I went to a lecture given by Niall Ferguson when I was at university and he was known for his strong opinions back then, so I was interested in seeing how this came across in prose. "The Square and the Tower" is an interesting read, albeit hard work at times, particularly since I received an advanced review copy (with no obligation to review) that had some formatting issues that made reading it on Kindle challenging at times. Still, it was interesting reading his analysis of networks vs hierarchies and the impact they've had throughout history. The text is a little all over the place - having chosen a massive subject, Ferguson then goes all round the world as he gradually moves forward in history, so it can be a bit disjointed, although there were some fascinating anecdotes along the way. Nevertheless, it provides an unusual point of view, looking at history from an angle rarely used, and contributes to a deeper understanding of how the world works and how people interact with each other to great effect. Possibly more of a curiosity than a seminal text, "The Square and the Tower" is still recommended reading for anyone who wants to further their understandings of how networks shape society.

A book looking at history through the glasses of hierarchies and networks, this is at once fascinating, engrossing and unsatisfying. Ferguson does spins a god yarn and jumps around history sprinkling interesting facts here and there and yet in the end it doesn't really seem to coherently arrive anywhere. I finished the book feeling he had not even persuaded himself he'd accomplished what he's set out to. There is some great stuff within all the same.

This book is as fascinating as it's frustrating. The ideas keep coming, and they are so intriguing that it's almost an interruption and an irrelevance to have to stop for th he citations. I kept wanting to say to the author, "I'll take your word for what you've just said, now let's get on to your conclusions from what you've said." That aside, the whole book is just what a tour d'horizon should be.

Whilst social networking has huge prominence nowadays, it is thought of as a modern phenomena. In this book Ferguson looks as the social networks, links and hierarchies that have shaped our society through the ages, from pre-history to the modern age. I found this book fascinating in the main, particularly the slightly difference take on medieval history and the conquest of South America. I found the more recent parts a little less stimulating but it is an interesting tome.

A re-hashing of the salient points in history which is leading to a war between the old hierarchy and the new - social networking.

History is written and told by those who helped make it - mostly people with the backing of presidents, ministers and those in high places who will write history from their privileged position.

I am sorry but I just could not continue reading this book. I am sure Mr Ferguson has a point that he is trying to make us understand but I have failed to see it. All I read is a re-hash of history and the rulers that will continue to rule by any means.

The grammar is excellent, and so is the format of the whole book, but the rest is far too heavy and I am afraid life is too short for a book like this.

3 stars are for effort. Sorry, Mr Ferguson.

Seshat

Breakaway Reviewers received a copy of the book to review

This is really a thesis with an introduction into network theory and a review of the affects of networks on the outcomes of history. Not an easy book to read as it needs some in depth study to understand all its points. It explains that humans participate in networks and hierarchies and the relationships and speed of communications between the different systems affect outcomes. The light it throws on the Russian revolution is quite interesting and enlightening. It relates as to how a weak revolutionary network led by Lenin only overcame the weak but stronger hierarchy of the then Tsar, was only because of the gold provided by the Germans. Also of interest is the story of how the network of geeks invented and developed the internet to establish a utopian network of world citizens and the authors’ predictions of its outcome. The themes were of interest to me as I was involved in mega international projects which for success depended on relationships both within and without in meeting the needs of different governments, regulatory bodies, agencies, supply chains etc. However one factor is often overlooked by academics. That is that all things on earth man made or by nature have a finite life, they need to be fed and watered and can suffer disease that if unattended will lead to premature death (failure). This will be no different for a world serviced by artificial intelligence and robots.

I honestly cannot be bothered to continue to drag myself through this anymore. The Square and the Tower started off as an incredibly interesting look into the power that networks have had on society and the path that it has forged. It pits networks, which are generally thought to be more balanced in the power that all components/members have, against hierarchies and yet, though it points it out at various points, it continually seems to forget that the boundaries between hierarchies and networks are not so cut and dry. For most networks are hierarchical, are they not?
Niall Ferguson jumps from network to network, from century to century, in a way that I assume is supposed to mimic the rush of time, but even this structure fails to make the book anywhere close to fast-paced. Again and again I put the book down, thinking that I had read a large chunk of it but instead finding that I had barely managed to scrape through a few pages. There are also historical events that The Square and the Tower jumped to that I found odd and wholly unnecessary - the differences in ideology between students at Oxford and Cambridge, and the random criticism of the Bloomsbury Group's polygamy and conscientious objection, particularly confused me.
Although I found the first quarter or so quite compelling and interesting, the longer the book went on, the less it held my interest. By 40%, it had grown tedious, dull and, with no end in sight, I cannot be bothered to read another word so here I am, saying adieu to the concept that all I know about history is wrong and not giving a damn about it.

Fabulous book - gives a new theory on the impact and influence of networks and philosophy in major economies. Fascinating read for those who want an alternative view on economic history.

, and there is much to read, digest and enjoy.
Many thanks for xxx for giving me a review copy.

