<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Military Mavericks Misses Big Time
Review: I was looking forward to reading this book based on the jacket notes. What promised to be an original and insightful work exploring the role mavericks played in military history instead turned out to be an insipid regurgitation of previous scholarship and pointless innuendo. The author seems to think what makes a maverick has something to do with pervese sexual appetites or religious fervor. Most disappointing was the utter lack of primary source research. What Mr. Rooney has created is a rather bland survey of the careers and lives of otherwise intersting people. His biggest miss is his self-contradictory analysis of Jackson. In one sentence he praises Stonewall's ability to conduct unthinkable marches and deliver troops to the field of battle in fighting condition, yet in the next he implies that Jackson was a religious zealot whose utter lack of regard for his troops well-being had them on the verge of mutiny. Rooney fails in all events to explain what earns a leader "maverick" status and how it makes them an effective leader. Throughout there is a real lack of tactical and strategic analysis- which, in spite of the jacket notes, Rooney totaly disavows to undertake in his foreword- that left me completely unsatisfied. In the section on Garibaldi, Rooney twice cites Mussolini as claiming that if Garibaldi had read Clausewitz, he would have lost every battle he fought. Yet there is no explication of this point. Finally, the pecadilloes that Rooney does use to show how eccentric each leader was, none of them are inform the reader as to the leader's greatness. Alexander's life long homosexual love affair does not provide insight into how he conquered the known world. I do not find it compelling that Shaka Zulu's- diminutive size- drove him to seize power. As a result of this bizarre focus on eccentricity and lack of tactical insight, Guderian's career isdownright boring. There are many better books on all of these subjects based on primary source research that are more informative as to what defines a trend-setter and what makes them great.
Rating: 
Summary: Not very well done
Review: I'll concur with the other reviews here. The book is short on scholarship and is really a precis of the work of others. Little in the way of references, and one suspects, original research. No significant conclusions, no real surprises, and a very straight-forward retelling of well-known biographies. The author should probably have chosen lesser well known subjects, and done more primary research with extensive footnotes. Even if one argues this is simply intended as "light reading", it's all been said before.
Rating:
Summary: Not very well done
Review: I'll concur with the other two reviews here. The book is short on scholarship and is really a precis of the work of others. Little in the way of references, and one suspects, original research. No significant conclusions, no real surprises, and a very straight-forward retelling of well-known biographies. The author should probably have chosen lesser well known subjects, and done more primary research with extensive footnotes. Even if one argues this is simply intended as "light reading", it's all been said before.
Rating:
Summary: A Lacking Compilation
Review: Rather than provide a thorough study of any one military maverick, Rooney, in this uninspiring compilation, attempts to introduce the already well-known facts and idiosyncrasies of certain well-known military commanders.
The book is divided into twelve chapters, each discussing one notable individual. Each chapter provides a brief (generally too brief) bio of the man, a short history of the conflicts in which he gained fame, a quick allusion to certain eccentricities, and finally a short prologue. I found the book lacking historical insight, as well as a readable style, which leaves the work at times slow and monotonous. Rooney's book perhaps would have been better recieved had he shortened the number of characters from twelve to six and expanded the chapters to create a more full description of the individuals.
Although the author attempts to render a history of martial nonconformists from Alexander to Guderain, each brief biography lacks any real meat, or surprising new information. All too often Military Mavericks leaves the reader wondering just how much time Rooney spent on his work.
Rating: 
Summary: orthodoxy before victory
Review: The author introduces in this book as many elements of psychology or psychopathology in studying military personalities than about strategy or tactics. Summing up, he says religious, sexual or another suspected peculiarities are compensated by great skills in war. It seems to me these type of judgements are little professional and mostly rough, although if he's right or not it's impossible for me to say but at last he's not a physician, but a military teacher and those matters are delicate. The most objective fact is that war isn't different from any other human activity in what respect for social stereotyped conducts, and so, this results in that great heroes or original military men, also are subject to social critics almost even in the heat of fire. This is specially clear in the case of Orde Wingate or Lawrence of Arabia. The victories achieved by these men no matter how valuable, seems as if his comrades would prefer an orthodox defeat than an irregular victory. Only personages above the media as Churchill are capable to appreciate the value of uncommon, high capable men.
<< 1 >>
| 
