do nothing emperor and basically ensured the destruction of the west. He does not explain certain key events: namely why the Goths after victory at Adrianople became federoti under Theodosius only to rebel a generation later, culminating with the sack of Rome.

Overall, this work is worth reading for its simple style and essentially correct assessment of the Western Empire's demise.

I found the book refreshingly easy to read and understand, and it certainly kept my attention. For the first time the answer to the question "OK now we know why the Western Empire fell, why did the Eastern last another 1,000 years?"

Simple, the Western armies weren't up to it. It was a military defeat or series of defeats and the nation could not withstand the invasions which followed.

One quibble, probably unfair. There are indications now emerging from tree-rings and global climate indicators as well as historical records, that there was some sort of natural but global catastrophe in the sixth century that helped finish off the Western areas still with some elements of Roman culture eg Britannia. Of course though, the author of this book would not have been aware of those later findings.

This book should have been much better. Mr. Ferrill does not follow his own advice to treat ancient historians with caution. He believes every word and is highly critical of scholars who have rationalized the life of Caligula to what has been written about him. There is no doubt that Caligula's reputation has suffered from hostile writers and Mr. Ferrill cannot be objective enough to see beyond the smokescreen. He tries to provide evidence that Caligula was crazy before his illness and comes up with his spending large amounts of the money Tiberius left. This is a dubious argument and only proves that Caligula had no idea of the value of money.

Rather than discuss the evidence pro and con on the many points Ferrill resorts to the device that Caligula was crazy so we cannot expect an irrational person to be reasonable. This is simply a cop-out. The madness of Caligula is one of a gradual disintegration of the emperor's mind but Ferrill does not give any idea why this is true or what illness is at work. In the brief discussion of Caligula declaring himself a god, there is no discussion of the concept of the emperor's numen.

Having read a great deal about Caligula I can say that "Caligula:Emperor of Rome" expresses a minority opinion. Mr. Ferrill does not to mention obvious contradictions in Suetonius' life of Caligula that cast him in a favorable light. Ferrill even says that even if some stories by ancient historians are "untrue or greatly exaggerated, there can be little doubt that Caligula was one of the cruelest rules Rome ever had." What is certain to me is that Mr. Ferrill cannot persuade us by logic so he must resort to stepping around the difficult question of who Caligula was and what he did.

One cannot contradict the fact that Caligula was a ruthless autocrat who was provocative in what he said and did. Without a doubt, the turbulent childhood he experienced left a mark on his character. However, Caligula is more complex that the stereotypical mad monarch presented in this book. Mr. Ferrill is correct in suggesting that it is possible for someone who is mad to become an emperor but it is also true that one does not have to be insane to be cruel.

Ferrill's book makes interesting reading as a chronicle of Caligula's supposed crimes, but as that only. He spends much of the book recounting stories by Suetonius that have no other historical backing. Suetonius's credibility is questionable, and Ferrill should have tried to prove that Suetonius was trustworthy before he accepted the man's work without question. Nevertheless, I agree with many of Ferrill's conclusions; he just didn't back them up enough.

Arther Ferrill's main purpose seems to refute modern authors like Balsdon and Barrett who have whitewashed Caligula. In that he is successful. Even if Caligula did not do everything Suetonius says, he seems to have been capricious, tyrannical and at least unbalanced. Tacitus's version is lost, but elsewhere in his writings he constantly refers to Caligula as "mentally disordered", of a "horrible character" and whose impulses "shifted like a weather-cock". Balsdon and others probably went too far in discounting Suetonius and Tacitus, and Ferrill restores the balance, but goes too far. It is absolutely impossible to determine whether, for instance, Caligula committed incest with his sisters or not, and it is as futile for Ferrill to say categoricallly "yes, he did" as it was for others to say, "no, he did not". Ferrill also says categorically that Caligula was "mad". Caligula was probably unbalanced, not surprising given the events of his life, something that Ferrill correctly emphasizes. But who can say that he was "mad" in a clinical sense? Ferrill should be a little more skeptical. But altogether this book was necessary to challenge the whitewashers.