If I’ve understood Ferguson’s argument correctly, then there are networks and hierarchies and often networks play a larger role in governing, changing and influencing our societies, from the earliest days to now, than hierarchies do. Is that a new insight? If networks aren’t new, which they obviously aren’t, then haven't they always been influential? This book is wide-ranging and all-encompassing and explores all sorts of networks but I still felt at the end that I hadn't actually learnt much nor had my ideas changed in any way. Ferguson’s style seemed so scatter-gun and he jumped from network to network so quickly, not to mention the fact that he was constantly quoting other people, which always makes for uneven reading, that I lost focus and interest. Networks play a role in the way the world works. That’s about the only message I came away with. Mea culpa, perhaps. Or maybe there isn't much more to Ferguson’s thesis?

I have never read any previous books by Niall Ferguson but was excited about having the opportunity to read this one courtesy of Netgalley. As I am passionate about history it wasn’t quite what I had expected. It was interesting, if somewhat theoretical and not the easiest of books to read if I’m honest, but, informative nonetheless. I found it quite disjointed, switching from one century to another. There were some fascinating parts especially the bits about the Cambridge spies, ISIS and Donald Trump and it proved that networks are nothing new. It’s worth reading, but if you enjoy a ‘light read’ then it’s not one for you.

ARC provid by NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

I found ths to be an interesting examination of networj theory in conjunction with historical examination, even if the binary vewpoint of the author seemed to me to be over simplifying things. I don't have enough knowledge on the subject matter to really contest any assertions but the book gave that 'there's something misding' feeling I get sometimes reading scientific papers where the scientist has clearly fallen into confirmation bias. Not sure this book is as radical as it intends to be but it provides many interesting points for further discussion. Not something I would have ordinarily read but Despite the length of time it took me to get through it, I found that enjoyed this.

This is a brilliant book that makes you wish that you could have a long lunch with the author.

This book is a history lesson in networks showing that they are not a modern phenomenon but one that has been used throughout time. Its interesting to read, lots of facts to take in but I found it a very hard read.

I feel that I cannot give this book a good review. I have not finished it. It is a biased account of history and I do not know enough about the theories and I disagree with some of them .

Sweeping historical narrative, illuminating detail and compelling arguments make this a great read.

First, a gripe.  I was given a review copy of this book via NetGalley.  It was free so maybe I shouldn't complain however it was almost as if the publishers didn't want anyone to read the review copy, so bad was the formatting.  Words ran into one another, footnotes were shoe-horned without introduction in the middle of paragraphs and diagrams were cast adrift from their explanatory notes, which I would trip over several pages later.  If you want people to give reviews, at least give them the chance to read it.

Niall Ferguson considers the interaction between rigid ruling hierarchies and their interaction and competition with more loosely based networks over time.  He argues  that,

Often the biggest changes in history are the achievements of thinly documented, informally organised groups of people
Whilst this might be taken to suggest that shady networks, such as the oft-mentioned 'Illuminati' control world affairs, Ferguson dismisses any such arguments very early on.  He admits that as networks are usually quite informal, they rarely leave a lot in the way of documents or records and are not, therefore, a very attractive subject for historians, especially if the subject attracts conspiracy theorists.

We may tend to think of networks being more relevant now in our interconnected world of online networks but Ferguson shows that networks have been influencing our lives for centuries and have led to great advances (or great destruction).    Major religions, fascism and communism were all decentralised networks to begin with, although some transformed into highly rigid hierarchies over time and attempted to destroy other networks that may have challenged them.  Ferguson documents the example of Stalin's Russia, where even the loosest connection with the 'wrong' person could be life-limiting.

Concentrating on our own times, Ferguson examines the internet, terror attacks, Brexit and Donald Trump.  In all he points to how a more nimble network manages, or has managed, to confound more rigid hierarchical structures.  Forget six degrees of separation, the average figure for Facebook users is 3.57 degrees of separation.  So you may be even closer to Kevin Bacon than you think.  Ferguson argues that the success of Brexit and Trump were attributable in large part to the way they used the internet to spread their chosen message, which made an impact regardless of its veracity or counter-arguments from the establishment.

Ferguson is a very compelling writer.  This was a fascinating, thought-provoking read and I would recommend it.

Unfortunately I didn't finish this book and won't be reviewing it as only one chapter in, I felt the book was going to be anti-capitalist propaganda and I can't abide by that kind of literature.

Thank you to the publisher and netgalley for sending me a free copy to review.

Utterly boring, desperately dry and fixated with making a book out of a single idea. I was face up in the pages within a dozen and gave up after twenty. I can't think of a single reason to read this book, I only tried having recognised the name of the author. Sorry, didn't like this one.

I think I may have bitten off more than I could chew. I had really been enjoying history books recently, so I was keen to give this book a shot.

Unfortunately though I often felt I was losing the essence of the book as there were numerous occurrences where it seemed I was missing at least some rudimentary knowledge of certain eras/events/conflicts etc., knowledge that was pivotal as the author explored the subject deeper within the context of this book.

Regardless there were definitely sections of the book I thoroughly enjoyed. Likewise I appreciated the overall subject as well as the effort the author went through to compile such a concise walk through time in order to relay his observations. Nothing short of thought provoking.

Thank you NetGalley and Penguin Books for a review copy.

I was interested in reading this book as it provides a different angle on human history. I found it to be very indepth and detailed, so while it was not light reading it was evidently very well researched. I am only a casual reader of history so have not read many books at this level but it was a good book to start with.

It has certainly made me look at things in a different way, and what is proposed makes sense. It is similar to the argument that males only appear more important in history because the records were written by them and so female's stories are unknown.